IQ-X vs Edelux II

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:39:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in
a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the
door. All that's necessary is for the police to care.


The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to
$300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is
left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where
the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got
a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to
the officer on the scene.

On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be
the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door
zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence.

In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the
extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.

I know a person who was riding their bicycle in the door zone and
tries to pass an illegally stopped taxi whilst still in the same
lane as the stopped taxi was in. The driver of the taxi opened the
driver's door and the bicyclist hit the door and went over the
handlebar. The bicyclist sued the taxi driver. the result? The
bicyclist was awarded a settlement by the court for FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS! The bicyclist did get the entire amount. What
got me was that in this case the bicyclist was just as much at
fault as the stopped taxi was - the bicyclist's failure to move
into the adjacent lane in order to pass the stopped taxi safely.

Cheers

Could have been intent. The taxi driver intentionally, with
pre-thought, opened his door to hit the bicyclist. Whether someone
is breaking the law or not, it does not give you the right to harm,
stop him except in some situations. Someone talks about hitting
someone. Talks about committing assault. Guessing that is
threatening behavior/intention. That does not give you the right to
kill the person first before the hitting occurs. Just like the taxi
driver does not have the right to break the law or stop a breaking
of a law. I would get arrested if I stood at a stop sign and shot
the tires or drivers of every car that did not come to a complete
stop. They were breaking the law, so I am right to enforce the law?
Does not work that way.

No intent there by the taxi driver. He simply did not see the
approaching bicyclist before he (the taxi driver) opened the
door. Funny isn't it? If a car drives into the rear of another car the
car driver that hit the car is the person judged to be at fault. Yet
if a bicyclist does not leave the lane to pass a stopped vehicle and
hits that vehicle it's the fault of the driver? Strange.

Seems perfectly symmetric to me. If you run a bicycle into the rear of
a stopped car you are at fault. If you drive a bus past a parked
car and whisk off the suddenly opened door you are not at fault.

One of my old housemates performed the bus maneuver when driving around
the Houston airport. Although not at fault for the collision she didn't
manage to keep that particular job much longer.

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:31:52 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 24/04/2019 12:13 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:39:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care.


The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to
$300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is
left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where
the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got
a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to
the officer on the scene.

On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be
the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door
zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence.

In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the
extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.

I know a person who was riding their bicycle in the door zone and tries to pass an illegally stopped taxi whilst still in the same lane as the stopped taxi was in. The driver of the taxi opened the driver's door and the bicyclist hit the door and went over the handlebar. The bicyclist sued the taxi driver. the result? The bicyclist was awarded a settlement by the court for FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! The bicyclist did get the entire amount. What got me was that in this case the bicyclist was just as much at fault as the stopped taxi was - the bicyclist's failure to move into the adjacent lane in order to pass the stopped taxi safely.

Cheers

Could have been intent. The taxi driver intentionally, with pre-thought, opened his door to hit the bicyclist. Whether someone is breaking the law or not, it does not give you the right to harm, stop him except in some situations. Someone talks about hitting someone. Talks about committing assault. Guessing that is threatening behavior/intention. That does not give you the right to kill the person first before the hitting occurs. Just like the taxi driver does not have the right to break the law or stop a breaking of a law. I would get arrested if I stood at a stop sign and shot the tires or drivers of every car that did not come to a complete stop. They were breaking the law, so I am right to enforce the law? Does not work that way.

No intent there by the taxi driver. He simply did not see the approaching bicyclist before he (the taxi driver) opened the door. Funny isn't it? If a car drives into the rear of another car the car driver that hit the car is the person judged to be at fault. Yet if a bicyclist does not leave the lane to pass a stopped vehicle and hits that vehicle it's the fault of the driver? Strange.

Cheers


Opening a car door into a traffic lane is negligent. We're not usually
talking about people leaving the lane as the car is parked. We're
talking about people moving over into the center of the lane in most
cases. I think in that case, the driver is negligent and the cyclist is
careless. Again, you'd have to ask a lawyer.

