The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights for Bicycles.

[sms]

I know how some people dislike any statements that are based on actual
facts, but the data are pretty clear.

See: <https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LvthAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA168>

It was interesting that in the Odense study, conducted by Reelight,
Odense Cycle City and the University of Aalborg, accident rates went
down by 32% with the use of daytime lights, but a cyclist's "sense of
security" went up by 85%!

Did they ride more dangerously because of the huge increase in their
"sense of security" and still experience a 32% decline?! Another study
showed that safety equipment increases an individual's dangerous
behavior, so if we could find a way to encourage the use of proven
safety equipment without increasing risky behavior, we'd be able to
change that 32% to a much higher number.

While a 32% decline in accident rates is significant, the 85% increase
in the "sense of security" could lead to more cycling, which will
further reduce the percentage of accidents.

The purpose of this whole study was to convince the government to make
flashing lights legal, since in some backward European countries
flashing lights are not legal. While this change in the law could
increase sales of Reelight, it also benefits every other light
manufacturer that produces flashing lights, and the other manufacturer's
produce much brighter daytime lights.

Hopefully the results of this study will lead to dynamo light
manufacturers adding a flash mode to lights that they export to
countries where flashing lights are legal. It just needs to be one
zero-ohm resistor that is installed or removed on the PCB. These lights
almost certainly already have a micro-controller that can be programmed
to do flash mode.

The bottom line is that we can all agree that daytime flashing lights on
bicycles are a very good idea and that greatly increase safety and that
their use should be encouraged. Frank now owns one of Barry Beam's
Oculus lights, so he can now experience the increased safety and
increased sense of security of a daytime flashing light as well as
increased visibility at night.

Now I have to go cash my check from Reelight.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:53:38 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>I know how some people dislike any statements that are based on actual
>facts, but the data are pretty clear.
>
>See: <https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LvthAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA168>
>
>It was interesting that in the Odense study, conducted by Reelight,
>Odense Cycle City and the University of Aalborg, accident rates went
>down by 32% with the use of daytime lights, but a cyclist's "sense of
>security" went up by 85%!

According to the above URL, it "reduced the number of crashed by more
than 30%". Presumably, accidents without an associated crash were not
counted. Also, the study was conducted in 2005 in Denmark, a country
there cycling is far more common than in the US. The accidents were
self-reported which usually means that if someone is guilty of doing
something stupid on their bicycle, they are unlikely to report the
incident. It's also possible that the situation may have changed in
the last 12 years such as newer models by Reelight.

I also don't like terms like "30% reduction". In order to make sense
of that, the actual accident rates need to be disclosed. For example,
out of population of 2000 participants, a reduction from 3 accidents
to 2 accidents is a 33% reduction, as is a reduction from 300
accidents to 200 accidents. The former is bad joke while the latter
is probably statistically significant. Which is it?

The only link I can find to the original study is listed on the
Wikipedia Bicycle Lighting page as footnote 8. However the links to
both the original Danish and English translation are broken. Also, I
would have expected to see a copy of the study on the Reelight web
pile, but couldn't find anything. Duz anyone have a copy or a
functional link?

Oddly, the Reelight FAQ doesn't quite agree with the study:
<https://www.reelight.com/en/faq/>
"The number of accidents is not higher when it is dark.
However, the risk of being involved in a road accident is
greater at night than during daylight hours. This is why
bicycle lights are so important."

Note that they have a backup function, that continues to flash when
the bicycle is stopped:
"The backup function needs to charge the first time it is in use.
You need to ride the bike for 5-10 minutes for it to charge
fully and so that it will flash for a few minutes after you stop."

Do it thyself flashing tail light:
<https://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/lights-for-a-beater-bike/>

We've also been here before:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.bicycles.tech/X0rymhXTgGo>

>Now I have to go cash my check from Reelight.

Such things are usually done by "loaning" you test samples of the
products, and then "forgetting" to recover them. In theory, you're
expected to declare the value of such samples as income for tax
purposes. Payments of cash or checks are rare unless you are hired as
a consultant.

--
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

[AMuzi]

I read 'lights for beater'. Twice. Then did a page search
for coil, magnet, dynamo and battery. Found nothing. What
powers the lights?

Bonus question- What does the mirror do?

