Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

On 10/22/2014 7:25 PM, Joerg wrote:
Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

Duane wrote:
On 10/22/2014 2:03 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

Bertrand wrote:
I did skydiving for many years, in Belgium.
One of the first things our teacher told us was "If you ever lose that
litte knot of afraidness in your stomach before leaving the aircraft,
stop skydiving. Because let's not kid ourselves, it is dangerous".

That sport is very dangerous. And yeah, I did it anyhow. But here
is the
rub: _I_ get to decide how much risk I will take. When riding on the
side of a busy road with my bicycle others decide how much risk I will
be exposed to. The guy in the truck back there that just had a few
shots
at the saloon, the lady in the sports car that took sleeping pills
to be
able to sleep duing the day because if shift work, the kid in the
roaring lowrider who is looking at an incoming text message, and so
on.
It's never black and white like that; in both cases the participant has
some control of risk but not complete control. In skydiving, you're
still subject to risk due to the actions of the pilot, other aircraft,
other skydivers, the parachute rigger, etc.

Not so much unless you do formation jumps. Also, if you have your own
parachute you always pack it yourself. The reserve chute must usually be
packed by a certified person.


... On the bike, you can
mitigate the risk posed by drivers to some extent; for example as Frank
has described with road positioning.

In many areas you cannot. Riding too far into the lane can trigger
numerous nasty things. Most of all drivers getting angry and eventually
passing you at very close range, to "show you who is king of the
road".
On the other hand, those drivers will probably be passing you too close,
regardless, as will other drivers who will be encouraged to squeeze by.

IME an angry driver does this on purpose a lot. Riding in the lane will
get them very angry, and fast.

Why do you think that? I've been honked at plenty of times and been
passed more closely than I'd like, and when that happens I tend to think
as you---that there is some insane maniac behind me who should be
spending time in a dark cell. The truth of the matter is that that
isn't the case. Some guy may be slightly annoyed and is leaning on the
horn but that doesn't make him a psychotic who is likely to run me
down.


How do you know that? One such driver in Sacramento chased a bicyclist
that he tought was "inconveniencing him too much" until he had a "clean
shot" and then mowed him down. AFAIR they caught that criminal and I am
sure he will be in a dark cell now but that doesn't help the cyclist.


... I suspect that one reason that Frank reports so few problems is
that he doesn't have that attitude---he doesn't assume the other guy is
an incompetent, low-life intent on making his life miserable. Things
generally flow smoother with the right attitude. I'm just trying to
figure out how to find it, when needed.


It's got nothing to do with attitude. There are idiots, maniac, drunks,
druggies and so forth out there. You never know whether the guy in a car
behind you is one and I wish not to find out the hard way like the
cyclist here in Sacramento did.

Sometimes driver even shoot at you with a gun:

http://www.news10.net/news/article/2...s-at-bicyclist


Yes, and sometimes it's the bicyclist:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/...orth-lawndale/

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

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

On 10/23/2014 9:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2014 5:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 22/10/2014 17:13, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 22/10/2014 16:57, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 22/10/2014 16:19, Joerg wrote:

8" is OK for a tandem. That's what we have. I'd want more on a touring
tandem on mountains. Santana sell 10", but our bike won't take it, and
they're more liable to warp.


On gripe I have is the weight craze. The holes in the brake surface of
those discs are stupid but if you want one without you have to have it
custom made.

Have you considered discs on both sides up front?

Custom fork, custom hub. The road bike doesn't need them, and the MTB
doesn't really warrant it - we don't abuse it that much, and the custom
fork would make that seriously expensive (if a normal suspension fork of
adequate quality is about $1000, maybe $5000?). It's been done, just
never became popular, because 8" disks are good enough most of the time.


Yeah, 8" is big and sometimes one can stop for a break. After all, life
is not a race and should be enjoyed.


Rim brakes carry the risk of overheating the tire. Road bikers out
here
(mountainous area) have blown front tires that way. I've had my
surprise
during a stop at the bottom of along hill. Leaned my road bike
against a
tree, wanted to get at that home-baked snack bar (my wife makes
them).
Bent a leg to briefly plop my backpack on the thigh and touched
the rim
... phssss ... *OUCH*

I ride tandems in mountainous areas. I know all this :-) I normally
boil
water on the hot bits to demonstrate how hot they are.