Here's the law:

ORS 811.490 Improper opening or leaving open of vehicle door; penalty.

(1) A person commits the offense of improper opening or leaving open a vehicle door if the person does any of the following:
(a) Opens any door of a vehicle unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so and it can be done without interference with the movement of traffic, or with pedestrians and bicycles on sidewalks or shoulders.
(b) Leaves a door open on the side of a vehicle available to traffic, or to pedestrians or bicycles on sidewalks or shoulders for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.
(2) The offense described in this section, improper opening or leaving open a vehicle door, is a Class D traffic infraction.


So, there is a presumption of fault on the part of the taxi driver because he/she/them opened the door without looking first.

But wait, there's more! The jury, in its wisdom, decides whether the bicyclist was also at fault.

The bicyclist says "hey, I was just following the law, riding in a super-dangerous door-zone bike lane as per the suicide-pact bike lane law, ORS 814.420:

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:

(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.

(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.

(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.

(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.

(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation


The taxi driver says that the stupid cyclist should have looked for "hazardous conditions," namely car doors opening, and acted accordingly.

The bicyclist comes back with the old saw that a person may presume that another will obey the law. Here is the standard jury instruction:


UCJI 20.06

RIGHT TO ASSUME LAW OBEYED

Every person has a right to assume that others will obey the law, unless and until that person knows or in the exercise of reasonable care should know otherwise.

____________________

Comment: See Smith v. Holst, 275 Or 29, 33, 549 P2d 671 (1976). The use of this instruction has been limited by the court in the case of children. See Simmons v. Holm, 229 Or 373, 403–05, 367 P2d 368 (1961).


Then the taxi driver says, "hey, I'm a f***** taxi driver, you know that I don't follow the law! I don't even read English! Everyone knows taxi drivers are homicidal idiots!" The jury nods its collective head and allocates 51% of fault to the bicyclist (which is a defense verdict in Oregon but not in pure comparative fault states).

And thus, by proving his/her/their own idiocy, the taxi driver prevails! MAGA!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 24/04/2019 3:08 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:31:52 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 24/04/2019 12:13 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:39:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care.


The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to
$300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is
left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where
the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got
a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to
the officer on the scene.

On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be
the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door
zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence.

In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the
extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.

I know a person who was riding their bicycle in the door zone and tries to pass an illegally stopped taxi whilst still in the same lane as the stopped taxi was in. The driver of the taxi opened the driver's door and the bicyclist hit the door and went over the handlebar. The bicyclist sued the taxi driver. the result? The bicyclist was awarded a settlement by the court for FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! The bicyclist did get the entire amount. What got me was that in this case the bicyclist was just as much at fault as the stopped taxi was - the bicyclist's failure to move into the adjacent lane in order to pass the stopped taxi safely.

Cheers

Could have been intent. The taxi driver intentionally, with pre-thought, opened his door to hit the bicyclist. Whether someone is breaking the law or not, it does not give you the right to harm, stop him except in some situations. Someone talks about hitting someone. Talks about committing assault. Guessing that is threatening behavior/intention. That does not give you the right to kill the person first before the hitting occurs. Just like the taxi driver does not have the right to break the law or stop a breaking of a law. I would get arrested if I stood at a stop sign and shot the tires or drivers of every car that did not come to a complete stop. They were breaking the law, so I am right to enforce the law? Does not work that way.

No intent there by the taxi driver. He simply did not see the approaching bicyclist before he (the taxi driver) opened the door. Funny isn't it? If a car drives into the rear of another car the car driver that hit the car is the person judged to be at fault. Yet if a bicyclist does not leave the lane to pass a stopped vehicle and hits that vehicle it's the fault of the driver? Strange.

Cheers


Opening a car door into a traffic lane is negligent. We're not usually
talking about people leaving the lane as the car is parked. We're
talking about people moving over into the center of the lane in most
cases. I think in that case, the driver is negligent and the cyclist is
careless. Again, you'd have to ask a lawyer.

