Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

On 10/23/2014 2:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
Duane wrote:
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:

[...]

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.


I rode probably about 2000 miles over the last 12 months and sunk around
$250 of material into the two bikes, not counting additions of new stuff
like better lights. Just wear and tear items, three tires, numerous
brake pads, chain lube, and such.

Oh, and I did not count any warranty replacements on the new MTB, of
which there were numerous. Busted the seat, wore out one freehub, things
like that. Next year that will add to the operating costs if it keeps
continuing.

On my car ... one oil change. 20 bucks because I use the good stuff for
oil. Every other time I change the filter which adds another $8. I use
more in chain lube Dollars alone. The car mileage over that period was
about the same.


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.


Not necessarily.

http://www.pricepoint.com/Brand/SRAM...Chain-2013.axd

A friend of mine always waits for a sale on the brand and type he wants,
then buys at least half a dozen. He throws them into the wax pot right
away and that keeps them good until needed. I think nowadays that's the
only way to really control the operating costs on modern bikes, wait for
a sale and then pounce. The downside is that one has to endure almost
daily "nag-mails" because a newsletter subscription is necessary in
order not to miss a sale or a free-shipping weekend. Sometimes the deals
are great, like $7 for the Alpinestar T-shirt I am wearing right now. I
bought half a stack of them at the sale.


Only twice the price of an 8 speed chain. But I'd have to keep it under
100 bucks CA to avoid duties.

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:40:59 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
snip

Exactly. That's why "taking the lane" does not work. At least not on the
west coast. People expect you to move towards the right if you can't
keep up.

I hardly get honked at when in the middle of a lane approaching a
traffic light or in slow city traffic. Because I am flowing along at the
same speed as the cars around me. Sometimes it's prudent to do so, like
when the lane has more than one allowed direction and I want to turn
left. But once out there where speeds start to pick up I move to the right.

In article , Joe Riel
wrote:

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.

No, I mean that I NEVER noticed a blind spot. My personal visual
processing system integrates the input from the other (right) eye well
enough that I have to concentrate to realize that my left eye isn't
seeing through the mirror. Apparently this isn't the case for everybody.

Incidentally, my mirror is about 1.5 inch wide by 1 inch high, mounted
roughly 4 inches from my eye. Seems to me that it's about as small as a
flat mirror could go and still function adequately.

On 10/23/2014 1:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2014 12:57 AM, James wrote:
On 23/10/14 15:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 8:34 PM, James wrote:
On 23/10/14 10:30, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 6:43 PM, Joerg wrote:

Anyhow, riding in the middle of the lane on a busy street with a
bicycle
is IMHO not smart.

So what do you do when you're in a ten foot lane, and an 8.5 foot wide
truck is behind you?

Similar to you when someone posts statistics that verify what someone
else claimed, that you apparently have some problem with.

Hmm. You might want to re-write that for clarity. At least, I don't
understand your meaning even a little. Maybe it's just because it's
late...

In any case, the main problem I had with your statistics was that the
terms or situations seemed ill-defined, and I thought some simple
graphics would have helped a lot. That shouldn't be a reason to take
offense. You didn't write the page, after all.


I posted a link to simple graphics with explanations of the
circumstances used in the graph.

I'll post the link again. Try scrolling down to below where it reads
"Crash types are divided into seven categories:"

http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safet...ant-statistics



Ah. I missed that. Thanks, I'll look it over.

OK, following up:

The 44.1% of fatalities that are "Same direction" are ones fitting the
description "... vehicles are changing lanes, rear end crashes and side
swipes." So the much feared run-down-from-the-rear crashes are part of
that 44.1%. Side swipes are also part of that 44.1%, and are probably
crashes where a motorist tries to squeeze by in a too narrow space.
"Changing lanes" are in there too. Does "changing lanes" include more
than someone in the passing lane merging into the curb lane and not
noticing a cyclist there?

"Overtaking" (3.2%) must refer to something not covered above - i.e.
_not_ when a motorist is overtaking a cyclist. Is it perhaps when a
bicyclist overtakes another vehicle or another bicyclist and somehow
crashes?

I'm still baffled by the tiny 3.5% that are "on road." It's not defined
and it sounds like it should include almost all fatalities, no?

Also, I'm not sure how (say) a left hook (or right hook in the U.S.)
would be categorized. It's a significant portion of fatalities in some
locales, especially when done by large trucks or HGVs. Those dominate
London bike fatalities, for example.

Doorings are also important in many cities, but not mentioned. Would
those perhaps be part of "Manoeuvring" since that definition includes
"parking crashes"?

And now, getting back to countermeasures, or what the cyclist can do:

Assuming I'm understanding these things properly, it's a real shame that
the direct hits from behind are grouped with sideswipes, and that we
don't have data on the cyclists' lane position. The standard tactic for
dissuading a sideswipe is to ride further into the lane. I also believe
it makes a cyclist much more conspicuous and thus dissuades direct hits
from behind; and of course it prevents doorings. But many people
believe that makes a direct hit from behind inevitable.

