Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

High visibility law yields no improvement in safety

87 views
Skip to first unread message

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 12:23:18 PM3/30/18
to

Andre Jute

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 1:30:13 PM3/30/18
to
All we have here are opinions. Give us some data, Franki-boy.

In fact, the nearest thing to a hard fact we see in this article is the predictable opinion, but still on the face of it only an opinion, that the Italians didn't enforce their law. That would invalidate the whole study, and its conclusion.

I really must say, Franki-boy, that for someone so keen on arguing whether studies whose results your politics do not approve of were conducted according to the most copacetic rules of statistics, you let the side down when you push out non-specific shit like this article, right down to quoting some wimpish British minister betting five bob each way.

Do better, Franki-boy.

Unsigned out of contempt for this crap, and its pusher.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 2:05:25 PM3/30/18
to
Jute, I posted a link to an article. I posted no comment on the article,
nor on the research described in the article. Your vile spew is
triggered only by the imaginary products of your cholesterol-addled brain.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 6:10:52 PM3/30/18
to
So you admit that your positive, definitive headline --
"High visibility law yields no improvement in safety"
-- is an outright lie, do you then, Franki-boy?

Those words appear nowhere in the article, so you made them up based on complete lack of data, and tried to mislead us.

Every time we try to hold you to an irreducible minimum of academic rectitude -- which in these days of slackass, jumped-up welding instructors being made "professors" admittedly is not a high barrier -- you start with your stupid personal attacks.

It won't wash, Franki-boy. Give us facts, or fuck off.

Unsigned out of contempt for a deliberate liar.

russell...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 6:48:52 PM3/30/18
to
The article says "The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." So I'm not sure what is being studied in this article. My state recently had a high visibility law proposed. It was defeated, or not voted on. It was for cyclists to wear high visibility, reflective clothing, at ALL times, day and night.

John B.

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 8:20:04 PM3/30/18
to
If you follow the links in the article it leads to a reference to a
study published by a Laura Thomas, described as a legal expert, that
recommends changing the law to tackle the issue of dangerous and
careless cycling that causes injury or death.

It seems to imply that a substantial number of bicycle accidents are
caused by dangerious and careless acts by the cyclist him/her self.
--
Cheers,

John B.

jbeattie

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 8:24:59 PM3/30/18
to
I tried to pull the study on LEXIS, but it is not published in a journal yet. I think the study just looked at accident rates pre and post-law. It apparently evaluated the success of the law rather than the success of conspicuous clothing.

I don't know how you could possibly control one of these experiments. Around here, the reflective vest folks probably do have a lower injury rate because they ride at six miles an hour, and a wall impact would result in nothing more than a rubber smudge on the wall. Here's some scholarly work on high-viz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZRXlrJ3Mi0


-- Jay Beattie.



Andre Jute

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 8:27:21 PM3/30/18
to
From the article:
"The Italian wear-reflectives-at-night-law is poorly enforced and therefore largely ignored. The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes."

That leaves another Krygowski nothingburger. Perhaps he thought we'd read his deceptive headline and pass on without checking the article. I don't know how Franki-boy can fall victim to that sort of dumb wishful thinking every time.

AJ
Come on, Franki-boy! Tell us what that leaves.

Andre Jute

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 9:00:57 PM3/30/18
to
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 1:24:59 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

> I tried to pull the study on LEXIS, but it is not published in a journal yet. I think the study just looked at accident rates pre and post-law. It apparently evaluated the success of the law rather than the success of conspicuous clothing.

So what Franki-boy is telling us is that Italians are scofflaws. Much less offensive, stereotyped opinions than that one can get you fired from even a tenured position at American colleges these days. Here's a case in your own backyard: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/bruce-gilley-orwellian-campus-bias-tribunals/

> I don't know how you could possibly control one of these experiments.

No problem. In a real experiment, you would compare like with like, for instance you would establish that the law was obeyed or enforced where it was ignored, and that the mandated or available clothing was actually visible at night, and then you would measure the change in cycling rates over the period you're studying, and find a control group (presumably in a country next door with similar cycling conditions but without the visibility law), at which point, after you've made adjustments for all the variables you found, you should be able to make a comparison for your population of interest between two time periods within calculable margins of confidence. All of this sounds like very much more trouble and expense than was undertaken in that Italian academic's makework "study". In fact, her study, and Krygowski's slimy attempt to pass it off as meaningful, both remind me of the Zimmerman "study" of 76 "scientists" on which the lie that "97% of scientist agree that global warming is manmade" was based.

However, you mustn't go into the project with unrealistic expectations. This business, common in cycling and government circles, of a hard number to answer such complicated statistical questions exists strictly in the minds of those entirely ignorant of real-life demography and its representation in sampling statistics. I'm looking at you, Franki-boy. Statisticians, sociologists, psychologists, economists and other applied mathematicians who work in these fields -- and who have vastly more financial and human resources available than some random academic more interested in publication-for-promotion than knowledge--soon learn to temper their expectations of results to their understanding that correct formulation of the hypothesis and intelligent interpretation of the situation and the results are together more than half the requirement for formulation of a meaningful policy directive from sampling research.

AJ

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 10:17:16 PM3/30/18
to
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 8:24:59 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 3:48:52 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:23:18 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > The article says "The study did not evaluate the clothing used by those involved in crashes." So I'm not sure what is being studied in this article. My state recently had a high visibility law proposed. It was defeated, or not voted on. It was for cyclists to wear high visibility, reflective clothing, at ALL times, day and night.
>
> I tried to pull the study on LEXIS, but it is not published in a journal yet. I think the study just looked at accident rates pre and post-law. It apparently evaluated the success of the law rather than the success of conspicuous clothing.

That's the impression I got, too.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 30, 2018, 10:23:28 PM3/30/18
to
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 8:27:21 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> That leaves another Krygowski nothingburger. Perhaps he thought we'd read his deceptive headline and pass on without checking the article.

I thought perhaps people would read the article and we could have an intelligent
conversation. Jute, I didn't expect you to take part, since you don't qualify.

- Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 12:24:03 AM3/31/18
to
Oh, but we are having an intelligent conversation, Franki-boy. Its purpose is to expose your incompetent and deceitful method of conducting your war on facts you don't like.

Here you deceitful headline is again, Franki-boy: "High visibility law yields no improvement in safety". Instead of slinging limp personal insults, why don't you attempt to prove your headline is not deceitful so we can all enjoy a giggle at your floundering in another morass of your own making?

Unsigned out of contempt.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 12:51:46 AM3/31/18
to
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:23:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study

Chuckle. On the same page that the researcher reports that:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518300045>
- A bicycling visibility aids law had no influence on bicycle crash.
- A bicycling visibility aids law had no influence on proportion
of bicycle crash.
- The law did not produce immediate effects, nor did it have
any effects over time.

is a link pointing to this article with the opposite conclusion:

"Randomized trials and self-reported accidents as a method to
study safety-enhancing measures for cyclists - two case studies"
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517302543>
A large number of studies show that high visibility in
traffic is important in the struggle of getting the attention
from other road users and thus an important safety factor.
Cyclists have a much higher risk of being killed or injured
in a traffic accident than car drivers so for them high
visibility is particularly important. A number of studies
have examined the effect of high visibility, such as
reflective clothing, but most studies have been primitive,
the data limited and the results very uncertain.
(...)
A main result from Table 4 is that there were 38% fewer
multi-party personal injury accidents in the treatment
group compared to the control group, and that the difference
is statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Perhaps someone should design a reversible safety vest. One side
would be a bright and reflective color designed for maximum
visibility. The reverse site would be in some form of camouflage, for
those days when one does not feel like being a target for road rage
infected motor vehicle drivers.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 1:04:48 AM3/31/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 07:19:59 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>If you follow the links in the article it leads to a reference to a
>study published by a Laura Thomas, described as a legal expert, that
>recommends changing the law to tackle the issue of dangerous and
>careless cycling that causes injury or death.

The summary of the article didn't go into much detail as to what was
actually measured. Was it hospital admissions, self-reported bicycle
accidents, police reports, insurance claims, etc?

What the author seemed to be doing is making a simple assumption. If
a law that requires wearing colors not found in nature was intended to
prevent bicycle accidents, then there should be a noticeable change in
the accident rate after the enactment of the law. The article is
hidden behind a pay-wall, so I can't offer a critique on the
methodology. However, it would be interesting to see how many
accidents are involved in the study. My guess(tm) is that the reason
there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the
number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to
radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety
clothing would disappear in the noise.

>It seems to imply that a substantial number of bicycle accidents are
>caused by dangerious and careless acts by the cyclist him/her self.

So, if the accident was not caused by a motorist, by default it must
have been caused by the bicyclist? Besides the cyclist, there are
plenty of other potential culprits, such as trains, airplanes, drones,
weather, road hazards, defective bicycle components, etc. High
visibility clothing isn't going to do much if you're straddling the
railroad tracks.

Andre Jute

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 3:48:32 AM3/31/18
to
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:04:48 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> My guess(tm) is that the reason
> there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the
> number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to
> radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety
> clothing would disappear in the noise.

Possible. Also possible that, for entirely random reasons, the number of bicycle accidents could be within a very narrow range over a quite substantial period. An example is nearer home to you than Italy: A few years ago, when I explained to Franki-boy that cycling in the States is actually much safer than he claimed, because he'd done the statistics incompetently, I discovered that annual bicyclist fatalities numbered for years on end in a rather narrow range around, if memory serves, around 700. The trendline was essentially flat, bearing no relationship to the growth in bicycles. In effect, even with large numbers of novice cyclists coming into the numbers every year, one had to conclude that cycling was nonetheless getting to be safer; next you would have to conclude that dedicated cycle-facilities were actually working, that night was day, and other patent foolishness. The kicker is that the numbers that caused me to perform a double-flip were actually the best available government numbers.

I have no great expectation of this Italian study proving anything more than that academics want to publish papers.

John B.

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 4:35:56 AM3/31/18
to
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:04:37 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle
crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in
L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault
could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist.

To determine whether colorful clothing, flashing lights, etc., are
effective the crashes caused by the cyclist's own misdeeds would have
to be factored out of the equation.

From my own observations, driving a car, cyclists with bright colored
clothing do seem to be far more noticeable then someone wearing dull
work clothes, so it seems likely that the idea that bright colors
should reduce accidents would be a commonly accepted idea.

As an aside, I once came up behind a cyclist wearing bright orange
knee socks. His orange legs going up and down were clearly visible,
and attracted attention, at a measured 300 Meters.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Sepp Ruf

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 6:38:37 AM3/31/18
to
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> I thought perhaps people would read the article and we could have an intelligent
> conversation.

Before getting effectively publishedTM, the conversation won't really take off:

<https://benzinazero.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/perche-la-norma-dei-gilet-riflettenti-per-ciclisti-e-assurda-e-vessatoria/>

<https://www.bikeitalia.it/2018/03/28/giubbini-catarifrangenti-renderli-obbligatori-non-ha-diminuito-gli-incidenti/>


Ironically, the Uni Bologna research seems to be part of
http://www.xcycle-h2020.eu/
which itself employs questionable statistical statements to sound relevant:
"Cyclists suffer a disproportionate share of serious injuries and
fatalities, and indeed in recent years that disadvantage has been growing."

(Btw, anyone who happens to attend the Vienna conference, please check if
there are ANY researchers from UBER.)

