Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

On 25/10/2014 15:39, Joerg wrote:

Police even pulled me out of a slow lane on an autobahn because I was
going up a hill at 60km/h (about 40mph) in Germany. When they realized
that was the best that li'd 16-horse car could do with the load in there
they let me go.

I think my slow record on the autobahn is about 40mph, and I was in L2
overtaking things. Second gear in a 1.7 N/A diesel, screaming its little
head off trying to get a rather laden van and trailer up that hill. A8
near Munich IIRC - it's a bit lumpy.

On 25/10/2014 15:49, Joerg wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 23 Oct 2014
10:23:11 -0700 the perfect time to write:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:37:38 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 6:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
Why is it that bike stuff is so short-lived while car stuff is so
vastly superior in quality?.
A car has hundreds of horsepower available to haul itself and its
occupant around. A bike has perhaps 1/4 horsepower available. So bike
equipment is designed with a lower safety factor and lower expected
life, in order to reduce weight or otherwise improve performance. It
works out reasonably well, because bikes typically see far fewer hours
of use than cars.

One can buy a bike whose components will last much longer than those on
typical bikes. But I think few posting here are interested, because
performance suffers pretty significantly.

It is a piece of cake to design brake cables twice as thick for serious
riders and they won't be penalizingly heavy. Same for tires, brake pads
et cetera. I believe the main reason is that cyclists accept inferior stuff.

Sometimes you can buy heavier gear. For example, my bike dealer showed
me a 29" MTB tite that (finally!) has some real tread on it. Then came
the shocker: 79 bucks plus tax! It still won't last much longer than my
previous one (well under 1000 miles). A tire for my SUV cost me less and
easily lasts 70,000 miles.
From a different viewpoint, they will sell, probably, more than a
million SUV tires and bicycle tires counted in the thousands, possibly
in the hundreds.

I'd think a company like Vee Rubber will have bicycle tire sales in the
high six digits. AFAIK they even run their own rubber plantations. I am
trying their 29" Vee Rubber Flying right now. Tread and traction aren't
better than on the previous Hutchinson Cobra but they cost only 1/3rd.


SUV drivers don't seem to care what the weight of their tires is while
cyclists demand light weight tires. It would be possible to make
heavy, long lasting, bicycle tires, but who would buy them? You? and
maybe two guys in Idaho?

Actually all folks using the bike for non-pleasure riding. Also all the
bike share organizations should be interested if they are smart about
it. Then police bikes, and so on.

Schwalbe pretty much have that market covered with their Marathon
range.


They don't. I rode on Marathons in Germany in early September. They are
a good tire but not at all suited for gnarly trails. I pushed the bike
several times because it wasn't mine and I didn't want to wreck the tires.

What's a "gnarly" trail? Bike shares and police bikes are used on
reasonably decent surfaces, ideal for Marathons.

Clive George wrote:
On 25/10/2014 15:39, Joerg wrote:

Police even pulled me out of a slow lane on an autobahn because I was
going up a hill at 60km/h (about 40mph) in Germany. When they realized
that was the best that li'd 16-horse car could do with the load in there
they let me go.

I think my slow record on the autobahn is about 40mph, and I was in L2
overtaking things. Second gear in a 1.7 N/A diesel, screaming its little
head off trying to get a rather laden van and trailer up that hill. A8
near Munich IIRC - it's a bit lumpy.


Back when I was young this was considered normal. My dad had a Simca
1100 with 55 horses in there. Mom, dad, three kids, lots of baggage, a
heavy Hutchinson rubber boat (with sails!) plus a camping trailer that
weighed over a ton. Since we lived quite frugally mom pre-cooked meat
and stuff into steel cans before heading to high-tax places such as
Sweden, so who know what that trailer really weighed.

I used to do similar things with bicycles. Two crates of beer plus 14
large pork hocks, all on a wimpy baggage rack. Other times a big old
color TV set somehow strapped to the baggage rack. Then a bed frame and
mattress tied between two bikes single-file. That one went from German
to the Netherlands across the border and the guy in the border patrol
booth almost fell off his chair. Same when I hauled a broken down bike
back by lifting and tying its front wheel to the side of my baggage
rack, making sort of a tractor-trailer out of the two.