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

[sms]

On 3/19/2017 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> The only link I can find to the original study is listed on the
> Wikipedia Bicycle Lighting page as footnote 8. However the links to
> both the original Danish and English translation are broken. Also, I
> would have expected to see a copy of the study on the Reelight web
> pile, but couldn't find anything. Duz anyone have a copy or a
> functional link?

It's not free.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457512002606>.

I'll check on Tuesday if our library or Public Works department has
access to this journal.

[sms]

On 3/19/2017 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>> Now I have to go cash my check from Reelight.
>
> Such things are usually done by "loaning" you test samples of the
> products, and then "forgetting" to recover them. In theory, you're
> expected to declare the value of such samples as income for tax
> purposes. Payments of cash or checks are rare unless you are hired as
> a consultant.

Yes, but a couple of people in this group insist that the only reason I
favor good lights is because I am getting paid by light companies. The
fact that it isn't true doesn't matter to them. They will come up with
any excuse they can think of to try to ignore the data.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 16:54:07 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/19/2017 4:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Do it thyself flashing tail light:
>> <https://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/lights-for-a-beater-bike/>

>I read 'lights for beater'. Twice. Then did a page search
>for coil, magnet, dynamo and battery. Found nothing. What
>powers the lights?

The top photo of the bicycle shows a hub dynamo on the front wheel.
Directly under the photo is:
"Note that there’s no off switch and no way to disconnect
anything but the hub without wire clippers or a soldering iron."
So, I guess it's powered by the hub. Since there's no on/off switch,
it's also a daytime tail light.

>Bonus question- What does the mirror do?

Go to:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr2chase/11425296075>
and drag the mouse around the photo. The captions for the mirror say
"Acrylic mirror to keep light down towards the road" and "Aluminum
angle - mirror glued to top, lights glued to front, holes drilled for
zip-tie attachment to basket".

The rectangular stick jammed between the mirror and basket is labeled"
Vertical aiming adjustment".

The cylindrical contraption is labeled "Greinacher-ish rectifier and
voltage doubler in corked tube". Schematic? Nope.

Other labels around the tangle of Romex electrical wire are "white
wire to hub AC power", "white wire to taillight", and "Connection of
rectifier to headlights, headlights to taillights, and taillights to
rectifier".

It's now kinda, maybe, sorta, almost, somewhat clear. If you want a
hub powered tail light to light up the road, that is how it can be
done.

His flickr page also has his helmet mounted headlight and tail light
combination:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr2chase/with/11425296075/>
Soon, everyone will be wearing an optical test bench glued to their
helmet.

Please remind me not to reference a do-it-thyself web page without
first carefully reading it.

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 6:56:22 PM UTC, sms wrote:
> Odense

My ancestor, Odin, who was worshiped as a god by the Anglo-Saxons until the coming of Christianity, lived on Odense, an island off the coast of Jutland, where the city of Odense, named for him, now stands. Of course he wasn't a god to start with. He was a warrior and a poet, but then all chiefs were warriors and were expected to be poets as well; in addition he was widely recognized as a moral philosopher and he had lots of really violent descendants, including Horsa and Hengist, who founded the British nation. They were Jutes, like Odin, but the Jutes were a small tribe, so the mass of Anglo-Saxon johnny-come-latelies just claimed them, and Odin, for their own history. The Encyclopedia Britannica, at least in the famous 11th edition which I use, got it right, but who listens to the Britannica except the truly well-educated, whose relatives probably wrote the relevant articles.

Andre Jute
It helps your posterity to have lots of really violent descendants

PS Don't ask: I don't know if Odin cycled before he became too dignified, being a god, to ride a bicycle like the other Jutes, now called Danes.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/19/2017 6:24 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/19/2017 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>>> Now I have to go cash my check from Reelight.
>>
>> Such things are usually done by "loaning" you test samples of the
>> products, and then "forgetting" to recover them. In theory, you're
>> expected to declare the value of such samples as income for tax
>> purposes. Payments of cash or checks are rare unless you are hired as
>> a consultant.
>
> Yes, but a couple of people in this group insist that the only reason I
> favor good lights is because I am getting paid by light companies.