In the meanwhile, here is your chance to refresh your Italian by educating
yourself about traffic laws in Italy pertaining to cyclists:

<https://www.bikeitalia.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/bikeitalia-codice-della-strada-e-bici.pdf>

Note that lights and retroreflectors had already been obligatory:
CDS Art. 68
c)
per le segnalazioni visive: anteriormente
di luci bianche o gialle, posteriormente
di luci rosse e di catadiottri rossi;
inoltre, sui pedali devono essere
applicati catadiottri gialli ed analoghi
dispositivi devono essere applicati sui
lati.


Btw, the French introduced a similarly despotic "gilet jaune" law hampering
casual bicycle use by the diminishing proportion of secular law-abiding
inhabitants starting on 1/1/2016, and here is the provisional French
statistic of Y2016 (and Y2010) vs Y2017:

<http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/content/download/37631/358704/version/1/file/ONISR_Accidentalite_routiere_estimations_2017.pdf>

(The big picture should include mentioning that there were over 900
bicyclist fatalities annually in the 1960's.)


--
" Je ne me suis pas battue contre l’Algérie française pour accepter une
France algérienne. Je ne touche pas à la culture, à l’identité et aux
coutumes des autres. Qu’on ne touche pas aux miennes."
- Brigitte Bardot

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 11:35:01 AM3/31/18
to
On 3/31/2018 6:38 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
>
> Btw, the French introduced a similarly despotic "gilet jaune" law hampering
> casual bicycle use by the diminishing proportion of secular law-abiding
> inhabitants starting on 1/1/2016, and here is the provisional French
> statistic of Y2016 (and Y2010) vs Y2017:
>
> <http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/content/download/37631/358704/version/1/file/ONISR_Accidentalite_routiere_estimations_2017.pdf>
>
> (The big picture should include mentioning that there were over 900
> bicyclist fatalities annually in the 1960's.)

Yes, I was aware of the French law. I wasn't aware of an attempt to pass
such a law in a U.S. state, to which Russell alluded.

This does concern me. These efforts are based, once again, on the
assumption that bicycling is so dangerous that it requires special
protective equipment. Laws like this open up possibilities for victim
blaming. Their proponents also tend to wildly overestimate the
protective effect of whatever measure they're selling. And sadly,
there's a fairly large contingent of "bicycle advocates" that are happy
to sell other cyclists up the river for failing to believe in the magic
devices.

Taken at its simplest, if the article is correct, such a law wouldn't
significantly improve safety. If enforced at all, it would certainly
dissuade a certain amount of cycling.

FWIW, I'm also against laws requiring pedestrians to carry lights or
reflectors, or forbidding them to wear dark clothing at night. The
fundamental problem is not generated by the non-motorized travelers.
It's generated by those driving motor vehicles. These laws make no more
sense to me than mandating bullet-proof vests for residents of large
American cities.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 12:00:22 PM3/31/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:04:48 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> My guess(tm) is that the reason
>> there was no obvious change in the accident rate was because the
>> number of bicycle accidents was sufficiently small and subject to
>> radical variations in number, that any change precipitated by safety
>> clothing would disappear in the noise.

>Possible.

Hard to tell, but I don't want to burn $30.50 for the report to find
out.

>Also possible that, for entirely random reasons, the number of bicycle
>accidents could be within a very narrow range over a quite substantial
>period.

Yep. My apologies for the topic drift, but I spent some time dealing
with a similar effect when attempting to correlate the effects of cell
phone RF exposure with brain cancer. Cell phone use increased
dramatically starting in about 1995 and continues to increase today.
One might expect there to be a noticeable increase in the incidence of
new brain cancer admissions to hospitals if that were the case.

"Brain cancer incidence in SEER 9 areas of US"
<https://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?run=runit&output=1&data=1&statistic=1&year=201701&race=1&sex=1&age=1&series=cancer&cancer=76>
Hmmm... no dramatic increase since 1995. The slight peak and decrease
is caused by the introduction of PET (positron emission tomography) to
diagnose brain cancers much earlier than before, which had the side
effect of increasing the brain cancer rate. After a while, PET scans
became the norm, the curve flattened, and the incidence rate returned
to its normal level pre-cell phone levels.

So it should be with bicycle accidents. If effective, a large number
of riders switching to high visibility clothing should produce a
corresponding decrease in accident rate. The key here is the "large
number of riders". If the statistical population sample were large, a
corresponding decrease in accidents might be considered valid.
However, if the number of riders involved were small, which implies a
rather jagged and widely varying graph of accidents vs time, then any
changes produced by a change of clothing reflectivity would be lost in
these variations (i.e. lost in the noise).

>An example is nearer home to you than Italy: A few years ago, when
>I explained to Franki-boy that cycling in the States is actually
>much safer than he claimed, because he'd done the statistics
>incompetently, I discovered that annual bicyclist fatalities
>numbered for years on end in a rather narrow range around, if
>memory serves, around 700. The trendline was essentially flat,
>bearing no relationship to the growth in bicycles.

Yep, very much like the cell phone to brain cancer graph. According
to this site:
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/227415/number-of-cyclists-and-bike-riders-usa/>
there are 66 million cyclists in the USA. 700 accidents is a tiny
percentage of the bicycle riders who are eligible to becoming a
statistic (0.001%). That makes any accident survey susceptible to
huge distortions from coincidental sources, such as season, weather,
road construction, emergency medical availability, riding habits, etc.
My guess(tm) is to establish a minimum test sample of cyclists, I
would need to issue standardized reflective clothes to at least 7,000
cyclists (10%), rigorously control their use, and limit external
factors. For example, reflective clothes lose much of their
effectiveness when filthy. Issuing a reflective vest to a mountain
bike rider in winter is guaranteed to produce a dirty vest. So, 7,000
riders would be required to wash their reflective vest after every
ride. Ummm... I don't think that will work very well as most people
would simply lie and not wash the vest.

>In effect, even with large numbers of novice cyclists coming
>into the numbers every year, one had to conclude that cycling
>was nonetheless getting to be safer; next you would have to
>conclude that dedicated cycle-facilities were actually working,
>that night was day, and other patent foolishness. The kicker
>is that the numbers that caused me to perform a double-flip
>were actually the best available government numbers.

Garbage in, garbage out. However, when obviously deficient statistics
are the only numbers available, one has to make do with what is
available. I'll take marginal numbers to bad logic, assumptions, and
guesswork any day.

Did you know that the number of bicyclists killed in collisions with
stationary objects correlates well with the number of ABA (american
bar association) lawyers?
<http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=6141>
and the rainfall in California:
<http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=1490>

The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate
after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean
that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate.
There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it
might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a
reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them
from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice
bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an
unchanged accident rate.

>I have no great expectation of this Italian study proving anything
>more than that academics want to publish papers.

"More research and funding are necessary."
All research papers end like that.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 12:30:23 PM3/31/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle
>crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in
>L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault
>could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist.

I don't have time to chase this down to the source. Maybe later.

"Cyclists faulted most in bike-car crashes"
<http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-bicyclists-drivers-crashes-statistics-2014nov22-story.html>
Only crashes between bicyclists and motorists in which
a cyclist was injured or killed were included in the 2,515
accident reports from 2011-Sept. 2014. Solo bicycle crashes,
collisions between cyclists, crashes between cyclists and
pedestrians or crashes in which fault wasn't determined
were excluded. Those types of collisions accounted for
30 percent of 3,767 bicyclist crashes.

>To determine whether colorful clothing, flashing lights, etc., are
>effective the crashes caused by the cyclist's own misdeeds would have
>to be factored out of the equation.

In a court-o-law, the percentage of responsibility is divided up among
the various parties in order to equitably divide up the judgment. I'm
not sure, but I don't think it's done that way on California police
accident reports. It also seems to vary depending on State:
<https://www.esurance.com/info/car/how-fault-is-determined-after-a-car-accident>

>From my own observations, driving a car, cyclists with bright colored
>clothing do seem to be far more noticeable then someone wearing dull
>work clothes, so it seems likely that the idea that bright colors
>should reduce accidents would be a commonly accepted idea.

Yep. Visibility improves safety is one of the many assumptions made
simply because it is so difficult to conclusively prove the
connection.

>As an aside, I once came up behind a cyclist wearing bright orange
>knee socks. His orange legs going up and down were clearly visible,
>and attracted attention, at a measured 300 Meters.

Good idea. I have two retro reflective 3M cards with clips on the
back that I fabricated. I clip them onto the back pockets of my pants
or jacket when riding. These reflectors have an odd side effect. When
drivers pass me, they often slow down more than I might expect to take
a closer look at my whatever is producing the randomly flashing
reflections.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 1:53:35 PM3/31/18
to
On 3/31/2018 12:00 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of
> evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate
> after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean
> that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate.
> There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it
> might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a
> reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them
> from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice
> bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an
> unchanged accident rate.

In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence
is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer
pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!"

Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as
medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down.


--
- Frank Krygowski

russell...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 3:44:47 PM3/31/18
to
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:35:01 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 6:38 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
> >
> > Btw, the French introduced a similarly despotic "gilet jaune" law hampering
> > casual bicycle use by the diminishing proportion of secular law-abiding
> > inhabitants starting on 1/1/2016, and here is the provisional French
> > statistic of Y2016 (and Y2010) vs Y2017:
> >
> > <http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/content/download/37631/358704/version/1/file/ONISR_Accidentalite_routiere_estimations_2017.pdf>
> >
> > (The big picture should include mentioning that there were over 900
> > bicyclist fatalities annually in the 1960's.)
>
> Yes, I was aware of the French law. I wasn't aware of an attempt to pass
> such a law in a U.S. state, to which Russell alluded.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

I was not alluding. I was telling the TRUTH. Here is the text of the bill I referenced. Requiring 144 square inches of reflective material on clothing. It was defeated, or not voted on. The reflective clothing portion was added by a lawmaker who did not want to pall any law that required a motorist to pass a bicyclist on the highway at a safe distance. He wanted to punish bicyclists by making them wear reflective clothing if he was going to punish his car driving voters by making them pass a cyclist by driving in the other lane. He wants to make sure its legal to pass bicyclists by driving within one inch of the cyclist.

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=87&ba=HF2341

Go to end of page 3, beginning of page 4 for the reflective clothing portion. It reads:

H.F.
2341
high-visibility or reflective clothing.
1 A person riding a bicycle on a highway with a speed limit of
2 forty-five miles per hour or more, other than for the purpose
3 of crossing the highway at a crosswalk, shall wear clothing
4 and equipment which together contain at least one hundred
5 forty-four square inches of high-visibility or reflective
6 material visible to the rear of the bicycle. This section
7 shall not apply to a person riding a bicycle as part of an
8 organized bicycle riding event involving five hundred or more
9 bicycle riders at which one or more certified peace officers
10 are providing traffic control and direction.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 3:50:36 PM3/31/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/31/2018 12:00 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of
>> evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate
>> after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean
>> that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate.
>> There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it
>> might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a
>> reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them
>> from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice
>> bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an
>> unchanged accident rate.

>In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence
>is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer
>pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!"

I think you mean phosphorescent, not fluorescent.
<https://www.thoughtco.com/fluorescence-versus-phosphorescence-4063769>
When in doubt, I suggest photoluminescent, which covers both types.
Incidentally, most phosphorescent materials do NOT contain phosphors.