Here's the law:

ORS 811.490 Improper opening or leaving open of vehicle door; penalty.

(1) A person commits the offense of improper opening or leaving open a vehicle door if the person does any of the following:
(a) Opens any door of a vehicle unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so and it can be done without interference with the movement of traffic, or with pedestrians and bicycles on sidewalks or shoulders.
(b) Leaves a door open on the side of a vehicle available to traffic, or to pedestrians or bicycles on sidewalks or shoulders for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.
(2) The offense described in this section, improper opening or leaving open a vehicle door, is a Class D traffic infraction.


So, there is a presumption of fault on the part of the taxi driver because he/she/them opened the door without looking first.

But wait, there's more! The jury, in its wisdom, decides whether the bicyclist was also at fault.

The bicyclist says "hey, I was just following the law, riding in a super-dangerous door-zone bike lane as per the suicide-pact bike lane law, ORS 814.420:

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:

(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.

(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.

(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.

(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.

(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation


The taxi driver says that the stupid cyclist should have looked for "hazardous conditions," namely car doors opening, and acted accordingly.

The bicyclist comes back with the old saw that a person may presume that another will obey the law. Here is the standard jury instruction:


UCJI 20.06

RIGHT TO ASSUME LAW OBEYED

Every person has a right to assume that others will obey the law, unless and until that person knows or in the exercise of reasonable care should know otherwise.

____________________

Comment: See Smith v. Holst, 275 Or 29, 33, 549 P2d 671 (1976). The use of this instruction has been limited by the court in the case of children. See Simmons v. Holm, 229 Or 373, 403–05, 367 P2d 368 (1961).


Then the taxi driver says, "hey, I'm a f***** taxi driver, you know that I don't follow the law! I don't even read English! Everyone knows taxi drivers are homicidal idiots!" The jury nods its collective head and allocates 51% of fault to the bicyclist (which is a defense verdict in Oregon but not in pure comparative fault states).

And thus, by proving his/her/their own idiocy, the taxi driver prevails! MAGA!

-- Jay Beattie.




In Montreal we are specifically NOT required to use bicycle paths.
There's no exact exclusion for bike lanes but the way that the law is
written, keeping to the far right would probably indicate using the bike
lane but we would be able to leave it if it was in a door zone. I don't
mind bike lanes in general. They let me pass the bumper to bumper traffic.

On 4/24/2019 12:03 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:02:52 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2019 6:34 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/24/2019 12:22 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

Perhaps rather than advocate the building of bike lanes one might come
to think that just getting the Police to open their eyes might do as
much good... and be a lot cheaper :-)

Each additional police officer costs a lot of money in salary, benefits,
Â*and support infrastructure, in my area it's about $300K per year per
additional police officer. You'd need a huge number of additional police
to have the same effect as a protected bike lane. So it would definitely
not be cheaper.

So we won't be adequately safe until every street in America has a
segregated bike lane?

Got a budget projection for that? Even for your city?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Good luck putting SAFE bicycle lanes on existing narrow streets unless you're a proponent of door zone bicycle lanes. On many streets there's simply no room for a bicycle lane painted strip type or separate. That really cuts down where a bicyclist could ride if it ever got mandated that bicycles must stay in a bicycle lane.

I see so many NEW bicycles lanes that are smack in the door zone whilst making the traffic lane a lot narrower than what it was. Then there's the 3 feet passing law. A bicyclist taking or riding in the lane of traffic is supposed to be given a three feet wide berth by any passing motorist. A bicyclist riding in a narrow painted bicycle lane is passed much closer be motorists because the motorists expect the bicyclist to stay within the painted lines.

I've been told that a (supposed) bicycling advocacy organization in
Columbus, Ohio has lobbied for bike lanes on every street, even if they
have to be in the door zone. Supposedly the city is going to comply.