The I am surprise about your comment that you had less issues with rim
brakes. I've had the literally let of a stench from too much braking.

The road tandem has rim brakes plus an optional drum. That's got the
best heat capacity of any of them. The rim brakes have been the most
reliable too - Magura cylinders are very simple and sturdy, and the pad
movement is a lot greater than for disks, so it's easier to get it
right. Sealed too (closed system), so no need to maintain fluid. I
bought them in 1997, and haven't had to do much apart from change pads
since then.

Disks are more sensitive to problems - get a spot of oil on them,
there's trouble. (leaking fork did that for us before we discovered the
pinhole in the inner cylinder - lots of letting smoke out to bring them
back into working).


Never had those issues, so far. Despite the fact that I often get dirt
and vegetation in there because of those stupid holes in the brake
surface. I call it "brake mousse". The brake still has all the power but
begins making odd hissing noises. This is one reason why I carry a Swiss
army knife. I flick out its can poker and clean the cooked gunk out of
the %&#! holes. Sometimes when leaning over there is an awful stench,
smells like a mixture of roasted chapparal and horse poop. Which it
probably is.


I've got rims too hot and had to stop. This year we were in the alps
with no drum (not touring), and on one hill there were a few too many
hairpins which I could take at what was probably just the wrong speed
for heat build up. I've also melted patches off tubes before - that's
why I stopped this year. But rim brakes don't get smelly IME.


Last time mine did was on a bush road before semi-ritiring the old MTB.
I busted its rear axle, again, but this time didn't notice it right
away. It felt like the bike was lurching at time but what the heck. When
back on a paved road something smelled funny. The wheel sat in there
askew and by then it had cooked off part of a rear brake pad.


It's not hard to blue a disk on a hill with a tandem, or even to let
smoke out of organic pads. Santana have destroyed pretty much every disk
brake in production while testing. I've got sintered pads these days,
which have been fine.


I tried organic one from the bike dealer on the back caliper. They are
ok but wear a bit fast for my taste. I also do not like the $15/pair
price tag. So when the sintered ones in front are through (and the
organic ones are already half gone as well) I'll test ceramic-compound
ones I got for $3/pair on Amazon. Supposedly similar material to what
motorcycle folks use.


IME they still snap, right at the end in the handle. I never
skimped on
paying for good cables because you live might depend on that some
day.

How often were you replacing them?

Maybe five years of so. I also keep the well lubed. Nowadays I ride
less
and less on the road bike, MTB s more fun.

I think what that's telling you is 5 years is too long for bikes ridden
in the way you used to. A 2 year replacement schedule might be more
appropriate.


Why is it that bike stuff is so short-lived while car stuff is so
vastly superior in quality?.


Average annual maintenance on my 1953 bicycle is much less than on
either of my 1965 cars. YMMV.


While this is probably true for my 1990 bike, it's probably not for my
2010. Depending, of course, on what you pay for annual maintenance on
either of your 1965 cars.

10 speed chains and cassettes certainly don't last as long as 8 speed
versions and I can still get an 8 speed chain for 12 bucks but 10 speed
chains are 4 or 5 times that.

Duane writes:

Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/23/2014 1:03 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


One of the benefits of being at lane center in such a situation is
that it gives you much more evasive room to the right if the motorist
does take a risk. However, that room is rarely needed. Almost all
motorists will wait until it's safe to pass.

This seems a hypothetical benefit. Rarely is the concern that one is
about to be flattened by a slowly advancing steam roller; at least I
haven't experienced that. Rather the vehicles are coming up fast; too
fast for me to really know what they are doing as I only have a barely
adequate convex, bar-end mounted mirror. Watching what's going on
behind means I'm not watching where I'm headed.

I do keep an eye on traffic behind me, just as I do when in my car or
on my motorcycle. But I use a flat eyeglass mirror. It lacks the
distortion of a convex mirror, and allows very quick switching of
vigilance from rear to front.