The remarks (generally about commission) arose because several of your
websites which touted dozens of products, and had at the bottom
statements something like "if you're going to buy one of these, please
start from this website so I get my commission."

And some of your web pages included a sort of brief resume in which you
bragged about doing "guerilla marketing" in bicycle forums.

Those statements seem to have been taken down now. But when they were
first discovered, there were links and quotes posted here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 15:24:31 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

If you arrange with Reelight to send your persecutors some free sample
lights, they might be inclined to reconsider their position.

The problem here is that if you are repeatedly accused of some
dastardly crime against the cycling multitudes, such as accepting
payola from a vendor, the mere repetition of the accusation will
eventually cause it to become a truism. Anyone who searches the web
for bicycle lighting recommendations will eventually blunder across
those accusations. The casual reader is more likely to accept the
accusations at face value than to continue reading the subsequent
discussion material. You might consider writing a explanation, FAQ,
or manifesto on the topic, which you can reference in future
discussions on the topic.

Please have them ship the bribe, errr... evaluation sample, to the
address below.

[John B.]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:53:38 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

I find your research somewhat less than complete. Or to put it another
way, you carefully extracted certain figures from the study and
ignored major portions.

Quite contrary to what you imply the simple addition of fixed daytime
lights was only part of a major program to improve safety in the city
of Odense which also included:

"Activities:

Salt on the streets instead of gravel (which gives more punctures)

Lanes for bikes where cars must give way

Lanes for bicylists where they don't have to stop for red light but
can continue

Lending of bicycle trailers for kids

Lending of powered bicycles

Lending of tandem bikes

The police exchanging fines for driving without light, to bicycle
lights

The Cyclist of the year award

Exhibition for Better Bikes and possibility of having the bike checked
(to get ready for the summer biking season)

Campaign: We are biking to work distribution of badges to people
participating in the campaign

Providing drinking water and bicycle pumps several places in Odense

Cycle barometers (speed and amount of cyclists passing each day)"

And Amazingly, it worked.

"According to the police the annual number of
personal injuries amongst cyclists due to accidents involving more
than one party fell by 19 per cent in the Municipality of Odense from
the base years 1996-1997 to the period 1999-2002, when the Cycle City
project was being implemented, and by 20 per cent up to the year 2002.
Thus the project achieved its objective of reducing the number of
cyclists killed or injured in accidents involving more than one party
by 20 per cent by the end of 2002 as against the base years 1996-
1997.

The trend of personal injuries amongst cyclists due to accidents
involving more than one party followed the general trend. As there has
been a significant increase in the volume of bicycle traffic in the
Municipality of Odense in comparison to the trend in general, the
risks of cycling in Odense have thus fallen more in Odense than other
large Danish cities."

The moral of this little story is that there is a danger in quoting
sources. Some rotten, no good, SOB, might read them.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

On 3/19/2017 6:08 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> Please have them ship the bribe, errr... evaluation sample, to the
> address below.

When I had the first web site that looked at many different folding
bikes I was getting free bicycles. But that didn't affect my evaluations
and I listed the pros and cons of each model in what I believed was an
honest way.

Sorry, I have no free lights to send out to anyone, and no one has sent
me any lights for free either.

[sms]

On 3/19/2017 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> The moral of this little story is that there is a danger in quoting
> sources. Some rotten, no good, SOB, might read them.

Except that the Odense study compared two control groups. One with the
daytime lights, one without them. So each group had the benefit or
non-benefit of the various other changes you cited.

It was nothing like the bogus helmet "studies" we've seen in the past
where cycling rates have risen and fallen based on factors unrelated to
helmets--when cycling rates fell, it was due solely to helmet laws. When
cycling rates rose, they should have risen as fast as the population
went up. Of course you can look at China where there are no helmet laws
and where cycling rates have plunged due to other factors (private car
ownership, and a boom in subway construction).

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:54:54 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>When
>cycling rates rose, they should have risen as fast as the population
>went up.

Nope. If nothing changed except the population, the cycling rate
should remain constant because it's based on a percentage of that
population. Of course, everything else also changes, so it's unlikely
to be a constant rate.