A few hundred years ago, science had a problem. In vast expanses of
Asia, distances were sufficiently large that it was very difficult to
verify anyone's claims that contradicted the local leader, alchemist,
healer, or even one's own observations. When observation met dogma,
dogma would usually win because observation was subject to trickery,
spells, magic, and witchcraft, while dogma had the endorsement of
known local authorities that were beyond any need of having their
pontifications verified.

While most of the planet no longer practice science in this manner,
the effect hasn't completely disappeared. In college, more than one
of my friends reported that the local villagers would not believe a
word that he was saying, unless it was confirmed by their village
leader, and only deemed safe to touch after their witch doctor had
exorcised any lingering demons.

>Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as
>medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down.

Magic talisman, charms, and safety equipment are also equally
effective. Much depends on whether the user is a true believer. For
example, at a former employer, we had an Amp wire crimper. The crump
lugs would arrive on a large reel, which was fed into the machine. The
operator would prepare a wire with the insulation stripped back a few
mm, feed it to the machine, stomp on a foot pedal, and the mechanism
would crimp the lug onto the end of the wire.

The machine had been operating for about 8 years without a single
accident. One day, the priests of the OSHA religion arrived and
declared that the machine was "unsafe". We were instructed to "make
it safe" or face a rather expensive fine. We contacted Amp and
ordered a rather expensive safety kit consisting of a pneumatically
powered clear plastic fence and a tangle of pneumatics to move the
fence. There was also dual safety buttons and a controller. The safe
way to crimp wire was now to insert the stripped wire, press the two
buttons simultaneously, which would drop the plastic fence, and enable
the foot switch, which could then be used to crimp the lug onto the
wire.

I vaguely recall that it took about 3 months to generate 5 trips to
the local emergency room for a variety of odd injuries. Most involved
having the plastic fence simulate a guillotine to some body part.
Fortunately, we had reduced the air pressure at the fence to the
minimum, so injuries were more like bruises and not broken bones or
amputations. I'll spare you the details.

The problem was that operators now believed that the addition of two
buttons and a plastic safety fence would protect them from the
machine. They took chances, they made modifications to the machinery,
they became sloppy, and they had accidents, all because they felt that
they were safe. A plastic safety fence is a rather odd looking
talisman, but functions in the same manner.

AMuzi

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 4:15:07 PM3/31/18
to
Speaking technically of fluorescence and phosphorescence
misses the modern vernacular meaning, 'brightly colored'.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fluorescent+socks&t=hg&iax=images&ia=images

c.f. 'neon colors' which contain no actual neon.

Regarding safety, I read last week that crocodile egg
gatherers in Australia (going rate AU$35 per viable croc
egg) trudge through wetlands & swamps looking for eggs
unattended. The Australian worksman safety nannies have now
required steel toed boots for that occupation. An employed
egg gatherer noted that if he screwed up and found himself
between eggs and irate mother, she would as soon take his
whole leg as a toe. He added that accepted industry
technique consists of running very fast and climbing a tree,
which actions are impeded by heavy boots.

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


Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 6:42:25 PM3/31/18
to
On 3/31/2018 3:44 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:35:01 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 6:38 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
>>>
>>> Btw, the French introduced a similarly despotic "gilet jaune" law hampering
>>> casual bicycle use by the diminishing proportion of secular law-abiding
>>> inhabitants starting on 1/1/2016, and here is the provisional French
>>> statistic of Y2016 (and Y2010) vs Y2017:
>>>
>>> <http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/content/download/37631/358704/version/1/file/ONISR_Accidentalite_routiere_estimations_2017.pdf>
>>>
>>> (The big picture should include mentioning that there were over 900
>>> bicyclist fatalities annually in the 1960's.)
>>
>> Yes, I was aware of the French law. I wasn't aware of an attempt to pass
>> such a law in a U.S. state, to which Russell alluded.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I was not alluding. I was telling the TRUTH.

"Alluding" has no connotation of falseness. It just means mentioning
something without going into detail.

> Here is the text of the bill I referenced.

OK, and now you're no longer alluding. :-)

> Requiring 144 square inches of reflective material on clothing. It was defeated, or not voted on. The reflective clothing portion was added by a lawmaker who did not want to pall any law that required a motorist to pass a bicyclist on the highway at a safe distance. He wanted to punish bicyclists by making them wear reflective clothing if he was going to punish his car driving voters by making them pass a cyclist by driving in the other lane. He wants to make sure its legal to pass bicyclists by driving within one inch of the cyclist.
>
> https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=87&ba=HF2341
>
> Go to end of page 3, beginning of page 4 for the reflective clothing portion. It reads:
>
> H.F.
> 2341
> high-visibility or reflective clothing.
> 1 A person riding a bicycle on a highway with a speed limit of
> 2 forty-five miles per hour or more, other than for the purpose
> 3 of crossing the highway at a crosswalk, shall wear clothing
> 4 and equipment which together contain at least one hundred
> 5 forty-four square inches of high-visibility or reflective
> 6 material visible to the rear of the bicycle. This section
> 7 shall not apply to a person riding a bicycle as part of an
> 8 organized bicycle riding event involving five hundred or more
> 9 bicycle riders at which one or more certified peace officers
> 10 are providing traffic control and direction.

I'm glad it failed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 6:52:00 PM3/31/18
to
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 5:00:22 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote:

> My guess(tm) is to establish a minimum test sample of cyclists, I
> would need to issue standardized reflective clothes to at least 7,000
> cyclists (10%), rigorously control their use, and limit external
> factors.

Professionals who do demographic (i.e. market) research in order to arrive at investment decisions usually assume that a correctly stratified sample of 3000 respondents can represent any universe, right up to the population of the entire country of (back when I did it) about 260m people, or so, give or take a few illegal immigrants. The key is "correctly stratified" -- you'd better identify your market right, or the results will be garbage. But even a proper geographic distribution of 3000 interviews is already a very, very expensive venture, which is why Gallup and others essentially ran cooperative ventures with questions from several research projects tacked on to a proven sample distribution.

> Did you know that the number of bicyclists killed in collisions with
> stationary objects correlates well with the number of ABA (american
> bar association) lawyers?
> <http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=6141>
> and the rainfall in California:
> <http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=1490>

You're wicked, Jeff. I used to do a popular guest lecture at business schools in whichever city I found myself, an entire hour of totally false but amusingly plausible correlations. Grad students with a few years of business experience usually caught the false note before the academics from the economics and psychology faculties who would come sit in; women, on the other hand, were not amused at being deceived even in the service of instructive entertainment. I wish I'd known those two false correlates because they easily pass the "entertainment" test.

AJ
If only you hadn't told all the world, I could've trolled a clown who deserves to be made a fool of

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 7:00:30 PM3/31/18
to
On 3/31/2018 3:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence
>> is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer
>> pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!"
>
> I think you mean phosphorescent, not fluorescent.
> <https://www.thoughtco.com/fluorescence-versus-phosphorescence-4063769>
> When in doubt, I suggest photoluminescent, which covers both types.

Well, I'm pretty sure fluorescent is more accurate. The garish clothing
doesn't glow after light is taken away. But I'll have to take a quick
look and see if the electrons change spin or not. First I'll have to
borrow some of the stuff. I don't think I own any.

>> Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as
>> medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down.
>
> Magic talisman, charms, and safety equipment are also equally
> effective. Much depends on whether the user is a true believer.

I've read a fair amount lately about the fact that placebos really can
work pretty well, especially for believers. AFAIK, this hasn't been
studied in bike "safety" equipment. Maybe there's PhD thesis lurking there!
That tale resonated well. I once worked in a facility that did lots of
crimped connectors (although they were almost all highly automatic,
sometimes thousands per minute); and my best friend was, at one time, an
OSHA inspector.

One of my first projects, when working as a plant engineer, was
installation of a tall machine with pinch rollers way up at the top. I
was proud of my job, and quite confident when the plant safety committee
visited. To check out the pinch rollers, they got a very tall guy to
perch on a step of some kind and reach way, way up over the machine to
try to touch a roller. He reported in a strained voice "Yeah, I can
barely touch it..." and they immediately said "We need an E-stop trip
wire up there." <sigh> So we installed one. I doubt it was ever used.

The standard these days seems to be the company must make even
deliberate self-damage impossible. Maybe it makes economic sense in a
litigious society, but it's still weird.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 7:02:54 PM3/31/18
to
On 3/31/2018 4:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Regarding safety, I read last week that crocodile egg gatherers in
> Australia (going rate AU$35 per viable croc egg) trudge through wetlands
> & swamps looking for eggs unattended. The Australian worksman safety
> nannies have now required steel toed boots for that occupation. An
> employed egg gatherer noted that if he screwed up and found himself
> between eggs and irate mother, she would as soon take his whole leg as a
> toe. He added that accepted industry technique consists of running very
> fast and climbing a tree, which actions are impeded by heavy boots.

There's lots of weirdness out there. In the first report I heard about
this sad incident
https://nypost.com/2018/03/29/moms-of-family-who-drove-off-cliff-have-dark-history-of-abuse/
the news reporter said "The children were not wearing seat belts."

--
- Frank Krygowski

John B.

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 7:28:31 PM3/31/18
to
On the metal working site there was a post from a guy that runs a
small workshop. The Safety Demon arrived and mandated that the yellow
painted lines that denoted a walk way were the wrong shade.

One of the other inhabitants of the site wrote back assuming that the
original poster had taken the Safety Man to task over that ruling and
the O.P. wrote back saying that "No, I went out and bought a new can
of yellow paint and started painting lines on the floor. The Safety
Inspector has the power to shut down your whole shop."
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 7:33:52 PM3/31/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:30:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
Perhaps that is the secret. Wear cloths that makes you look like
something else. A Styrofoam wolf's head as a helmet or a jersey with
long ribbons fluttering in the wind.

The new safety slogan will be "the more ridiculous you look, the safer
you are".

--
Cheers,

John B.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 9:16:45 PM3/31/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:00:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/31/2018 3:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:53:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence
>>> is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer
>>> pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!"
>>
>> I think you mean phosphorescent, not fluorescent.
>> <https://www.thoughtco.com/fluorescence-versus-phosphorescence-4063769>
>> When in doubt, I suggest photoluminescent, which covers both types.
>
>Well, I'm pretty sure fluorescent is more accurate. The garish clothing
>doesn't glow after light is taken away. But I'll have to take a quick
>look and see if the electrons change spin or not. First I'll have to
>borrow some of the stuff. I don't think I own any.

They make both fluorescent and phosphorescent socks. No clue which
type is more common:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=socks+that+glow+in+the+dark&tbm=isch>
My current vest is fluorescent. I was thinking of trying a vest with
long persistence phosphorescent stripes.
<http://vizreflectivesna.com>

>I've read a fair amount lately about the fact that placebos really can
>work pretty well, especially for believers. AFAIK, this hasn't been
>studied in bike "safety" equipment. Maybe there's PhD thesis lurking there!

Placebos work rather well. Prior to roughly WWI, the medical
profession didn't really have drugs that were strong enough to do
anything useful. I read somewhere that somewhat recent studies of the
active ingredients in commonly used remedies and drugs were at best
marginally effective. As patients continued to pay for such
ineffective drugs, I can only assume that they did produce the desired
results, mostly from the placebo effect.

As for safety research, I suspect there already have been papers
written on the top and published in the Journal of Safety Research.
However, I couldn't find anything mentioning placebo. It would
probably be rather difficult to objectively test bicycle helmet
effectiveness using invisible or virtual helmets.