On that bed & mattress transport we were seriously considering to have
somebody hop on right before the border, with pajamas, pillow and all,
and pretend to sleep in it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Clive George wrote:
On 25/10/2014 15:49, Joerg wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 23 Oct 2014
10:23:11 -0700 the perfect time to write:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:37:38 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 6:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
Why is it that bike stuff is so short-lived while car stuff is so
vastly superior in quality?.
A car has hundreds of horsepower available to haul itself and its
occupant around. A bike has perhaps 1/4 horsepower available.
So bike
equipment is designed with a lower safety factor and lower expected
life, in order to reduce weight or otherwise improve
performance. It
works out reasonably well, because bikes typically see far fewer
hours
of use than cars.

One can buy a bike whose components will last much longer than
those on
typical bikes. But I think few posting here are interested, because
performance suffers pretty significantly.

It is a piece of cake to design brake cables twice as thick for
serious
riders and they won't be penalizingly heavy. Same for tires, brake
pads
et cetera. I believe the main reason is that cyclists accept
inferior stuff.

Sometimes you can buy heavier gear. For example, my bike dealer
showed
me a 29" MTB tite that (finally!) has some real tread on it. Then
came
the shocker: 79 bucks plus tax! It still won't last much longer
than my
previous one (well under 1000 miles). A tire for my SUV cost me
less and
easily lasts 70,000 miles.
From a different viewpoint, they will sell, probably, more than a
million SUV tires and bicycle tires counted in the thousands, possibly
in the hundreds.

I'd think a company like Vee Rubber will have bicycle tire sales in the
high six digits. AFAIK they even run their own rubber plantations. I am
trying their 29" Vee Rubber Flying right now. Tread and traction aren't
better than on the previous Hutchinson Cobra but they cost only 1/3rd.


SUV drivers don't seem to care what the weight of their tires is while
cyclists demand light weight tires. It would be possible to make
heavy, long lasting, bicycle tires, but who would buy them? You? and
maybe two guys in Idaho?

Actually all folks using the bike for non-pleasure riding. Also all the
bike share organizations should be interested if they are smart about
it. Then police bikes, and so on.

Schwalbe pretty much have that market covered with their Marathon
range.


They don't. I rode on Marathons in Germany in early September. They are
a good tire but not at all suited for gnarly trails. I pushed the bike
several times because it wasn't mine and I didn't want to wreck the
tires.

What's a "gnarly" trail? Bike shares and police bikes are used on
reasonably decent surfaces, ideal for Marathons.


Just a normal road out he

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/Chapparal1.JPG

One could, of course, write in the police report "The bike blew a tire
so the crook on his mountain bike got away".

That's why police rides mountain bikes out here. If there are Schwalbe
tires on them it'll be the Big Ben series, not Marathon.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:24:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/19/2014 12:02 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
sms wrote:
On 10/19/2014 10:12 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

I have no problem with you using a front flasher during daytime. I have
only dynohub powered frontlights without a flashmode. It is remarkable that
I am still alive. I think Frank is also still alive.
Well for where you live it's not such a big deal so the fact that you are
alive is not surprising.

Frank may be alive as well, thought he's lost all his critical thinking
skills which is sad.
Whether Frank lost all his critical thinking skills or not doesn't count.
What counts is that he doesn't use daylight front flashers and he is still
alive.
What you don't understand is that a front flasher is not a matter of
life or death. A front flasher greatly reduces vehicles cutting you off
as they exit parking lots in front of you and as they make left turns in
front of you (right turns in countries where they drive on the wrong
side of the road). You absolutely see a big difference in driver
behavior when a driver realizes that a bicycle is approaching.

My experiences has been somewhat different. I really can't tell from
the actions of other drivers whether a front light on a bicycle makes
any difference or not.