Idiots get to vote too. That's the problem.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/24/2019 2:15 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 4/24/2019 6:42 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/23/2019 10:09 AM, jbeattie wrote:
I'm still having a tough time figuring out how a hub-height 1W
light makes that much difference during the
day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2x689Q8w8Â* I would never
see this woman minus the light.Â* Actually, I think the white
tires are more noticeable, although you don't want to use white
tires after Labor Day.

We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight
wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to
a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and
you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the
rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner."

In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I
still really believe in my taillight."

IOW, no evidence; just faith.

I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle
might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a
collision.

That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio
say that it's not.

You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical
evidence and studies conducted by university researchers rather then
what Frank says that his fellow club members said when
prompted. It's like an atheist trying to convince a religious zealot
to look at evidence rather than relying on faith.

SMS is a fundamentalist who, like most of them, just doesn't realize
he's a fundamentalist.

He feels "all scientific" because he read one promotional study. He
proudly alludes to it without ever actually analyzing or discussing
it.

SMS does have a weakness: He is constantly imputing feelings and motives
to other people that he cannot possibly know. Sort of like you're doing
here.

You're correct, I can't be positive he feels scientifically justified by
his vague allusions of un-cited papers. Given his refusal to discuss the
studies in detail, he certainly shouldn't feel that way.

But then, what other motivation would there be? All other possibilities
would seem to be even less complimentary.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/24/2019 2:11 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 4/24/2019 3:22 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Steve Weeks
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a
ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All
that's necessary is for the police to care.

Perhaps rather than advocate the building of bike lanes one might come
to think that just getting the Police to open their eyes might do as
much good... and be a lot cheaper :-)

I think it _is_ possible to get cops to pay proper attention to these
situations. It doesn't necessarily require hiring more police. It may
require only having the cops' superiors direct them to stop
automatically absolving motorists.

Just who are these superiors that are going to do as you prefer? Would,
for example, Bill de Blasio risk another confrontation with the NYPD
over bicyclists?

I don't know the details of New York politics. But I know of a person
who told a certain city's cops "You'll be fired if you don't ticket
everyone who doesn't come to an absolutely perfect stop at that stop
sign." Something over a hundred very safe motorists got tickets. I spoke
to two police chief friends of mine (from other departments) and they
confirmed the story, with rather strong disapproval.

So it seems to me that someone with high enough rank or power could
certainly change the way the cops behave, even in New York.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:13:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2019 2:15 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 4/24/2019 6:42 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/23/2019 10:09 AM, jbeattie wrote:
I'm still having a tough time figuring out how a hub-height 1W
light makes that much difference during the
day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2x689Q8w8Â* I would never
see this woman minus the light.Â* Actually, I think the white
tires are more noticeable, although you don't want to use white
tires after Labor Day.

We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight
wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to
a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and
you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the
rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner."

In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I
still really believe in my taillight."

IOW, no evidence; just faith.

I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle
might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a
collision.

That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio
say that it's not.

You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical
evidence and studies conducted by university researchers rather then
what Frank says that his fellow club members said when
prompted. It's like an atheist trying to convince a religious zealot
to look at evidence rather than relying on faith.

SMS is a fundamentalist who, like most of them, just doesn't realize
he's a fundamentalist.

He feels "all scientific" because he read one promotional study. He
proudly alludes to it without ever actually analyzing or discussing
it.

SMS does have a weakness: He is constantly imputing feelings and motives
to other people that he cannot possibly know. Sort of like you're doing
here.

You're correct, I can't be positive he feels scientifically justified by
his vague allusions of un-cited papers. Given his refusal to discuss the
studies in detail, he certainly shouldn't feel that way.

But then, what other motivation would there be? All other possibilities
would seem to be even less complimentary.

SMS does have a day job -- and probably one that exposes him to better safety literature than the average internet lurker.