"Nighttime Cycling: Accidents, Lights, and Laws in Europe"
<http://www.beezodogsplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/huhn2013_Nighttime-Cycling-Accidents.pdf>
"This suggests that the different rules have only a marginal
impact on the safety of bicycle traffic in the dark. Only a
small number of nighttime accidents can be clearly attributed
to the lack of lights: Other major risk factors are driving
or riding under the influence of alcohol, higher driving
speeds on empty roads at night and impaired night vision
especially in older drivers."

However, the article then blunders onward under:
"The importance of bike lights in accidents"
which makes me wonder if this is actually a contradiction between the
data collected, and the Abstract/Summary. Offhand, I would suspect
that this is one of those reports, where the data is owned by the
researcher, but the conclusions are owned by whomever funded the
study.

[John B.]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:54:54 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/19/2017 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> The moral of this little story is that there is a danger in quoting
>> sources. Some rotten, no good, SOB, might read them.
>
>Except that the Odense study compared two control groups. One with the
>daytime lights, one without them. So each group had the benefit or
>non-benefit of the various other changes you cited.
>

You really, really, should actually read the actually study.... who
was it that said something about engage the brain before activating
the voice?

Anyway, the actual study was not "One with daytime lights, one without
them" but between a permanently mounted and always on flashing light
and conventional bicycle lights. There was no indication of whether
the conventional bicycle lights were, or were not, used during the
daytime.

The results of the study was "The study contributed to a change in
Danish legislation whereby flashing bike lights became legal in 2005".

In short an always on, flashing, light, front and rear )that you can't
turn off (or forget to charge the batteries) is better than lights
that you can turn off or forget to charge.

The actual lights were the Reelight SL100 which is a permanently
mounted light mounted at the wheel axle level and powered by two
permanent magnets attached to the spokes.

Reelight states, "Reelight SL100 emits 29,000 mcd (microcandela, a
unit for measuring light) from the front light and 10,000 from the
rear light."

< deleted >
--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Check this out: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/25/3/517/2398658/The-role-of-conspicuity-in-preventing-bicycle

Don't ride in Auckland, even with a blinky.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 06:59:40 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
<jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:

>Check this out: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/25/3/517/2398658/The-role-of-conspicuity-in-preventing-bicycle
>Don't ride in Auckland, even with a blinky.
>-- Jay Beattie.

187 accidents among 162 participants in 6.4 years? The carnage in the
streets must be awful. I would expect all cyclists to be exterminated
within their expected lifetimes. If I ride for 64 years of my life, I
would expect to get hit about 10 times.

Maybe bicycle fashion is the problem?
<https://www.google.com/search?q=dazzle+camouflage+bicycle+jacket&tbm=isch>

[sms]

On 3/19/2017 11:08 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

We need a double-blind study of accident rates where they use 65,536
different combinations of front and rear lumens, flashing and steady,
battery and dynamo powered, performed in 128 different countries, over
ten years, in a variety of lighting conditions.

Until that study has been completed we can't be absolutely certain
whether or not an increase in conspicuity is beneficial to cyclists, so
it makes no sense for cyclists to make themselves more visible.

Let's get the UN to commission this study.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/19/2017 8:47 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Soon, everyone will be wearing an optical test bench glued to their
> helmet.

Of course! Anything less would not be safe enough!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

If Mr. Scharf were to do that, honesty would require including quotes of
his original statements saying something like "please start your
purchases from my website" and bragging about his "guerilla marketing to
all aspects of the bicycling community" - or whatever the precise
wording was. (I wish now I'd saved a copy.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I'd have thought you'd take on the project as a volunteer.

But you really should include those six foot (two meter) bicycle flags
on vertical poles as part of the study. I still don't understand why
the champion of "If it may possibly help" visibility doesn't use them.

Or even better, sell them via his websites. Your competition is killing
you!
http://www.swagbrokers.com/Fiberglass-Bike-Flag-Whiprod-Pole-181810804


--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 3/19/2017 8:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:54:54 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> When
>> cycling rates rose, they should have risen as fast as the population
>> went up.
>
> Nope. If nothing changed except the population, the cycling rate
> should remain constant because it's based on a percentage of that
> population. Of course, everything else also changes, so it's unlikely
> to be a constant rate.

Exactly. Demographics change. Roads change. Traffic changes. Bicycling
infrastructure changes. Mass-transit infrastructure changes. The economy
changes.