Almost from day one I could tell the difference. It was similar back in
my college days when I had a yellow French bulb in my road bike, it got
the attention because yellow contrasts well with stray light sources.


My own feelings are that from dawn until, perhaps 0900, depending on
the weather, it may make you more noticeable but I don't see anyone
suddenly mashing the brakes, wheels skidding to a stop, just because
I've got a front light on.


I did, several times, almost like the drivers wanted to jump out of
their cars and salute.

After that I quit using my bigger light in flash mode which I used to do
in day riding. I leave it on steady light nowadays, in traffic also
during the day. Makes a BIG difference in the attentiveness of many drivers.


... In fact, generally, I'd say people act
about the same, light on or off.


That's unusual.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg writes:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:24:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/19/2014 12:02 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
sms wrote:
On 10/19/2014 10:12 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

I have no problem with you using a front flasher during daytime. I have
only dynohub powered frontlights without a flashmode. It is remarkable that
I am still alive. I think Frank is also still alive.
Well for where you live it's not such a big deal so the fact that you are
alive is not surprising.

Frank may be alive as well, thought he's lost all his critical thinking
skills which is sad.
Whether Frank lost all his critical thinking skills or not doesn't count.
What counts is that he doesn't use daylight front flashers and he is still
alive.
What you don't understand is that a front flasher is not a matter of
life or death. A front flasher greatly reduces vehicles cutting you off
as they exit parking lots in front of you and as they make left turns in
front of you (right turns in countries where they drive on the wrong
side of the road). You absolutely see a big difference in driver
behavior when a driver realizes that a bicycle is approaching.

My experiences has been somewhat different. I really can't tell from
the actions of other drivers whether a front light on a bicycle makes
any difference or not.

You mean during the day, of course. Given how rarely I have people
pulling in front of me, it would be quite difficult to notice a
difference, particularly a negative one (i.e. reduction). I see plenty
of bikes with daytime flashers, but rarely do I notice the flasher
before the cyclist. The exceptions are generally when the cyclist is
wearing dark clothes and happens to be in front of a dark background,
but that isn't the typical landscape around here.

Almost from day one I could tell the difference. It was similar back in
my college days when I had a yellow French bulb in my road bike, it got
the attention because yellow contrasts well with stray light sources.

My own feelings are that from dawn until, perhaps 0900, depending on
the weather, it may make you more noticeable but I don't see anyone
suddenly mashing the brakes, wheels skidding to a stop, just because
I've got a front light on.


I did, several times, almost like the drivers wanted to jump out of
their cars and salute.

After that I quit using my bigger light in flash mode which I used to do
in day riding. I leave it on steady light nowadays, in traffic also
during the day. Makes a BIG difference in the attentiveness of many drivers.


... In fact, generally, I'd say people act
about the same, light on or off.


That's unusual.

--
Joe Riel

Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:24:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/19/2014 12:02 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
sms wrote:
On 10/19/2014 10:12 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

I have no problem with you using a front flasher during daytime. I have
only dynohub powered frontlights without a flashmode. It is remarkable that
I am still alive. I think Frank is also still alive.
Well for where you live it's not such a big deal so the fact that you are
alive is not surprising.

Frank may be alive as well, thought he's lost all his critical thinking
skills which is sad.
Whether Frank lost all his critical thinking skills or not doesn't count.
What counts is that he doesn't use daylight front flashers and he is still
alive.
What you don't understand is that a front flasher is not a matter of
life or death. A front flasher greatly reduces vehicles cutting you off
as they exit parking lots in front of you and as they make left turns in
front of you (right turns in countries where they drive on the wrong
side of the road). You absolutely see a big difference in driver
behavior when a driver realizes that a bicycle is approaching.
My experiences has been somewhat different. I really can't tell from
the actions of other drivers whether a front light on a bicycle makes
any difference or not.