I have a day job, too, although I'm eating lunch -- and I also have access to scientific literature, like this bon-bon:

The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents; (2018) 108 ESAFSC 209-217. Conclusion, wear a yellow jacket:

ABSTRACT
• A randomised controlled trial with 6793 cyclists shows a reduced accident risk due to a yellow bicycle jacket.
• The test group had 47% fewer multiparty accidents with personal injury.
• The test group had 55% fewer multiparty accidents against motorised vehicles.
This study is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the safety effect of high-visibility bicycle clothing. The hypothesis was that the number of cyclist accidents can be reduced by increasing the visibility of the cyclists. The study design was an RCT with 6793 volunteer cyclists - 3402 test cyclists (with a yellow jacket) and 3391 control cyclists (without the jacket). The safety effect of the jacket was analysed by comparing the number of self-reported accidents for the two groups. The accident rate (AR) (accidents per person month) for personal injury accidents (PIAs) for the test group was 47% lower than that of the control group. For accidents involving cyclists and motor vehicles, it was 55% lower. The study was non-blinded, and the number of reported single accidents was significantly lower in the test group than in the control group. This is likely a result of a response bias, since the bicycle jacket was not expected to affect the number of single accidents. To compensate for this bias, a separate analysis was carried out. This analysis reduced the effect of the jacket from 47% to 38%.

And get a flea-watt mag light (the Odense Study):

Safety effects of permanent running lights for bicycles: A controlled experiment; (2013) 50 ESACAP C 820-829

And reflective clothing

Using reflective clothing to enhance the conspicuity of bicyclists at night; (2012) 45 ESACAP C 726-730

ABSTRACT
Bicycling at night is more dangerous than in the daytime and poor conspicuity is likely to be a contributing factor. The use of reflective markings on a pedestrian's major joints to facilitate the perception of biological motion has been shown to greatly enhance pedestrian conspicuity at night, but few corresponding data exist for bicyclists. Twelve younger and twelve older participants drove around a closed-road circuit at night and indicated when they first recognized a bicyclist who wore black clothing either alone, or together with a reflective bicycling vest, or a vest plus ankle and knee reflectors. The bicyclist pedalled in place on a bicycle that had either a static or flashing light, or no light on the handlebars. Bicyclist clothing significantly affected conspicuity; drivers responded to bicyclists wearing the vest plus ankle and knee reflectors at significantly longer distances than when the bicyclist wore the vest alone or black clothing without a vest. Older drivers responded to bicyclists less often and at shorter distances than younger drivers. The presence of a bicycle light, whether static or flashing, did not enhance the conspicuity of the bicyclist; this may result in bicyclists who use a bicycle light being overconfident of their own conspicuity at night. The implications of our findings are that ankle and knee markings are a simple and very effective approach for enhancing bicyclist conspicuity at night.

And always ride in a bicycle facility when in Spain

On the effect of networks of cycle-tracks on the risk of cycling. The case of Seville; (2017) 102 ESACAP 181-190

ABSTRACT
• Risk of cycling dropped after the creation of a network of segregated bikeways.
• Connecting the bikeways increase the positive effect of bikeways on cycling safety.
• The “safety in numbers� theory is confirmed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
• Causality between risk, infrastructure and number of cyclists seems bidirectional.
We analyze the evolution of the risk of cycling in Seville before and after the implementation of a network of segregated cycle tracks in the city. Specifically, we study the evolution of the risk for cyclists of being involved in a collision with a motor vehicle, using data reported by the traffic police along the period 2000-2013, i.e. seven years before and after the network was built. A sudden drop of such risk was observed after the implementation of the network of bikeways. We study, through a multilinear regression analysis, the evolution of the risk by means of explanatory variables representing changes in the built environment, specifically the length of the bikeways and a stepwise jump variable taking the values 0/1 before/after the network was implemented. We found that this last variable has a high value as explanatory variable, even higher than the length of the network, thus suggesting that networking the bikeways has a substantial effect on cycling safety by itself and beyond the mere increase in the length of the bikeways. We also analyze safety in numbers through a non-linear regression analysis. Our results fully agree qualitatively and quantitatively with the results previously reported by Jacobsen, 2003Link to the text of the note, thus providing an independent confirmation of Jacobsen's results. Finally, the mutual causal relationships between the increase in safety, the increase in the number of cyclists and the presence of the network of bikeways are discussed.