>That tale resonated well. I once worked in a facility that did lots of
>crimped connectors (although they were almost all highly automatic,
>sometimes thousands per minute); and my best friend was, at one time, an
>OSHA inspector.

Here's what the machine looked like:
<http://cavlon.com/zcstore/images/2674_02.jpg>
I couldn't find a photo showing the plastic safety panels and push
buttons. It was eventually replaced by a fully automated crimper,
which was capable of producing 200 pieces of recyclable scrap copper
per minute, or about 50 decent crimps in the same amount of time.

>One of my first projects, when working as a plant engineer, was
>installation of a tall machine with pinch rollers way up at the top. I
>was proud of my job, and quite confident when the plant safety committee
>visited. To check out the pinch rollers, they got a very tall guy to
>perch on a step of some kind and reach way, way up over the machine to
>try to touch a roller. He reported in a strained voice "Yeah, I can
>barely touch it..." and they immediately said "We need an E-stop trip
>wire up there." <sigh> So we installed one. I doubt it was ever used.
>
>The standard these days seems to be the company must make even
>deliberate self-damage impossible. Maybe it makes economic sense in a
>litigious society, but it's still weird.

That might be because we've bred the self-preservation instinct out of
your workers. One reason why we had no accidents with the original
Amp-o-Lectric machine was because every operator was given a loud
lecture by the production manager about not stuffing their hands in
the machinery. There was no equivocation in the lecture. They were
told in no uncertain terms that they would get hurt if they screwed
up. So, they paid attention, learned to protect themselves, and live
to complain about loud lectures. Operators after the safety equipment
was installed did not get the lecture because everything thought that
the safety hazards were eliminated and therefore no lecture was
needed.

Your anecdote about the pinch rollers illustrates the problem. Instead
of lecturing the operators not to climb up on a ladder and stuff their
fingers in the mechanism, the experts prefer to make the machinery
fool proof. We are better and producing fools than making fool proof
machinery. Overall, the system is as effective as warning labels.

I would hate to see what a bicycle blessed by OSHA would look like.
Probably would have training wheels, seat belts, air bags, ejection
seat, padded roll bar, armor plating, bullet proof tires, a parachute
for brake failures, padded handle bars, etc. It might actually be
safe, but would also be unridable.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 9:25:06 PM3/31/18
to
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 06:33:48 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Perhaps that is the secret. Wear cloths that makes you look like
>something else. A Styrofoam wolf's head as a helmet or a jersey with
>long ribbons fluttering in the wind.
>
>The new safety slogan will be "the more ridiculous you look, the safer
>you are".

Such clothing would be an improvement over Spandex, which looks even
more ridiculous. No need for a Styrofoam wolf head. I'm into the
"natural" look. Once per month, on the night of the full moon, which
happens to be tonite, I look like this:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/slides/jeffl-wolf.html>
Unfortunately, things don't always go as planned:
<http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/werewolf.txt>
One hour to go before the sun sets. Should be an interesting evening.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 9:36:23 PM3/31/18
to
On 3/31/2018 9:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:00:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> That tale resonated well. I once worked in a facility that did lots of
>> crimped connectors (although they were almost all highly automatic,
>> sometimes thousands per minute); and my best friend was, at one time, an
>> OSHA inspector.
>
> Here's what the machine looked like:
> <http://cavlon.com/zcstore/images/2674_02.jpg>
> I couldn't find a photo showing the plastic safety panels and push
> buttons. It was eventually replaced by a fully automated crimper,
> which was capable of producing 200 pieces of recyclable scrap copper
> per minute, or about 50 decent crimps in the same amount of time.

Wow. The place I worked had excellent results with automatic crimping
presses. And they did 100% inspection using force sensors in the anvil.
They could detect if even one strand of wire was not caught in the crimp.

One of the press brands was named "Hummingbird" because it cycled so
fast - actually, far faster than a hummingbird's wings. And it was later
superseded by an even faster design.

> I would hate to see what a bicycle blessed by OSHA would look like.
> Probably would have training wheels, seat belts, air bags, ejection
> seat, padded roll bar, armor plating, bullet proof tires, a parachute
> for brake failures, padded handle bars, etc. It might actually be
> safe, but would also be unridable.

Well, there's this:
https://nationalsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/072309_2203_oshacowboyo11.jpg?w=1020

But it's sadly out of date. Can you imagine? It still allows caliper
brakes! ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Joy Beeson

unread,
Mar 31, 2018, 11:30:56 PM3/31/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle
> crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in
> L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault
> could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist.

I'm surprised that it's that low, since hardly any bike riders even
know that there is something to learn, and substantial numbers "know"
that riding in the oncoming lane, darting across streets without
warning, etc. make one safe.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

Tim McNamara

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 12:11:08 AM4/1/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From my own observations, driving a car, cyclists with bright colored
> clothing do seem to be far more noticeable then someone wearing dull
> work clothes, so it seems likely that the idea that bright colors
> should reduce accidents would be a commonly accepted idea.

"Commonly accepted" != true.

I think the best way to reduce accidents would be to require that cell
phones be disabled when traveling faster than 5 mph. Then they are no
longer distractions for drivers. To observation at least half of
drivers are on the edge of their operational competence just driving a
car at 55 mph. Add a cell phone into that mix and 100% of drivers are
on the edge of their operational competence.

Since there are far more car-car collisions than car-bike collisions,
perhaps we should turn our attention regarding colors to a more needed
area of accident reduction... every car should be blaze orange, lime
green, lemon yellow. Hey, the AMC Gremlin was way ahead of its time!

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 1:40:05 AM4/1/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 21:36:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Wow. The place I worked had excellent results with automatic crimping
>presses. And they did 100% inspection using force sensors in the anvil.
>They could detect if even one strand of wire was not caught in the crimp.
>
>One of the press brands was named "Hummingbird" because it cycled so
>fast - actually, far faster than a hummingbird's wings. And it was later
>superseded by an even faster design.

There's a short horror story behind the crimper which someone in
management had bought at an auction. I forgot the maker and model.
Upon arrival, I had it installed and running in about 2 days. It
looked quite clean and well maintained. It was soon discovered that
the manufacturer no longer supplied dies for what appeared to be an
obsolete model. They did supply drawings for various dies, which we
sent out for fabrication. I didn't want to wait, so I used a die
grinder and water spray to modify one of the useless dies into
something that would crimp one of the Amp terminals. Ugly, sloppy,
cheap, but it mostly worked. However, it was not very fast because
the pneumatic timing seemed to be all wrong.

One month later, we were still waiting for the dies to arrive from the
machine shop. After the Amp-o-lectric finally died, it was decided
that I should "clean up" my modified dies and use them for production.
I did my best, but it was still depressingly slow. When I ran it near
rated speed, it would make a mess. I once calculated that the job
could be done by hand faster than using this machine. Lacking any
other options, it was run slowly and 24x7 which amazingly worked quite
well. Eventually, the proper tooling arrived and it was discovered
that the machine ran only slightly faster with proper dies. Management
finally called the factory, found someone with some experience with
the machine, and discovered that all the first generation models ran
very slow. It was deemed too expensive to update the older machines,
which explains what it was doing at an equipment auction.

>> I would hate to see what a bicycle blessed by OSHA would look like.
>> Probably would have training wheels, seat belts, air bags, ejection
>> seat, padded roll bar, armor plating, bullet proof tires, a parachute
>> for brake failures, padded handle bars, etc. It might actually be
>> safe, but would also be unridable.
>
>Well, there's this:
>https://nationalsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/072309_2203_oshacowboyo11.jpg?w=1020

More of the same:
<https://nationalsafetyinc.org/2009/07/28/osha-cowboy-osha-bullrider-osha-santa-osha-streaker-and-more%e2%80%a6/>

My opinion of OSHA hit an all time low when they declared my office
bookshelves were a safety hazard. My bookshelves were flimsy steel
instrial bookshelf purchased at the local hardware store. Behind it
was a movable partition wall made from 2x4's and plywood. Free
standing bookshelves were required to be fastened to a wall, which
would normally be a good idea since mine was carrying at least twice
the rated load. Just one problem. The movable partition wall was
supported by my bookshelf, not the other way around. I said nothing,
bolted the bookshelves to the partition wall, and quietly chuckled
while I worked.

>But it's sadly out of date. Can you imagine? It still allows caliper
>brakes! ;-)

Yeah, that's bad. The safety bicycle should use railroad style safety
brakes. Just attach a small air compressor that will charge a small
pressure tank with enough compressed air to keep the brakes open while
riding. Just pedal backward to operate the pump. This is much safer
because the rider becomes too tired pumping up the air pressure to do
anything unsafe while riding.

John B.

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 2:58:50 AM4/1/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:40:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
I was once "written up" by an Air Force safety inspector for not
wearing safety glasses in the machine shop.

He said, "I've got to write you up for not wearing safety glasses". I
said, "well, O.K., but write your self up also as you aren't wearing
glasses either." He replied, "I don't need to. I'm the safety
inspector."


--
Cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 3:40:36 AM4/1/18
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 23:30:20 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 15:35:51 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> A number of surveys have shown that a significant portion of bicycle
>> crashes are the fault of the cyclist. From memory, the CHP study in
>> L.A. County showed that more then 50% of the crashes, where fault
>> could be assessed, were the fault of the cyclist.
>
>I'm surprised that it's that low, since hardly any bike riders even
>know that there is something to learn, and substantial numbers "know"
>that riding in the oncoming lane, darting across streets without
>warning, etc. make one safe.

A paper, "THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BICYCLES AND TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR ALL
ROAD USERS", A Thesis presented to
the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo

States in part,
"A study in Orlando found that between 2003 and 2004 nearly two thirds
of the 803 cyclist crashes involved riding on the sidewalk, an act
that is not only known to be unsafe but is against the law in most
jurisdictions. These studies and others suggest that the majority of
cycling deaths are avoidable.
It also suggests that while most people know that cycling is a
potentially dangerous activity, this knowledge does not translate into
bikers behaving cautiously or safely."

What was it that Pogo said? "We have met the enemy and he is us".
--
Cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 9:52:34 AM4/1/18
to
On 4/1/2018 12:11 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
> Since there are far more car-car collisions than car-bike collisions,
> perhaps we should turn our attention regarding colors to a more needed
> area of accident reduction... every car should be blaze orange, lime
> green, lemon yellow. Hey, the AMC Gremlin was way ahead of its time!

Good idea!


--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 10:52:35 AM4/1/18
to
I prefer St. Augustine, "Lord make me chaste. But not yet."

sms

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 12:25:11 PM4/1/18
to
On 3/31/2018 12:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> A few hundred years ago, science had a problem. In vast expanses of
> Asia, distances were sufficiently large that it was very difficult to
> verify anyone's claims that contradicted the local leader, alchemist,
> healer, or even one's own observations.

<snip>

Science still has that problem. 97.1% of scientists publishing
peer-reviewed papers on climate change, confirm that human activity is a
contributor to climate change, but a 2007-2008 poll showed that only 49%
of U.S. residents believe this (South Korea was the highest at 92%,
Japan was at 91%). 65% of South Koreans have a college education,
compared to 33.4% of U.S. residents.

Be very careful about the subject line in this thread. It doesn't say
that high-visibility yields no improvement in safety, it says that
legislation to compel cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing yielded
no improvement in safety--those are very different things indeed.

Is there a study that compares accident rates for those not wearing
conspicuous clothing to those wearing conspicuous clothing, regardless
of any legislation?