In Silicon Valley, the emergence of so many corporate bus systems has
reduced the number of cyclists combining a Caltrain commute with cycling
"the first and last mile" (or the first and last 5 miles). Get on an
Apple, Google, Yahoo, or Genentech bus near your home and there's no
need to deal with public transit, or the lack of public transit,
anymore. But there's been a tendency of the AHZs to blame any decline in
cycling on helmet laws, or helmet promotion, which of course has no
validity at all, it's just Trump-like "alternative facts."

[Frank Krygowski]

The fact that helmet laws dissuade riding has been best demonstrated by
Australian data, which showed a STEP drop in bike riding of over 30%
exactly when the helmet laws were enacted. It was not a gradual drop,
as would be expected from gradually changing demographics, traffic
conditions, etc. The sudden drop precisely aligned with the sudden
imposition of the helmet laws.

Furthermore, bike share systems have become extremely popular in recent
years. Some cities and nations have repealed mandatory helmets laws
because of their obvious deterrent effect on bike use. (Mexico City,
Tel Aviv, Anniston AL, Boznia-Hertzegovina, etc.) Very, very few cities
have attempted to implement bike share systems while enforcing helmet
laws, and those few efforts have been failures. (See Melbourne, Brisbane
and Seattle.)

And again, logic would indicate helmet mandates and promotion would have
to have some dissuading effect; the only question is the size of that
effect. Obviously, _some_ people will not ride if told they must wear a
helmet. _Some_ people will not ride if told bicycling is so dangerous
that protective headgear is necessary. How would those ever be
compensated by people who say "Oh, it's that dangerous? And I'm not
allowed to ride without that ugly hat? Great! Now I'm convinced to take
up bicycling!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 2:27:30 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

> And again, logic would indicate helmet mandates and promotion would have
> to have some dissuading effect; the only question is the size of that
> effect. Obviously, _some_ people will not ride if told they must wear a
> helmet. _Some_ people will not ride if told bicycling is so dangerous
> that protective headgear is necessary. How would those ever be
> compensated by people who say "Oh, it's that dangerous? And I'm not
> allowed to ride without that ugly hat? Great! Now I'm convinced to take
> up bicycling!"
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Amazing how almost every tpoic here eventually morphs into a helmet slugfest of for and against. ;<)

As far as not riding because a law says you have to do something. Well a lot of people don't want to ride a bicycle with brakes either. A lot of people do not want to have to STOP at a stop sign or red light. In short, those who don't want to ride will ALWAYS find some excuse or the other.

BTW, on the weekend I rode through a small city that had some interesting signage. One sign onto a busy main road stated "NO LEFT TURNS - BICYCLES EXCEPTED" and another sign on a one way street said "ONE WAY STREET - BICYCLES EXCEPTED. Thus you have two cases where things that a drive wouldn't expect to see are permitted for bicycle riders and in my opinion that's not very safe for the bicycle rider.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

Interesting study, with weird results. Seemed the group that was just
"occasionally conspicuous" had the lowest crash rate.

"The crash risk was similar across different patterns of using
conspicuity aids except that the ‘ occasionally conspicuous day & night’
group had a lower risk relative to others."

[The groups were these: " 'class one was termed ‘usually conspicuous day
& night’; class two was termed ‘often conspicuous during the day and do
not cycle in the dark’; class three was termed ‘occasionally conspicuous
day & night’; and class four was termed ‘rarely conspicuous during the
day but conspicuous in the dark’."]


And the authors also refer to some other studies with similarly
unexpected results. (Sorry, the footnote numbers won't appear here as
proper superscripts):

" ...this analysis used a composite measure of conspicuity and found no
significant association with the risk of crashes involving a motor
vehicle. Likewise in a previous cohort study involving bicycle commuters
in Portland, using lights in the dark or reflective materials _did not
predict the risk of traumatic events_ (defined as a cycling event
leading to injury). 16 A strong protective effect of fluorescent colours
observed in our earlier (cross-sectional) analysis 15 may be due to
failure to exclude cyclist only crashes.