You mean during the day, of course. Given how rarely I have people
pulling in front of me, it would be quite difficult to notice a
difference, particularly a negative one (i.e. reduction). I see plenty
of bikes with daytime flashers, but rarely do I notice the flasher
before the cyclist. The exceptions are generally when the cyclist is
wearing dark clothes and happens to be in front of a dark background,
but that isn't the typical landscape around here.


I noticed it in non-critical situations a lot. The usual scenario: Me
spooling along in the bike lane, car coming towards the street from a
side road or out of a gated community. They usually pull right up to
where they can see, blocking the bike line. Because usually nobody on a
bike comes anyhow, or whatever. Then when I arrive "out of the blue"
they roll backwards a bit.

Since I have the lights they roll up like usual but then abruptly hit
the brakes harder to come to a stop before the bike lane instead of in
it, not needing to shift into reverse anymore. You can literally see the
cars dip a little because of the abrupt harder push on the brake pedal.
They simply saw me well before they usually do which I think is a good
thing.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:17:12 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 10/19/2014 3:05 PM, James wrote:



I have no idea why anyone would need a light on during daylight
hours and with clear visibility.


Then I will explain it to you.



When a bicycle is going straight, at a brisk pace, vehicles tend to
exit

side streets and parking lots directly in the path of the bicycle,


causing the cyclist to have to brake hard or take evasive action to


avoid a collision. When you add a powerful front flashing front
light

vehicles are far less likely to cut you off.



A similar situation exists when a cyclist is going straight across
an

intersection and a vehicle is turning left (or right in countries
where

they drive on the left). The vehicle will often turn directly into
the

path of the oncoming bicycle.



The reason these sorts of driver behavior occur is because the
bicycle

just doesn't register on the driver's brain as something that is
coming

fast enough to worry about.



The flashing light seems to give motor vehicles pause. They think,
"I'd

better yield." Motorcycles in many states must have their headlight
on

at all times to better enable car and truck drivers to see them.
Some

motorcycle riders use a modulated front light to increase
conspicuity.



Motorists often insist that they "just didn't see" a cyclist or

pedestrian or even a motorcycle. As cyclists, we are probably much
more

careful when driving than the average driver.



In short, a front flasher makes it more enjoyable for the cyclist
by

reducing the number of times that they must yield to a vehicle that
does

not have the right of way.

A thousand high intensity flashing lights won't stop turning
motorists from cutting you off. That's simply because those motorists
consistentlt UNDERESTIMATE tthe speed of tthe approaching bicycle
even when the do see it and recognize it as a bicycle.


Out here (California) folks assume a bicycle to be a road bike and fast
if it has flashing lights because that indicates a more professional
rider. The occasional hobby rider won't invest in such lights, they
usually have no lights at all.


I've been a passenger in cars with drivers who when they see a white
flashing light in the distance ask me or remark to themselves out
loud, "What the hell is that?" Neon clothing is more visible in
regular daylight than are flashing small lights.


I have never met anyone who would not know. And even if they wouldn't,
all that matters is that as a driver they realize "I don't know what
that is but it's weird so I better slow down and play extra attention".
Every driver knows flashing light from emergency vehicles, accident
scenes, road works equipment, school buses and so on. Just like when
both blinkers are flashing at a car upfront. Then people know it's
either unusually extra slow or the driver wants to indicate there's
trouble ahead.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 10/25/2014 7:56 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 23:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/24/2014 8:29 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
we are
bombarded with news stories talking about an auto hitting a bicycle
while the driver are texting, looking in the mirror to put on
lipstick, etc.

Are we really "bombarded" with those news stories? Or would it be more
accurate to say they sometimes trickle in?

Err... Frank, didn't James just post some statistics, from Australia,
that showed that something like 40% of bicycle deaths were the result
of being struck by a vehicle traveling in the same direction?

We were given data showing that. But we're talking about less than half
of a very rare occurrence, a cycling fatality. More to the point, we
were not shown anything about the lane position of the cyclists before
the collision occurred - a fact which is not surprising, but still
critically relevant.