Also, when it comes to visibility, don't confuse reflective clothing
with active visibility. Look at the studies on lighting. For both motor
vehicles (cars and motorcycles), and bicycles; a statistically
significant, but not huge, difference has been shown for vehicles with
daytime lighting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850978/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457512002606

Studies have been conducted for motorcyclists regarding conspicuity but
they did not even attempt to look at conspicuity versus safety. The
conclusions were:

• The conspicuity of a motorcycle can be increased by using an
appropriate rider outfit (bright) that distinguishes them from the
surrounding background

• Using a modulating headlight on a motorcycle can increase the
conspicuity of a motorcycle significantly, irrespective of the
background environment

• Increasing the alertness and expectancy of drivers to the presence of
motorcycles can increase conspicuity, as the study revealed that
motorcycles were detected at greater distances in an urban environment
compared to a rural environment

Does it make sense to make yourself more conspicuous while cycling.
Absolutely, regardless of any compulsory laws.

Remember, facts don't matter to many people, they will cite anecdotes or
make up stories that have no basis in fact. Or cite studies like the one
in this thread, which don't actually look at the key question. This is
now official U.S. government policy on a daily basis, just look at what
Trump recently said about Amazon. It didn't matter that it was untrue,
there are people that believe it.

Does making yourself and your bicycle more conspicuous yield an
improvement in safety? Absolutely. The key thing is to make yourself
more visible, in the proper way. Those with an agenda will always find a
way to find fault with any study that shows this.

Andre Jute

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 2:22:48 PM4/1/18
to
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 5:25:11 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
>
> Does making yourself and your bicycle more conspicuous yield an
> improvement in safety? Absolutely. The key thing is to make yourself
> more visible, in the proper way.

On a "*.bicycles.tech" newsgroup that should hardly need saying.

>Those with an agenda will always find a
> way to find fault with any study that shows this.

Surely not! Who on a "*.bicycles.tech" newsgroup could be so ignorant?

Andre Jute

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 3:55:09 PM4/1/18
to
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:25:08 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/31/2018 12:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> A few hundred years ago, science had a problem. In vast expanses of
>> Asia, distances were sufficiently large that it was very difficult to
>> verify anyone's claims that contradicted the local leader, alchemist,
>> healer, or even one's own observations.
>
><snip>
>
>Science still has that problem. 97.1% of scientists publishing
>peer-reviewed papers on climate change, confirm that human activity is a
>contributor to climate change, but a 2007-2008 poll showed that only 49%
>of U.S. residents believe this (South Korea was the highest at 92%,
>Japan was at 91%). 65% of South Koreans have a college education,
>compared to 33.4% of U.S. residents.

I don't want to get diverted into an AGW discussion, but I think you
should read this article before offering a 97.1% consensus. The real
number is probably somewhere in the 80% area:
"Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate
Change"
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#6c0a44f61157>
(3 pages). Enough on global warming.

>Be very careful about the subject line in this thread. It doesn't say
>that high-visibility yields no improvement in safety, it says that
>legislation to compel cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing yielded
>no improvement in safety--those are very different things indeed.

Yep. However, since the contents of the article is well hidden behind
a pay wall, it's difficult to determine exactly what the study was
measuring.

>Is there a study that compares accident rates for those not wearing
>conspicuous clothing to those wearing conspicuous clothing, regardless
>of any legislation?

Is there a study the correlates the production of laws, regulations,
ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions with the quality
of life, GDP, mean income, and/or cost of living? There should be a
connection because every time there's a problem, the standard solution
is invariably more laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders,
and eventually judicial opinions. More generally, do laws do anything
useful? In this case, we have a mandatory high visibility Italian
dress code for cyclists, that is not being enforced, and generally
being ignored. Little wonder there was no change in accident rate
after the law was enacted.

>Also, when it comes to visibility, don't confuse reflective clothing
>with active visibility. Look at the studies on lighting. For both motor
>vehicles (cars and motorcycles), and bicycles; a statistically
>significant, but not huge, difference has been shown for vehicles with
>daytime lighting.
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850978/
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457512002606
(...)
>Does making yourself and your bicycle more conspicuous yield an
>improvement in safety? Absolutely. The key thing is to make yourself
>more visible, in the proper way. Those with an agenda will always find a
>way to find fault with any study that shows this.

Have you considered what might happen if every cyclists adopts high
visibility lighting, attention getting flashers, garish clothing, and
other devices intended to attract the attention of drivers to the
cyclist? Such devices might be useful if the density of cyclists were
low, but if everyone showed up for a Critical Mass ride:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+mass+ride&tbm=isch>
with megalumen lighting, garish colored clothing, and multiple
flashers, the resultant visual confusion and distraction would be
worse than invisibility. It would probably look like a daytime
fireworks display.

Suggestion: If you have a great idea, give a little thought to how
well it might scale if everyone adopted it.

Drivel #1: Perhaps an illuminated bicycle helmet?
<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=illuminated+bicycle+helmet>
Probably a good idea. But, how does on power the LED's with a dynamo?

Drivel #2: What we need is a cheap, simple, and legal vehicle
deterrent. I propose a sign, that is readable at a long distance,
inscribed with "Camera on Board". If a driver understands that I'm
recording his actions, which might later be present in court, he might
be inclined to operate his vehicle with fewer homicidal intentions.

Enough warped humor for today. Gotta work on my taxes. My annual
exercise in lying and cheating is quite appropriate for April Fools
Day.

AMuzi

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 4:15:08 PM4/1/18
to
How's that 100+ year old worldwide Heroin ban going?

Andre Jute

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 8:13:56 PM4/1/18
to
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 8:55:09 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:25:08 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:

> >Science still has that problem. 97.1% of scientists publishing
> >peer-reviewed papers on climate change, confirm that human activity is a
> >contributor to climate change, but a 2007-2008 poll showed that only 49%
> >of U.S. residents believe this (South Korea was the highest at 92%,
> >Japan was at 91%). 65% of South Koreans have a college education,
> >compared to 33.4% of U.S. residents.
>
> I don't want to get diverted into an AGW discussion, but I think you
> should read this article before offering a 97.1% consensus. The real
> number is probably somewhere in the 80% area:
> "Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate
> Change"
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#6c0a44f61157>

That article doesn't open for me either by your link or an independently googled link. But never mind, RBT has its own source material, most recently reprised on RBT on November 28, 2016:

****
Who says global warming is settled science agreed to by 97% of scientists?

We often hear the dumber global warmies and the thicker pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare, say that "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming". 99.999999% can't name the statistical study this claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmermann as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole of global warming wobbles like an upside down pyramid.

MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html

Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.

So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

9% of US respondents came from California.

California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***

Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

What sort of a distorted sample is this?

Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.

Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.

To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...

This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:

1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."

2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."

So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!

Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:

"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.

Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.

There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.

No consensus, period.

The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".

Andre Jute
Thorough
*****

AMuzi

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 8:28:20 PM4/1/18
to
That 'scientific consensus' BS has been so thoroughly
discredited over the years that anyone who offers it as an
argument discredits himself.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 8:32:10 PM4/1/18
to
On 4/1/2018 3:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> In this case, we have a mandatory high visibility Italian
> dress code for cyclists, that is not being enforced, and generally
> being ignored. Little wonder there was no change in accident rate
> after the law was enacted.

ISTM that when a law is being considered, its ultimate effects should be
estimated as realistically as possible. It's pretty obvious that some
laws are _extremely_ unlikely to be enforced; but they're sold as if
everyone will obey the proposed law. That's not a realistic prediction.

And yes, it's certainly true that no law is perfectly enforced. But many
are enforced well enough to cause measurable behavior change.

Unfortunately, that's not true of most bike-related laws. That's just fact.

And as I said, this "high visibility" law reeks of victim blaming. I
think it's much better to direct efforts toward enforcing laws against
close passing or other cyclist harassment.

Oh, and if you seriously injure or kill another road user, make it a
default condition that you never drive again.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Joy Beeson

unread,
Apr 1, 2018, 9:15:07 PM4/1/18
to
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 15:15:04 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> How's that 100+ year old worldwide Heroin ban going?

I recently read in the paper that folks are working on a wonderful new
drug that will end the "opioid epidemic" because it has all the
properties of an opioid, but won't be addictive because it isn't an
opioid.

Allowing for the changes in fashion that writing styles have
undergone, it was word-for-word the same praise that heroin was
lavished with when it was a new drug.

In the interest of not being arrested for staking an anti-painkiller
fanatic out on an anthill with a bottle of ant repellant just out of
reach, I will say no more on this subject.

russell...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 5:01:48 AM4/2/18
to
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 3:15:08 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>
> How's that 100+ year old worldwide Heroin ban going?
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi

Much better than that 0 year ban on alcohol. Alcohol is far and away the number one drug killer. Alcohol kills far more people than all the other drugs combined. But its not banned at all. Its promoted. Except maybe in a few countries around the world. If heroin was not banned, and promoted as strongly as alcohol, it might kill off as many people as alcohol.

somebody

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 7:08:18 AM4/2/18
to
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:23:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>https://www.bikebiz.com/news/hivis-compulsion-study

How well hi-vis works may depend on the driver. A texting driver has
to look up on occasion. You need to be visible enough for them to
notice you during that 1/2 second when the look at the road ahead of
them.

The sooner they see you the better. Contrast helps - blinking lights
that don't blend in to the background are good. Most texting drivers
are OK people, just self-centered and/or ignorant.

With drunk/stoned/inexperienced/bad drivers you are screwed anyway. I
dread riding in dense suburbs weekdays from about 10 to 3. Befuddled
old people take over the road. From personal experience I know these
people are driving with cataracts, dementia and general poor driving
skills.

Hostile/aggressive drivers will still do their thing. I showed him by
passing within inches! My road! Get back on the sidewalk!

sms

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 10:14:06 AM4/2/18
to
On 4/1/2018 12:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Is there a study the correlates the production of laws, regulations,
> ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions with the quality
> of life, GDP, mean income, and/or cost of living? There should be a
> connection because every time there's a problem, the standard solution
> is invariably more laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders,
> and eventually judicial opinions. More generally, do laws do anything
> useful? In this case, we have a mandatory high visibility Italian
> dress code for cyclists, that is not being enforced, and generally
> being ignored. Little wonder there was no change in accident rate
> after the law was enacted.

Are you implying that we should not be passing more laws to make
everything safe for everybody? Are you some sort of communist?



Frank Krygowski

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 11:12:59 AM4/2/18
to
I don't think there's any question that heroin would kill off FAR more
people if it were as common and as promoted as alcohol.

From what I find from quick online searches, there are about 227
million alcohol users in the U.S., and about 88000 alcohol related deaths.

There are about a million heroin users and about 15000 heroin deaths per
year in the U.S.

So for alcohol, 2600 users per death. For heroin, 66 users per death.
Heroin seems to be about 40 times more deadly.

Also, let's keep in mind that, like it or not, alcohol has been a normal
part of human society pretty much since there have been humans.
Certainly since there have been settled villages. Fermentation is a
natural process, and its products are enjoyed even by animals. Heroin is
very, very different.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 11:14:58 AM4/2/18
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:14:03 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:
Nope. I'm suggesting that you find a study which correlates the
number of laws (or number of pages of laws) with desirable social
conditions, such as increases in disposable income, reduction in cost
of living, reduction in taxes, decrease in crime, reduction in energy
use, etc. You're ideally placed to perform a short term and short
range survey. Just add up the number of laws, regulations,
ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions enacted during
your term of office, and compare that with changes in the
aforementioned quality of life metrics. If it appears that the
increased trend in legalism has not produced a desirable outcome,
perhaps it would be beneficial if a quote or limit were placed on the
manufacture of new laws, regulations, ordinances, executive orders,
and judicial opinions. If not, at least the question "Do laws do
anything useful"? might be answered. If you believe the more laws
make people and things more safe, it should be easy to correlate
accident statistics with the number of laws, regulations, ordinances,
executive orders, and judicial opinions produced. Off-hand, I would
guess(tm) that rate of law production is many times the rate of any
perceived or actual improvement in public safety.