I'll have to try that again. Didn't like it the first couple times.

As such, when Duane
recounts his evasive action into the ditch, or wherever, I wonder how he
even knew what was happening. Helmet/eyeglass mirror? Head on a swivel?

Minor correction: IIRC, it was Sir instead of Duane who described
riding into the grass when a truck approached. I'm sure one of them
will either confirm or correct.

Apologies for my shoddy memory.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

BTW if you have drop bars, the bar end mirrors that I use seem to work
pretty well. I tried the helmet mirror but was always bothered by the
blind spot when looking left for oncoming traffic. YMMV.

Yes, that is the precise reason I didn't like them (referring to a
commercial eyeglass mounted mirror). My wife says you get used to the
blind spot. I'm sure you do, that doesn't seem a good thing. The
mirror the Frank makes (he's described it before) is about half the size
of the commercial versions I've seen. That would reduce the blind spot
significantly, but its still there. I need to make a smaller one to
see if it is acceptable.

--
Joe Riel

In article , Joe Riel
wrote:

Duane writes:


BTW if you have drop bars, the bar end mirrors that I use seem to work
pretty well. I tried the helmet mirror but was always bothered by the
blind spot when looking left for oncoming traffic. YMMV.

Yes, that is the precise reason I didn't like them (referring to a
commercial eyeglass mounted mirror). My wife says you get used to the
blind spot. I'm sure you do, that doesn't seem a good thing. The
mirror the Frank makes (he's described it before) is about half the size
of the commercial versions I've seen. That would reduce the blind spot
significantly, but its still there. I need to make a smaller one to
see if it is acceptable.

I use a glasses-mounted mirror, and don't notice a blind spot at all;
one of the advantages of binocular vision. I do mount the mirror so that
it's angled up a bit, which gets it out of my normal line of sight, and
also gives a better view over my shoulder. Just goes to show that YMMV.

John White writes:

In article , Joe Riel
wrote:

Duane writes:


BTW if you have drop bars, the bar end mirrors that I use seem to work
pretty well. I tried the helmet mirror but was always bothered by the
blind spot when looking left for oncoming traffic. YMMV.

Yes, that is the precise reason I didn't like them (referring to a
commercial eyeglass mounted mirror). My wife says you get used to the
blind spot. I'm sure you do, that doesn't seem a good thing. The
mirror the Frank makes (he's described it before) is about half the size
of the commercial versions I've seen. That would reduce the blind spot
significantly, but its still there. I need to make a smaller one to
see if it is acceptable.

I use a glasses-mounted mirror, and don't notice a blind spot at all;
one of the advantages of binocular vision. I do mount the mirror so that
it's angled up a bit, which gets it out of my normal line of sight, and
also gives a better view over my shoulder. Just goes to show that
YMMV.

By "don't notice" I assume you really mean you no longer notice. At
some point the brain quits complaining.

--
Joe Riel

On 10/23/2014 6:00 AM, Duane wrote:
On 10/23/2014 8:57 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/22/2014 10:03 PM, Joe Riel wrote:

snip

The same is true for bike lanes. Given their ubiquity in my area, it's
pretty easy to avoid ever having to take the lane, at least if you stay
away from the more interesting roads in the country.

An excellent "Be Seen" light helps reduce the need to be timid.

Not saying to ride without caution, but some people that insist on not
using proper front "Be Seen" lighting, including in the daytime, use
timidity as a substitute for equipment that encourages motor vehicles to
properly yield the right of way.

The difference in driver behavior when they actually see a cyclist
coming is palpable. No matter how much we would like drivers to make a
better effort to see other road users, the bottom line is that training
them to do so is not a task that we can hope to accomplish soon.

Maybe if you could come up with a way for your front flashing light to
have wifi/bluetooth and clone their cell phones a la NCIS or Person Of
Interest so that you could tell them to shut the thing down...

You can buy cell phone jammers but they are highly illegal and the FCC
does not treat you kindly if you're caught with one.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/25405289/man-arrested-for-jamming-drivers-cell-phones-on-the-interstate

Some venues use passive shielding to prevent cell phone signals from
penetrating the building. Of course how would a Sprint or T-Mobile even
know that their phone was being jammed versus just not having a signal.