Do most cyclists ride gutter-style? Yes. If a cyclist is hit by
someone traveling the same direction, was it because he was riding
gutter-style? Perhaps. Those who tend to ride further left report much
less problems with close passes, unthinking motorists, etc.

Unfortunately, this entire issue is so far below the radar that it will
likely be a while before research appears and settles the matter. I
have some I can link to, but it's not definitive.

But the point isn't that it is rare, or common as dirt, the point is
that if she doesn't see you are very likely dead.

There must be a name for that style of thinking - ignoring probability
and fixating on worst-case-scenarios - but I don't know what it is.

But isn't it obvious that the same statement can be made about trees
falling on people in the forest ("Don't go hiking!!"), about bridges
collapsing ("Never drive over a bridge!!"), about shark attacks ("Stay
out of the ocean!!"), about airplane crashes ("Never get on a plane!!")
and about thousands of other unlikely hazards?

Again, the real question is how do we best discourage those incidents.
Those who have tried only hiding at the edge are sure that must be the
best way. Those who have tried riding more prominently have learned
that it's better.

Well Frank, you may be all tied up in how to discourage these things
but my major interest is in not having it happen to ME.`

Yep. When I take a prominent lane position to discourage unsafe driver
behavior, I am doing it so squeeze-by sideswipes or rear-end crashes
will not happen to ME. I'm (usually) not trying to protect anyone else.
(Well, sometimes, I'm protecting my wife.)

Today I led a club ride, a small one, just six people. We did over 50
miles on all sorts of roads: tiny lanes, quiet country roads,
neighborhood streets, rural highways, busy four-lanes, park roads, etc.
etc. There must have been over 50 times that one or more of us rode at
lane center to be sure a motorist wouldn't try to squeeze past. We
never heard one horn honk, not one shout of disapproval. We had no
problems. We certainly never had anyone come close to running us down
from behind! And this is perfectly normal.

Understand, there were also plenty of times we rode far right to make
passing easier. That was when there was enough room to do so. But even
then, I'll often ride lane center to be conspicuous, then move right if
there's room, once I'm sure the driver has seen me. If there's not
room, I won't move right. It works.

--
- Frank Krygowski

¡Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:41:36 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Sir
Ridesalot wrote:

just for fun I removed the solar charger from a malfunctioning lawn
light that looks like one of those old round Union headlights. I
hard wired this light to a 4.8 volts battery and looked to see what
it was like. The three LEDs at the bottom of the three inches diam
reflector make a very good be seen light but they because of the
reflector design throw a very small amount of light to the surface
of the road. It'd be useless for just about any trail riding even
with a full moon. I repeated the experiment the next night but with
a 7.2 volts battery. The amount of light on the road or trail
didn't seem to be much more and the light was still useless for
trail riding at anything much over walking speed. This experiment
seems to prove that nearly any light can work as a be seen light
even though it'd ber useless for seeing anything.

Cheers

I have always felt about vehicles (including bicycles) with bright
lights for the operator to see in the same way I feel about people
who crank up their sound systems until the car shakes and interrupts
conversation blocks away so that the driver can hear the music.
Nights are *supposed* to be dark... light is pollution in the same
way loud music, air horns, and burning tires are. Sensible people
will reduce their speed at night... what's so bad about walking,
anyway?

You can see just fine when you must with a couple of "AA" cells and
an LED.


Nope. Not out here. And then there's all the cars with their super
bright HID lamps ans such. Your "couple of AA cells and an LED" will
look like a li'l candle. That is, until the next driver doesn't see you
and smacks into your bike.


... Turn *that* off and allow your eyes time to adjust and
you'll be amazed! There's a whole world out there at night... until
some clown with a lipo rig rides by, anyway.

In an urban setting, if I ride at night, I wear reflective clothing.
If I'm camping, I wouldn't ride a trail at night... where do you have
to go that can't wait until morning?


There are people like me who actually use trails to get home. It's got
nothing to do with camping. And yeah, I'd like to see that tree branch
jutting out into the path before I hit it. And no, it can't wait, I like
to be home and my wife likes me to be home.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/