I don't believe that, of course. When I'm in a ten foot lane and an 8.5
foot wide truck comes up behind, I'll be sure I'm at lane center.

But if we had crash data showing direct hits separate from sideswipes,
_and_ we had data on the cyclists' lane position, we could perhaps
determine whether controlling the lane works as well as I've seen it
work, or whether it's pretty much suicide, as Jeorg believes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/23/2014 6:33 PM, sms wrote:


Take the lane only when it is more unsafe to not take the lane.

Hmm. That's nearly sensible!

As I've said many times, I do share lanes when it's safe to do so.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 23/10/2014 22:55, Phil W Lee wrote:

They did here.
See the Daniel Cadden case, where it had to be appealed to the House
of Lords to get a firm legal decision that cyclists are traffic, have
a right of way on the roads, and have the right to choose their own
positioning on the road.

Actually, he won in the Crown court. But that's enough to set precedent.

On 24/10/14 11:21, Phil W Lee wrote:
sms considered Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:46:43
-0700 the perfect time to write:

On 10/21/2014 10:14 PM, James wrote:

snip

The 40% figure seems in line with the fatality statistics here;

http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...fatalities-xml


In fact, closer to 50% when you combine "same direction" and
"overtaking" categories.

We will probably not have to wait very long to find out why someone
believes that the study in Australia is horribly flawed.

Indeed.
Because it is so ridiculous it doesn't even qualify for the
description "study".
It's the regurgitated anecdotes of journalists.
It would be hard to image a less accurate way of collecting data if
you tried.

I do not know what you are commenting on. The link I provided is from
the Transport Accident Commission, a government run org. The
statistics, AFAIK, are collected from police reports. Are you
suggesting police are journalists?

--
JS

On 10/23/2014 8:13 PM, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 11:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2014 5:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


So you never ever have had to leave the road because some idiot
coming up
fast behind you never slowed even when they were not far from you?

No. Sorry, but I've never had to do that. And yes, as described, I
have had countless vehicles come up behind me where there was no room to
pass. None of them have hit me.

Obviously it does not happen often, but it does happen, even when a pair
of riders are two abreast. I know of a few within my circle of friends
who have been hit squarely from behind though they were lane centre.

Some are even caught on camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPJwz6PB0YM

I know of another video, but cannot be bothered searching it out, just
to argue with you. You are not worth my energy.

Has _anybody_ here said it _never_ happens?

Should you not be arguing instead with the mythical person who made that
statement?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 24/10/14 11:38, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2014 8:13 PM, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 11:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2014 5:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


So you never ever have had to leave the road because some idiot
coming up
fast behind you never slowed even when they were not far from you?

No. Sorry, but I've never had to do that. And yes, as described, I
have had countless vehicles come up behind me where there was no room to
pass. None of them have hit me.

Obviously it does not happen often, but it does happen, even when a pair
of riders are two abreast. I know of a few within my circle of friends
who have been hit squarely from behind though they were lane centre.

Some are even caught on camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPJwz6PB0YM

I know of another video, but cannot be bothered searching it out, just
to argue with you. You are not worth my energy.

Has _anybody_ here said it _never_ happens?

Is it a crime to point out that although being hit from behind while
riding lane centre has not happened to you (yet), it has happened to
numerous other people?


Should you not be arguing instead with the mythical person who made that
statement?


Take your own advice, please.

--
JS

On 10/23/2014 8:38 PM, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 11:21, Phil W Lee wrote:
sms considered Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:46:43
-0700 the perfect time to write:

On 10/21/2014 10:14 PM, James wrote:

snip

The 40% figure seems in line with the fatality statistics here;

http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/...fatalities-xml



In fact, closer to 50% when you combine "same direction" and
"overtaking" categories.

We will probably not have to wait very long to find out why someone
believes that the study in Australia is horribly flawed.

Indeed.
Because it is so ridiculous it doesn't even qualify for the
description "study".
It's the regurgitated anecdotes of journalists.
It would be hard to image a less accurate way of collecting data if
you tried.

I do not know what you are commenting on. The link I provided is from
the Transport Accident Commission, a government run org. The
statistics, AFAIK, are collected from police reports. Are you
suggesting police are journalists?

I think Phil got it mixed up with the League of American Bicyclists
"study," which actually was just regurgitating journalists' descriptions
of crashes. It accessed no actual crash reports. Its publication was
clearly intended to bolster LAB's calling for "protected cycle tracks"
everywhere, perhaps to give business to its allies who design such things.

The Australian data would probably be valuable, if it were expressed
more clearly. James got all huffy because I asked questions about the
categories I didn't understand. I guess I should have said "Gosh,
that's perfect proof" and asked no questions. Or something.

--
- Frank Krygowski