Also, I'm not a communist. The closest approximation might be a
political nihilist:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism>
It's really quite difficult to find a political party that is
compatible with my beliefs, biases, distortions, prejudices,
assertions, and activities. I would probably have organized my own
party long ago, but have not been able to find anyone who willingly
conforms to my political beliefs. I tried joining the American Apathy
Party, but nobody showed up for the meetings. Time permitting, I'll
try shopping for a suitable label:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States>
and see if anything fits.

AMuzi

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 11:37:43 AM4/2/18
to
Huh? IFTFY Nothing's more natural than opium. Mammals just
love the stuff.

Compare fermentation (beer, wine) to distilled 190 proof
Everclear and then opium to Heroin. 'Natural' may not be an
apt or useful term here.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 11:43:29 AM4/2/18
to
On 4/2/2018 7:08 AM, somebody wrote:
>
> The sooner they see you the better.

I don't think it's that simple.

Yes, I want to be seen - or more important, I want to be noted as
relevant, as someone who will have to be dealt with. But I want that to
happen soon enough. Being seen extra early doesn't help much. The
benefits of excess conspicuity diminish pretty quickly.

Example: In city traffic, if I register on the consciousness of a
motorist who's one block away, that's _plenty_. On an open rural
highway, 200 yards is probably plenty. Doubling that distance has no
great effect.

On to anecdotes: I have some cycling jerseys that are brightly colored,
and I wear them on some rural rides. I also have others with rather
muted colors, and I've done tons of utility cycling in ordinary
clothing. The rain jacket I've taken on a couple European trips is
black. I've never noticed the slightest difference in how I've been
treated on the road based on what I'm wearing.

In 40+ years of riding, I've had to stop twice because of drivers'
SMIDSY mistakes. (Both drivers apologized.) Neither was a close call,
and one of those was unusual in that as the motorist was leaving a
parking lot, I was emerging from the end of a MUP. The street he was
pulling into was a dead end, except for the path, so he probably never
thought to check at all.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 11:45:30 AM4/2/18
to
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 8:55:09 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> "Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate
>> Change"
>> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#6c0a44f61157>
>
>That article doesn't open for me either by your link or an
>independently googled link.

Works for me, but it might be because you're not in the USA. I'll see
if I can find a plagiarized version elsewhere.

>MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
>M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
>http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html>

I spent the $2 and downloaded the PDF. Really interesting comments
from some of the survey participants. The problem is that the author
did not have access to names and email addresses from the various
environmental sciences trade organizations. She had to settle for a
list of academics, which does tend to favor AGW. The key comment is
on the top of Pg 13:
"For statistical purposes, the population that this survey
will comment on will be academics, or those associated with
college and university programs in the geoscience field in 2007."

Therefore, the title of the survey should be something like:
THE CONSENSUS ON THE CONSENSUS: AN OPINION SURVEY OF EARTH
SCIENTISTS IN ACADEMIC TEACHING POSITIONS ON GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE

I also have some questions as to how she produced her numbers. There's
quite a bit in the report under results, all of it in percentages.
That's meaningless unless the actual counts are included. For
example, claiming 50% agreement does not seem very compelling when
there are only 2 survey opinions involved.

I also question what constitutes an "earth scientist". One geologist
commented that his background and training did not include atmospheric
phenomenon, which is central to AGW research. Since the pool of
respondents came from a faculty mailing list provided by The American
Geological Institute (Pg 12), it's little wonder that the available
climate scientists were predominantly geologists and geophysicists. At
least she's honest about it in the title, which mentions "earth
scientists" but probably includes few scientists involved in
atmospheric studies.

I also had a problem with her first question, which asked about
climate "before 1800" but did not specify a lower limit.

I'm not so sure that this survey is the basis for the 97.1% consensus
number. This number does not appear anywhere in the survey. I made a
limited attempt to cook the numbers into something close to 97% and
failed. Are you SURE that this is the original source? I see no
evidence of a conspiracy, but simply a MS treasis that was severely
hampered by the availability of a limited pool of scientists.

>Andre Jute
>Thorough

Hardly. You failed to associate this survey with the 97.1% figure.

"Everyone lies, but that's ok, because nobody listens".

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 1:04:16 PM4/2/18
to
A) Opium is not heroin, and alcohol is not Everclear. Let's be clear
about what we're discussing. (Note I haven't mentioned fentanyl or other
stronger synthetics yet.)

B) Opium may be pretty natural, but it's not a universal part of human
culture. Alcohol is. Some even claim that alcohol produced civilization.
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-alcohol-shaped-our-civilization-according-to-a-beer-archaeologist
I think that's extreme, but still, I don't think anyone's made a
similar claim for opium.


--
- Frank Krygowski

sms

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 2:16:01 PM4/2/18
to
On 4/2/2018 8:14 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:14:03 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> You're ideally placed to perform a short term and short
> range survey. Just add up the number of laws, regulations,
> ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions enacted during
> your term of office, and compare that with changes in the
> aforementioned quality of life metrics.
Our City just passed a Social Host Drinking Ordinance. Our well-meaning
Teen Commission promoted this ordinance. On the first reading, I went
along and voted yes, but in the intervening two weeks I did some
investigation, and I was the sole "no" vote for the second reading
(ordinances require two readings before they become law).

I voted no for the following reasons:

1. Section 25658.2 of the California Business and Professions Code
already covers underage drinking with stricter penalties.

2. The Santa Clara County District Attorney will not prosecute violators
of a city ordinance.

3. The instances of such underage drinking violations, under the current
law, are exceedingly rare, about three per year.

4. I would rather focus on education than legislation on this issue.

5. I am the newbie so I was the only council person that actually read
the proposed ordinance before voting on it. There was a glaring mistake
they made when they copied an ordinance from another city.

sms

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 3:39:15 PM4/2/18
to
On 4/2/2018 8:37 AM, AMuzi wrote:

> Compare fermentation (beer, wine) to distilled 190 proof Everclear and
> then opium to Heroin. 'Natural' may not be an apt or useful term here.

I remember Everclear from when I went on backpacking trips and the
leader brought it along because it was the most concentrated alcohol
available. He mixed it with Tang and water to make "Tangaroos."

It isn't sold in California anymore.

Andre Jute

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 7:13:56 PM4/2/18
to
On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 4:45:30 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <> wrote:

> >MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> >M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
> >http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html>

> I'm not so sure that this survey is the basis for the 97.1% consensus
> number.

That was the study referred to when the 97% was first used. That number was then fixed, and all consequent studies had to "prove" it.

The whole affair is statistically worthless, more a matter of religious faith to second-rate minds than any kind of iterable science.

AJ

Tim McNamara

unread,
Apr 2, 2018, 10:46:01 PM4/2/18
to
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:25:08 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:
>
> Does making yourself and your bicycle more conspicuous yield an
> improvement in safety? Absolutely.

"Absolutely?" That's one of those things that seems obviously true and
yet people in cars collide with school buses that they didn't see.
Bright yellow, lights, etc., and *boom.*

To see you the driver has to be looking. If they're not looking, it
doesn't matter what you wear. Yes, I might look like a 230 lb goldfinch
on a bike but that doesn't guarantee me being seen.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 12:45:41 AM4/3/18
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:15:57 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/2/2018 8:14 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:14:03 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> You're ideally placed to perform a short term and short
>> range survey. Just add up the number of laws, regulations,
>> ordinances, executive orders, and judicial opinions enacted during
>> your term of office, and compare that with changes in the
>> aforementioned quality of life metrics.

>Our City just passed a Social Host Drinking Ordinance. Our well-meaning
>Teen Commission promoted this ordinance. On the first reading, I went
>along and voted yes, but in the intervening two weeks I did some
>investigation, and I was the sole "no" vote for the second reading
>(ordinances require two readings before they become law).

I think you just proved my point. Despite well meaning intentions,
most such ordinances are a waste of paper and ink because they either
won't be enforced, or cannot be enforced.

>I voted no for the following reasons:
>
>1. Section 25658.2 of the California Business and Professions Code
>already covers underage drinking with stricter penalties.

Also the vehicle code:
California Underage Drinking Law
Any person who attempts to buy alcohol under the age of 21 may be
fined up to $250 and may be required to perform 24-32 hours of
community service. The minor may also have his or her driving
privileges suspended for one year.
Source: Cal Bus & Prof Code § 25658, Cal Veh Code § 13202.5

>2. The Santa Clara County District Attorney will not prosecute violators
>of a city ordinance.

Same problem at all levels of government. If the prosecuting agency
does not make a profit from fines, penalties, fees, or forfeitures,
the laws do not get enforced.

>3. The instances of such underage drinking violations, under the current
>law, are exceedingly rare, about three per year.

I think that might the number of arrests or convictions. Some kid
would need to do something really obnoxious before it was worth
arresting and prosecuting the kid. Actually, if the violator were a
minor, it would be unlikely to appear in the public record, and
therefore never be counted. The 3 "violations" might be the kids
parents being charged with complicity.

>4. I would rather focus on education than legislation on this issue.

For the minors or the parents? Such an education might already be in
place. The county CPS (child protective services) forces
uncooperative parents to attend and pay for worthless and expensive
lectures on substance abuse, anger management, and child care. I
think underage drinking might be covered by the substance abuse
classes.

>5. I am the newbie so I was the only council person that actually read
>the proposed ordinance before voting on it. There was a glaring mistake
>they made when they copied an ordinance from another city.

I really hate to agree with you, but I think you did the right thing.
However, you have a problem if the other members of the council failed
to appreciate (or understand) the problems with the ordinance and vote
accordingly. Did you have the support of the city attorney or a
legislative analyst with your analysis? It might have helped.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 1:34:01 AM4/3/18
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 16:13:52 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 4:45:30 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
>> <> wrote:
>
>> >MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
>> >M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
>> >http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html>
>
>> I'm not so sure that this survey is the basis for the 97.1% consensus
>> number.

>That was the study referred to when the 97% was first used.

I'm not so certain. The following article has the exact same
percentage, but from a different source and survey:
"Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global
Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature"
<https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html>
"Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000
papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming,
97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In
the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking
a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming."

>The whole affair is statistically worthless, more a matter of
>religious faith to second-rate minds than any kind of iterable
>science.

It's much simpler than that. 97.1% of those academics, who have
published papers on climate change, can associate their continued
income and position to supporting AGW.


Drivel: The first step to solving a problem is to blame someone.
However, it's considered a bad idea to blame the people who are going
to solve the problem. Since man is blaming himself for causing global
warming, I can assume that man is not expected to solve the problem.
That leaves divine intervention, alien visitation, and possibly a
revolt by non-humans.

John B.