A casual search for "daytime running lights" brings up 128 hits in the Elsevier literature database. We should discuss each and every one. In fact, I would like you, Frank, to start working on executive summaries.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/24/2019 1:11 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 4/24/2019 3:22 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Steve Weeks
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a
ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All
that's necessary is for the police to care.

Perhaps rather than advocate the building of bike lanes one might come
to think that just getting the Police to open their eyes might do as
much good... and be a lot cheaper :-)

I think it _is_ possible to get cops to pay proper attention to these
situations. It doesn't necessarily require hiring more police. It may
require only having the cops' superiors direct them to stop
automatically absolving motorists.

Just who are these superiors that are going to do as you prefer? Would,
for example, Bill de Blasio risk another confrontation with the NYPD
over bicyclists?

I know bicyclists often disobey laws, just as motorists do. But it
does seem that New York cops in particular tend to pretend that
motorists are always in the right.


Warren Wilhelm Junior(stage name = Di Blasio) has no time
for bicycles. He's busy attacking hot dogs this week:

https://iotwreport.com/de-blasio-fig...fter-hot-dogs/

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

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 03:34:49 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/24/2019 12:22 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

Perhaps rather than advocate the building of bike lanes one might come
to think that just getting the Police to open their eyes might do as
much good... and be a lot cheaper :-)

Each additional police officer costs a lot of money in salary, benefits,
and support infrastructure, in my area it's about $300K per year per
additional police officer. You'd need a huge number of additional police
to have the same effect as a protected bike lane. So it would definitely
not be cheaper.

That sounds very logical until you realize that "back in the day" a
village, usually in the southern U.S. would regulate traffic speed by
simply ticketing everyone that exceeded the posted speed by even the
smallest amounts. Lo and Behold, in a week or so traffic would be
traveling at a very benign speed... usually under the posted speeds.

Of course, from what I read, that might not be acceptable in the
permissive society that y'all seem to have developed in the past 50
years, or so, so maybe that wouldn't work. And of course would be
suicide for the politician that argued that citizens should obey the
law :-)


--

Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:25:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/24/2019 6:42 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/23/2019 10:09 AM, jbeattie wrote:
I'm still having a tough time figuring out how a hub-height 1W light
makes that much difference during the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2x689Q8w8* I would never see this
woman minus the light.* Actually, I think the white tires are more
noticeable, although you don't want to use white tires after Labor Day.

We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight
wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to
a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and
you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the
rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner."

In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I
still really believe in my taillight."

IOW, no evidence; just faith.

I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle
might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a
collision.

That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio say
that it's not.

You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical evidence
and studies conducted by university researchers rather then what Frank
says that his fellow club members said when prompted. It's like an
atheist trying to convince a religious zealot to look at evidence rather
than relying on faith.

SMS is a fundamentalist who, like most of them, just doesn't realize
he's a fundamentalist.

He feels "all scientific" because he read one promotional study. He
proudly alludes to it without ever actually analyzing or discussing it.

When told his favorite study involves impossibly dim daytime lights, and
that people using those dim lights somehow claimed fewer solo accidents
(like toppling off their bike), he refuses to accept the evidence of
bias. He also refuses to see the bias in a study run by the company
selling the lights.

Someday someone might actually get a paper published on the flippy flag
SMS uses. (Or is it "used to use"?) Then we'll be told any cyclist who
doesn't use a flippy flag is irresponsible.

Actually I saw a bloke with a "flippy flag the other day. He was
obviously on a trip, of some sort as the bike had panniers front and
rear that appeared to be full and attached to the rear of the bike was
what looked like a long radio antenna with two small flags. One the
Thai National flag and one was a yellow flag flown in honor of the
previous king.

What with the bulging panniers he was pretty noticeable and the flags
made him an object that was not usually seen on Thai roads so perhaps
a flag IS an asset in the bicycle/motor-vehicle war.
..
--

Cheers,

John B.