On 10/23/2014 10:40 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
Duane writes:

Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/23/2014 1:03 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


One of the benefits of being at lane center in such a situation is
that it gives you much more evasive room to the right if the motorist
does take a risk. However, that room is rarely needed. Almost all
motorists will wait until it's safe to pass.

This seems a hypothetical benefit. Rarely is the concern that one is
about to be flattened by a slowly advancing steam roller; at least I
haven't experienced that. Rather the vehicles are coming up fast; too
fast for me to really know what they are doing as I only have a barely
adequate convex, bar-end mounted mirror. Watching what's going on
behind means I'm not watching where I'm headed.

I do keep an eye on traffic behind me, just as I do when in my car or
on my motorcycle. But I use a flat eyeglass mirror. It lacks the
distortion of a convex mirror, and allows very quick switching of
vigilance from rear to front.

I'll have to try that again. Didn't like it the first couple times.

As such, when Duane
recounts his evasive action into the ditch, or wherever, I wonder how he
even knew what was happening. Helmet/eyeglass mirror? Head on a swivel?

Minor correction: IIRC, it was Sir instead of Duane who described
riding into the grass when a truck approached. I'm sure one of them
will either confirm or correct.

Apologies for my shoddy memory.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

BTW if you have drop bars, the bar end mirrors that I use seem to work
pretty well. I tried the helmet mirror but was always bothered by the
blind spot when looking left for oncoming traffic. YMMV.

Yes, that is the precise reason I didn't like them (referring to a
commercial eyeglass mounted mirror). My wife says you get used to the
blind spot. I'm sure you do, that doesn't seem a good thing. The
mirror the Frank makes (he's described it before) is about half the size
of the commercial versions I've seen. That would reduce the blind spot
significantly, but its still there. I need to make a smaller one to
see if it is acceptable.


Same with the helmet mounted mirrors. I think it's a personal thing. I
have friends that have them and don't notice a problem. One guy has a
bar end mirror on each side and a helmet mounted mirror and he doesn't
mind. He's usually the first one to call car back. Though I think he
doesn't commute. That's where I noticed the blind spot the most was at
a stop checking for traffic on the left.

On 10/23/2014 12:08 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2014 6:00 AM, Duane wrote:
On 10/23/2014 8:57 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/22/2014 10:03 PM, Joe Riel wrote:

snip

The same is true for bike lanes. Given their ubiquity in my area, it's
pretty easy to avoid ever having to take the lane, at least if you stay
away from the more interesting roads in the country.

An excellent "Be Seen" light helps reduce the need to be timid.

Not saying to ride without caution, but some people that insist on not
using proper front "Be Seen" lighting, including in the daytime, use
timidity as a substitute for equipment that encourages motor vehicles to
properly yield the right of way.

The difference in driver behavior when they actually see a cyclist
coming is palpable. No matter how much we would like drivers to make a
better effort to see other road users, the bottom line is that training
them to do so is not a task that we can hope to accomplish soon.

Maybe if you could come up with a way for your front flashing light to
have wifi/bluetooth and clone their cell phones a la NCIS or Person Of
Interest so that you could tell them to shut the thing down...

You can buy cell phone jammers but they are highly illegal and the FCC
does not treat you kindly if you're caught with one.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/25405289/man-arrested-for-jamming-drivers-cell-phones-on-the-interstate


Some venues use passive shielding to prevent cell phone signals from
penetrating the building. Of course how would a Sprint or T-Mobile even
know that their phone was being jammed versus just not having a signal.


Then best to revert to old school strategy and carry a brick to throw
through their window.

On 10/23/2014 9:21 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Then best to revert to old school strategy and carry a brick to throw
through their window.

I was hoping to modify a hub dynamo to jam cell phones.

On 10/23/2014 12:32 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/23/2014 9:21 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Then best to revert to old school strategy and carry a brick to throw
through their window.

I was hoping to modify a hub dynamo to jam cell phones.

I know but if you can't do that, the brick would get their attention.