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 4:01:09 AM4/3/18
to
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 22:33:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
Actually it isn't "man". In reality it is "men". The world population
was 3,551,880,700 in 1968. Fifty years later, 2018, it is
7,632,819,325, an increase of 4,080,938,625. If one assumes that the
birth rate doesn't change appreciably in another 50 years the world
population will be, approximately, 15 billion.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

Added to this is the fact that the un-developed countries where people
used to walk, or at best ride a bicycle, have become semi-developed,
due largely to international trade, and entire populations that used
to be satisfied to sit in the dirt and scratch their arse now demand
color TV and an automobile.... or at least a motor bike.

Note that in 1968 gasoline cost about $0.34/gallon, in 2018, I am
reading, it is $2.49, or 7.3 times more expensive. If we assume no
super-significant oil discoveries we might expect to see gasoline
costing in the neighborhood of $18 a gallon, or more, 50 years from
now.

Perhaps, in 50 years, bicycles will become more popular :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

James

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 5:49:24 AM4/3/18
to
On 01/04/18 06:15, AMuzi wrote:

>
> Regarding safety, I read last week that crocodile egg gatherers in
> Australia (going rate AU$35 per viable croc egg) trudge through wetlands
> & swamps looking for eggs unattended. The Australian worksman safety
> nannies have now required steel toed boots for that occupation. An
> employed egg gatherer noted that if he screwed up and found himself
> between eggs and irate mother, she would as soon take his whole leg as a
> toe. He added that accepted industry technique consists of running very
> fast and climbing a tree, which actions are impeded by heavy boots.
>

Thanks.

--
JS

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 12:02:10 PM4/3/18
to
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 15:01:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 22:33:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>>Drivel: The first step to solving a problem is to blame someone.
>>However, it's considered a bad idea to blame the people who are going
>>to solve the problem. Since man is blaming himself for causing global
>>warming, I can assume that man is not expected to solve the problem.
>>That leaves divine intervention, alien visitation, and possibly a
>>revolt by non-humans.

>Perhaps, in 50 years, bicycles will become more popular :-)

Bicycles are already too popular:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=china+bicycle+sharing+problem&tbm=isch>

Actually, I'm 97.1% serious. If someone blamed you for a problem, and
then expected you to voluntarily solve the problem, would you be
motivated to do anything for them? In this case, the
environmentalists and their sponsors blame all of mankind for the
perceived environmental decline, and then expect all of mankind to
support them in their war against modern civilization or something.
Little wonder that about half of the GUM (great unwashed masses)
doesn't believe the propaganda and seems resistant to any reactionary
changes. Waiting for divine or alien intervention might be quicker
and easier.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 10:44:07 PM4/3/18
to
On 4/3/2018 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> If someone blamed you for a problem, and
> then expected you to voluntarily solve the problem, would you be
> motivated to do anything for them? In this case, the
> environmentalists and their sponsors blame all of mankind for the
> perceived environmental decline, and then expect all of mankind to
> support them in their war against modern civilization or something.

Well, there's more than a little mischaracterizing there - both "blaming
all of mankind" and "war against civilization."

There is a problem, though. In my view, the situation is akin to
passengers on the Titanic. Did they have a moral obligation to use their
teacups to bail water?

> Little wonder that about half of the GUM (great unwashed masses)
> doesn't believe the propaganda and seems resistant to any reactionary
> changes. Waiting for divine or alien intervention might be quicker
> and easier.

I'm not sure about the claim of "half of the GUM." In the U.S., perhaps
it's half. Without looking (i.e. googling, etc.) I'd bet that if you
include the populations of all technologically advanced countries, the
disbelieving portion is far less.

But perhaps there's already been a bit of "deus ex machina" in the form
of horizontal drilling and fracking. Gas is so cheap that coal plants
are going down. Gas is knocking out a few nuke plants where I live, too,
although that's perhaps regrettable. Solar is getting cheap, wind is
getting cheap.

Yes, there are plenty of Trump fans who say "It's not happening, it's
not happening, it's not happening..." Or lately some who have converted
to "It's happening but it's not why they say it's happening..."
Meanwhile corporations and nations are working hard to take advantage of
the changes, or at least minimize the detriments.

Hell, there are cruise ships plying the arctic, gardeners revising their
planting calendars, birders re-drawing range maps, epidemiologists
trying to predict new disease boundaries...


--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 11:16:54 PM4/3/18
to
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:53:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 12:00 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >
> > The fallacy also works for the absence of evidence. (Absence of
> > evidence is not evidence of absence). An unchanged accident rate
> > after the introduction of mandatory reflective clothing does not mean
> > that reflective clothing does NOT have an effect on accident rate.
> > There could easily be a counter balancing effect. For example, it
> > might be that riders tend to ride more aggressively when wearing a
> > reflective vest on the assumption that the vest would protect them
> > from harm. At the same time, vehicle drivers would more easily notice
> > bicyclists. The two effects cancel each other resulting in an
> > unchanged accident rate.
>
> In the cycling community, there are many who believe absence of evidence
> is trumped by an anecdote or two - as in "I _know_ that people no longer
> pull out in front of me when I wear my lucky fluorescent socks!"
>
> Whatever the magic talisman, users deem it every bit as effective as
> medieval indulgences. Anyone who doubts is a heretic to be shouted down.

Here's an anecdote -- I just about got whacked by some dumb f*** on a bike tonight with no light and ninja black outfit. I couldn't see him against the background of other gray and black objects like the pavement. It was heavy overcast but still daylight. In a city with lots of dopes on bikes, it's good to be able to see the dopes -- no blinding lights necessary, but something that isn't funeral attire would be appropriate in low-ish light conditions.

-- Jay Beattie.

Ralph Barone

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 11:20:56 PM4/3/18
to
Dressing in all black for your own funeral sounds pretty proactive and
thoughtful to me.

Andre Jute

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 11:36:15 PM4/3/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 3:44:07 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > If someone blamed you for a problem, and
> > then expected you to voluntarily solve the problem, would you be
> > motivated to do anything for them? In this case, the
> > environmentalists and their sponsors blame all of mankind for the
> > perceived environmental decline, and then expect all of mankind to
> > support them in their war against modern civilization or something.
>
> Well, there's more than a little mischaracterizing there - both "blaming
> all of mankind" and "war against civilization."
>
> There is a problem, though. In my view, the situation is akin to
> passengers on the Titanic. Did they have a moral obligation to use their
> teacups to bail water?

You're the one mischaracterizing the global warming case, Franki-boy. For a start, the Titanic was going down, already tilted. There was no doubt about the Titanic going down. There was also no doubt about the cold water killing those it didn't drown. The danger was manifest. Global warming has none of these certainties. There is no proof that whatever warming there was in the 1990's and into this century (even if it was accurately measured and represented, which it wasn't -- "hide the decline"!) was abnormal in the slightest; there is every reason to believe that temperature fluctuations in our time are simply the normal adjustments of the earth's temperature for the normal reasons, including a minor contribution from the techno-apes. Nor is there the slightest reason to believe that even if there were abnormal warming well beyond what the IPCC claims to forecast with its risible models, that it will be harmful. You won't find a single reputable economist to say that global warming of 2% and more will not be beneficial. In fact, the IPCC's *scientists* reported that global warming of 2% would be beneficial; the lie that all warming is harmful was cooked up by bureaucrats for the Summary for Policymakers; it has nothing to do with what was in the actual report. (Of course, I have read all the reports, all the way through, and the clowns like you who want to lecture us haven't, and very likely wouldn't understand them if they tried to.) The last time the world was 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now, grapes were grown in Greenland. Your analogy with the Titanic stinks, like all efforts by global warming bullies to stampede us with fake catastrophes.

Unsigned out of contempt for a simplistic, dumb jerk, too easily caught out.

Andre Jute

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 11:44:00 PM4/3/18
to
He has a Swiss cousin. In the old cemetery in Basel there's a gravestone with a bicycle carved above the incumbent's name. The inscription under his name, in German, declaims: "He died for his right of way."

AJ
Thanks for the giggle

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:57:45 AM4/4/18
to
My position is that a rider obeying existing laws should be allowed to
wear whatever he wants. We shouldn't be telling people they have to
change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling
people they need to change clothes before going for a walk.

I assume you were obeying traffic laws and that the ninja biker was not.
I'd suggest it's more productive to work on promoting obedience to
traffic laws instead of garish clothing.

If a dumb f*** is going to run a stop sign, ride wrong-way or whatever,
he's surely not going to say "Oh, but for safety I'll put on a special
bicycling hoodie in neon yellow color."


--
- Frank Krygowski

sms

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 12:52:40 PM4/4/18
to
Wearing highly-visible clothing seems like a good idea, though for
vehicles there was no advantage found, in terms of safety, of a more
visible color. There have been advantages found for daytime lights, for
motorcycles, bicycles, and vehicles.

For motorcycles, modulated front daytime lights were found to be more
visible than non-modulated, but there was no study comparing accident
rates. Contrary to what some people on r.b.t. seem to believe, the
absence of a double-blind, case-controlled study, is not a reason to
abstain from using common sense.

jbeattie

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 3:06:40 PM4/4/18
to
We were both obeying the law, but he had the right of way. I was crossing an uncontrolled intersection, and he was approaching from my right, coming down hill and pretty much invisible to me until the last second. I jammed on my brakes -- butt way back in the approved Joerg fashion, belly to the top tube and ready for action -- and the guy rode by. It was after 6 pm, overcast but still light. I had my pulsing front light and rear flasher -- and as you know, I'm not a big DRL guy. There are times when it is hard to see other bikes, and something other than black is appropriate.

And yes, when I'm out at night on foot I do avoid dressing like Johnny Cash. I've had plenty of run-ins with invisible pedestrians and invisible dogs at night -- particularly when using the low-spew dyno light. I saw a dog with little blinkies on it the other night, which I thought was unique.

-- Jay Beattie.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 3:28:41 PM4/4/18
to
I'll admit to very little experience with uncontrolled intersections. We
just don't have them around here. In fact, I can't think of a normal
intersection with just a yield sign. They all get at least stop signs.

But I'm having a hard time visualizing an excuse for your error. Six PM
and overcast is plenty bright this time of year.

> And yes, when I'm out at night on foot I do avoid dressing like Johnny Cash. I've had plenty of run-ins with invisible pedestrians and invisible dogs at night -- particularly when using the low-spew dyno light. I saw a dog with little blinkies on it the other night, which I thought was unique.

Dogs are all leashed around here, except for those of owners who
deliberately ignore the law in our forest preserve. It's one of the many
things I liked about moving out of the American South.

What can I say? I've never come close to hitting a pedestrian due to
nighttime visibility. I've had ninja cyclists come at me at night and
I've yelled at them; but I've yelled about headlights, not about
brighter wardrobes.

When we take neighborhood walks at night, I often carry a giveaway
flashlight because we have no sidewalks on several pleasant streets. I
turn it on if a car is coming. But unlike one couple in town, I'm surely
not going to put on a day-glo safety vest every time I take a walk, day
or night, let alone change my clothes. It's no more likely than putting
a six foot tall safety flag on my bike.

--
- Frank Krygowski

James

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 5:51:15 PM4/4/18
to
On 04/04/18 13:16, jbeattie wrote:

>
> Here's an anecdote -- I just about got whacked by some dumb f*** on a
> bike tonight with no light and ninja black outfit. I couldn't see
> him against the background of other gray and black objects like the
> pavement. It was heavy overcast but still daylight. In a city with
> lots of dopes on bikes, it's good to be able to see the dopes -- no
> blinding lights necessary, but something that isn't funeral attire
> would be appropriate in low-ish light conditions.
>

We could trade anecdotes til the cows come home.