"Our study is one of very few examining the effect of cyclist
conspicuity on incident crashes, but the design did not allow us to
account for behaviours of involved parties and road and traffic
conditions before the crash. Some case–control studies attempted to
address this issue by measuring cyclists’ acute behaviour including use
of conspicuity aids before a crash. A Canadian study observed that the
risk of collisions with a motor vehicle was _increased_ by wearing
fluorescent clothing but decreased by wearing white or coloured
clothing. 17 Likewise, a UK study reported an _increased_ risk of
collision or evasion crashes by using any item of fluorescent or
reflective material. 18 Additionally, a recent experiment in the UK
reported _little effect_ of fluorescent clothing on drivers’ overtaking
proximities. 32

"Overall, evidence for the effectiveness of conspicuity aids in reducing
bicycle crash risk remains equivocal. Some have argued that cyclists’
misconceptions about their conspicuity and subsequent risk compensation
could play a role in minimising potential benefits. In an Australian
study, cyclists overestimated their night-time visibility and occasional
cyclists were more likely than frequent cyclists to do so. 33,34 There
were also misjudgements on the conspicuity benefits of fluorescent vs.
retroreflective materials at night. If cyclists using conspicuity aids
are confident of being seen, they may be engaged in compensatory
behaviour changes, e.g. cycling in more dangerous circumstances. 18"

[I've underlined some phrases for emphasis.]

--
- Frank Krygowski

[cycl...@gmail.com]

No worries, I do not think you are a paid shill - just deluded..............

Jeff showed himself to be extremely knowledgeable of statistics and noted the chief problem with the study. They did NOT show actual numbers because Reelights could not afford to shell out hundreds of thousands of free lights.

So this study was probably confined to perhaps a thousand and the change in accidents was in fact statistically irrelevant. So taken in pure percentages and presented as if it had meaning it makes for a good sales pitch and gives some undergraduate a paper to write.

[sms]

On 3/20/2017 1:40 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> No worries, I do not think you are a paid shill - just deluded..............

Gee, thanks.

>
> Jeff showed himself to be extremely knowledgeable of statistics and noted the chief problem with the study. They did NOT show actual numbers because Reelights could not afford to shell out hundreds of thousands of free lights.
>
> So this study was probably confined to perhaps a thousand and the change in accidents was in fact statistically irrelevant. So taken in pure percentages and presented as if it had meaning it makes for a good sales pitch and gives some undergraduate a paper to write.

Anytime someone doesn't like the results of a study they try to pick it
apart.

[Frank Krygowski]

So we should instead uncritically accept every promotional "study" that
comes down the pike?

Do you choose your toothpaste based on how much sexier it makes you?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Doug Landau]

> Do you choose your toothpaste based on how much sexier it makes you?

Yes. Without question. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhD2GcXII3Q at 0:40

[John B.]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:08:00 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

I really like your style of rebuttal. First ignore what the other side
says since if included would demonstrate that you don't know what you
are talking about, and next make up some totally ridiculous proposal
and present it as what your opponent argued.

Beautiful work. I applaud you.

Unfortunately it does not conceal the fact that what you stated, "a
comparison of bike lights versus no bike lights", was not what the
Odense study tested, nor was it the results of the study.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The various countries I have visited all seem to have rules and
regulations that argue that a orange and white "checkerboard" flag
flown from vehicles operating on airfields is a good thing. I well
remember that when, as a young Airman stationed in Japan, one could
even ride one's personal motorbike on the airfield if flying such a
flag.

If a checkered flag will "fend off" a big Boeing bomber it should
prove equally effective in deterring a California SUV.

I believe that if the State of California should mandate that every
bicycle operated on the highways of the state must be equipped, and
display, a (lets be reasonable here) a 2 foot square (i.e. 4 square
feet) checkered flag it would immediately result in a substantial
decrease in annual bicycle "accidents" and fatalities.

If ridden at night the flag would obviously have to be illuminated in
some manner but that is just details.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

guerilla ~ a member of an irregular armed force that fights by
sabotage and harassment.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:26:35 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Actually not. The picking is aimed at those who seize on a study and
twist its meaning into something that suits themselves... or even tell
lies about the basis of the test, i.e., "bicycle lights versus no
bicycle lights" to justify their own arguments.

(guerilla ~ a member of an irregular armed force that fights by
sabotage and harassment).
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:26:35 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Anytime someone doesn't like the results of a study they try to pick it
>apart.