--
JS

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 6:14:03 PM4/4/18
to
Most of mine are boring, ending with "I was careful, so nothing bad
happened."

--
- Frank Krygowski

Joy Beeson

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:16:25 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:57:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> We shouldn't be telling people they have to
> change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling
> people they need to change clothes before going for a walk.

When I go for a walk after dark, I always wear light-colored clothing.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net


Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 1:25:07 AM4/5/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:57:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>My position is that a rider obeying existing laws should be allowed to
>wear whatever he wants. We shouldn't be telling people they have to
>change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling
>people they need to change clothes before going for a walk.

On the contrary. My solution to the visibility problem is to require
that all bicycle riders wear a specific uniform, with modifications by
their rank (skateboard, scooter, BMX, mtn bike, cyclocross, commuter,
tourist, road racer, unicycle, etc). There should also be specific
requirements for appropriate lighting.

I contend that the problem is not that the cyclist is insufficiently
visible but rather that automobile drivers do not have a standardized
image of what a cyclist is suppose to look like. It is the addition
of a few milliseconds of reaction time, while the driver tries to
identify the apparition before him, that might be causing problems.
I've had this problem myself while driving, where a cyclist adopts
some bizarre method of illumination, which I can't distinguish from a
construction hazard flasher or moving Christmas tree.

Sepp Ruf

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 5:25:50 AM4/5/18
to
Joy Beeson wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> We shouldn't be telling people they have to
>> change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling
>> people they need to change clothes before going for a walk.

Instead, maybe we should send jbeattie to mullah-land for some attention
training. Consulting an ophthalmologist there is cheaper than in Portland, too.

> When I go for a walk after dark, I always wear light-colored clothing.

"Light" colors, in grayscale-value, might not be farther distanced from the
visual backdrop than black. So don't feel safe just yet, you also need a
strong pedestrian safety flasher. And for a walk in the park in Toxic
Theresa's England, this gear is "absolutely" essential, as any guerilla
marketing expert knows:
<http://www.sovietarmystuff.com/Product_185_OZK_Soviet_Russian_Army_Chemical_NBC_Hazmat_Protection_Suit.html>
Check out those totally functional cyclist gaiters against roadspray!


--
Black lycra matters, too!

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:43:01 AM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:25:46 +0200, Sepp Ruf <inq...@Safe-mail.net>
wrote:

I was going to suggest riding while wearing night vision goggles:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=image+intensifier+night+vision+goggles&tbm=isch>
You might appear rather strange looking, but you'll be able to see the
moving black holes on bicycles before you hit them.

>Black lycra matters, too!

"Car crash by colour"
<https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/articles/car-crash-by-colour/>
"One study concluded that black cars are 47% more likely to be
involved in road accidents than vehicles of other colours.
(...)
During daylight hours, black cars were up to 12% more likely
be involved in crashes than white vehicles."

For the ultimate in invisibility, you need Vantablack,
<https://www.surreynanosystems.com/super-black-coatings/vantablack-s-vis>
which offers a non-reflective black that can also become invisible in
the infrared spectrum:
<https://www.surreynanosystems.com/super-black-coatings/vantablack-s-ir>
Not only will you be invisible to ordinary drivers, but you also will
not appear on the LADAR of driverless cars.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:49:30 AM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 08:42:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>I was going to suggest riding while wearing night vision goggles:
><https://www.google.com/search?q=image+intensifier+night+vision+goggles&tbm=isch>
>You might appear rather strange looking, but you'll be able to see the
>moving black holes on bicycles before you hit them.

"Mountain Biking at Midnight with Top Secret Night Vision Goggles"
<https://www.wired.com/2015/04/mountain-biking-at-midnight-with-top-secret-night-vision-goggles/>

jbeattie

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 12:13:06 PM4/5/18
to
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:25:50 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
> Joy Beeson wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >> We shouldn't be telling people they have to
> >> change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling
> >> people they need to change clothes before going for a walk.
>
> Instead, maybe we should send jbeattie to mullah-land for some attention
> training. Consulting an ophthalmologist there is cheaper than in Portland, too.
>
> > When I go for a walk after dark, I always wear light-colored clothing.
>
> "Light" colors, in grayscale-value, might not be farther distanced from the
> visual backdrop than black. So don't feel safe just yet, you also need a
> strong pedestrian safety flasher. And for a walk in the park in Toxic
> Theresa's England, this gear is "absolutely" essential, as any guerilla
> marketing expert knows:

At least mullah-land has bright sun. When you go outside and everything is cement colored, including the sky -- and your eyes are doing that switch from cones to rods -- someone in cement and asphalt colors blends right in, particularly when coming down a descending road with the road surface as a back drop -- and particularly with wet pavement and headlight glare or light glare from other sources on the road. And at night, pedestrians in all black might as well be invisible. Why be invisible? I'm no DRL fan, but I use a blinky when there is hard over-cast and low light.



-- Jay Beattie.

Sepp Ruf

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:04:49 PM4/5/18
to
jbeattie wrote:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:25:50 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:

>>>> We shouldn't be telling people they have to change clothes before
>>>> they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling people they need
>>>> to change clothes before going for a walk.
>>
>> Instead, maybe we should send jbeattie to mullah-land for some
>> attention training. Consulting an ophthalmologist there is cheaper
>> than in Portland, too.

> At least mullah-land has bright sun. When you go outside and everything
> is cement colored, including the sky -- and your eyes are doing that
> switch from cones to rods -- someone in cement and asphalt colors blends
> right in, particularly when coming down a descending road with the road
> surface as a back drop -- and particularly with wet pavement and
> headlight glare or light glare from other sources on the road.

Agreed. Still, once you are aware of these pitfalls (and of a population of
cycling dopeheads), you are obliged to adjust your behavior to account for
them. Even if it means moving slower than other traffic and waiting longer
to check for subtle clues of ninja movement.

> And at
> night, pedestrians in all black might as well be invisible. Why be
> invisible? I'm no DRL fan, but I use a blinky when there is hard
> over-cast and low light.

Oregon's law seems quite close to a DRL law already in demanding that one
switches on a bike light during conditions in which one cannot discern a
vehicle or a person -- certainly including a mourning, one-armed midget, on
a skateboard, on black asphalt -- from a full 1,000ft distance.

jbeattie

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:24:55 PM4/5/18
to
Don't get me going on the skateboarders.

The Oregon law is basically just a re-organized version of the UVC provision. http://iamtraffic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/UVC2000.pdf (12-201 (when lights required) and 12-702 (lights required)).

Oregon: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/815.280 (when lights required) and https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/801.325 (defining "limited visibility conditions")

I don't think Oregon is more demanding than most places, and DRLs on sunny days clearly aren't required or SOP in PDX. http://www.dollface.net/post_images/portland-bike.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:46:25 PM4/5/18
to
Crap, I'm dumping my lights for night riding:


ABSTRACT
• Visibility aid prevalence is low among injured bicyclists.
• In daylight, white or light upper body clothing decreased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
• In the dark, red/orange/yellow upper body clothing and tail lights increased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
• Using multiple visibility aids is associated with reduced odds of severe injury in bicyclists.

5 Conclusions

During daylight conditions, wearing white or light coloured clothing on the upper body reduced the odds of a bicyclist MV collision. During dark conditions, red/orange/yellow clothing on the upper body, and use of a tail light increased the odds of a bicyclist MV collision. Among those struck by a MV, the use of more than one visibility aid reduced the odds of hospitalization (severe injury). These results provide evidence that the use of visibility aids has a role to play in reducing the risk of severe injury from a bicyclist MV collision. Conversely, this research highlights the need to consider other injury prevention strategies such as the separation of bicyclists from MVs or reducing MV speed limits.

(2014) 65 ESACAP C 85-96

As for night time visibility,


3.3 The relationship between visibility aids and MV collisions during dark
The crude and imputed adjusted ORs for the relationship between visibility aids and MV collision during dark conditions are presented in Table 5. There were 42 cases and 217 controls who reported bicycling during dark conditions at the time of the crash. The crude estimates indicated that reflective clothing (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.01, 4.18), any reflective articles (clothing or other) (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.29, 5.04), red/orange/yellow (OR 4.15; 95% CI 1.17, 14.8) compared with black front upper body clothing, fluorescent clothing (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.07, 8.94), using a headlight (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.48, 6.44) or using a tail light (OR 5.28; 95% CI 2.12, 13.12) all increased the odds of a collision. Due to the small number of cases in this analysis, adjusted estimates could only be calculated from the imputed data. With the imputed data, only the estimates for red/orange/yellow (OR 4.11; 95% CI 1.06, 15.99) front upper body clothing compared with black, and using a tail light (OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.06, 6.07) remained statistically significant.

Don't use a tail light!

-- Jay Beattie.

sms

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 4:29:16 PM4/5/18
to
On 4/4/2018 7:15 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:57:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> We shouldn't be telling people they have to
>> change clothes before they ride a bike, just as we shouldn't be telling
>> people they need to change clothes before going for a walk.
>
> When I go for a walk after dark, I always wear light-colored clothing.

This is a big issue in my area. People out walking at night in dark
clothing. There have been people killed because of this.

But Frank is right, we shouldn't be telling people that they should be
wearing visible clothing by law. People should be smart enough to figure
this out for themselves. Education is better than legislation.

AMuzi

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 5:04:52 PM4/5/18
to
> • Visibility aid prevalence is low among injured bicyclists.
> • In daylight, white or light upper body clothing decreased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
> • In the dark, red/orange/yellow upper body clothing and tail lights increased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
> • Using multiple visibility aids is associated with reduced odds of severe injury in bicyclists.
>
> 5 Conclusions
>
> During daylight conditions, wearing white or light coloured clothing on the upper body reduced the odds of a bicyclist MV collision. During dark conditions, red/orange/yellow clothing on the upper body, and use of a tail light increased the odds of a bicyclist MV collision. Among those struck by a MV, the use of more than one visibility aid reduced the odds of hospitalization (severe injury). These results provide evidence that the use of visibility aids has a role to play in reducing the risk of severe injury from a bicyclist MV collision. Conversely, this research highlights the need to consider other injury prevention strategies such as the separation of bicyclists from MVs or reducing MV speed limits.
>
> (2014) 65 ESACAP C 85-96
>
> As for night time visibility,
>
>
> 3.3 The relationship between visibility aids and MV collisions during dark
> The crude and imputed adjusted ORs for the relationship between visibility aids and MV collision during dark conditions are presented in Table 5. There were 42 cases and 217 controls who reported bicycling during dark conditions at the time of the crash. The crude estimates indicated that reflective clothing (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.01, 4.18), any reflective articles (clothing or other) (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.29, 5.04), red/orange/yellow (OR 4.15; 95% CI 1.17, 14.8) compared with black front upper body clothing, fluorescent clothing (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.07, 8.94), using a headlight (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.48, 6.44) or using a tail light (OR 5.28; 95% CI 2.12, 13.12) all increased the odds of a collision. Due to the small number of cases in this analysis, adjusted estimates could only be calculated from the imputed data. With the imputed data, only the estimates for red/orange/yellow (OR 4.11; 95% CI 1.06, 15.99) front upper body clothing compared with black, and using a tail light (OR 2.54; 95% CI
1.06, 6.07) remained statistically significant.
>
> Don't use a tail light!


hmmm. For us Cibie & Soubitez glass bulb w/side dynamo
riders wearing mostly black, and a red mudguard reflector,
crashes are statistically insignificant. Good.

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


0 new messages