Actually, common practice is to first blame someone and then pick
apart the argument. However, I prefer to undermine the study and let
it collapse under its own weight.

If "pick it apart" is an unacceptable method of debating the merits of
a study, what would you consider to be an acceptable method for this
newsgroup? I could use propaganda, various logical fallacies,
anecdotal evidence, my personal feelings, or perhaps fabricate a
contradictory study. Methinks that "pick it apart" is the same as
breaking down the study into individual claims and seeing how each one
holds together under stress.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained how I analyze such studies.
I've done it in this newsgroup at least a dozen times, but have never
really explained how it's done. First, I find the original study.
This is the most difficult part because studies are now hidden behind
pay walls, revised continuously, and "edited for publication" in
different lengths and forms. Once I have the original study, I try to
determine who paid for it. That's because the conclusions and summary
of the study are owned by whomever paid for the study, while the
actual data and calculations are owned by the academics, scientists,
students, and statisticians that ran the study. Often these are
different or even in opposition. I then read the study in as much
detail as I have time available. That's when the differences between
the study and the web page announcing the study become apparent. In
medical studies and surveys, I've seen claims that are quite the
opposite of what the research shows, usually because the claims
support a product or remedy. From this point, my approach varies
depending on what I'm trying to demonstrate, prove, denounce, or
evaluate. Usually, pointing out inconsistencies, gross omissions, and
occasionally math errors is sufficient.

In this case, I have been unable to find the study in either the
original Danish or an English translation. Therefore, I have not read
the original and have had to work with a brief summary from some
unknown report or survey that apparently has been quoted and recycled
extensively. The best I could do is point out that the percentage
cited was meaningless without also disclosing the statistical
population (number of participants in the test). This is hardly "pick
it apart". So, I'll pick at it some more.

One problem with claiming that flashing tail lights reduce accidents
is that there just might not be any correlation between tail lights
and accidents at all. Just because two things correlate (follow the
same trends) does not mean that one causes the other. Some ludicrous
examples:
<http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations>
So, how does one prove that flashing tail lights actually cause a
reduction in accidents and that the 30% drop was not a coincidence?
Well, one way is play the record backwards. Instead of giving out
tail lights, find a group that has been using flashing tail lights for
some time and take away their tail lights. If accidents increase,
then there just might be a connection. Perhaps programming the tail
lights so that they flash at different rates under the assumption that
a faster flashing rate is more visible and therefore safer. I could
dream up a few more tests, but basically the idea is to do things that
test for a connection between flashing tail lights and accidents.

The other part of the problem is that it's very easy to demonstrate
that something is unsafe. All that's needed is one accident. However,
it's impossible prove that anything is safe because there will always
be accidents caused by coincidence or disconnected correlations.

Have I "picked apart" your one liner sufficiently?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:13:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/20/2017 9:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>> Check this out: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/25/3/517/2398658/The-role-of-conspicuity-in-preventing-bicycle
>> Don't ride in Auckland, even with a blinky.

>Interesting study, with weird results. Seemed the group that was just
>"occasionally conspicuous" had the lowest crash rate.

>(...)

I see one problem with the study. There's little correlation between
accident crash rate and being conspicuous. The problem that drives of
vehicles that hit bicyclists almost always proclaim that they didn't
see the bicyclist. That might be because the bicyclist was not easily
visible, but could also be because the driver wasn't paying attention,
was distracted, in desperate need of corrective vision, or was under
the influence of booze, drugs, or passengers. For these drivers no
amount of conspicuous clothing or flashing lights will improve their
driving.

That begs the question of what is the ratio of attentive drivers to
impaired losers? I don't know. If I arbitrarily assign a 50/50
distribution, then I'll probably find that the overwhelming majority
of bicycle crashes are caused by the impaired losers. That means that
visibility has little effect on the conscientious drivers, who will
probably be paying attention to their driving, and little effect on
the impaired losers, who will probably be immune to any improvements
in visibility.

[Tosspot]

On 20/03/17 16:54, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 06:59:40 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
> <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Check this out: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/25/3/517/2398658/The-role-of-conspicuity-in-preventing-bicycle
>> Don't ride in Auckland, even with a blinky.
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>
> 187 accidents among 162 participants in 6.4 years? The carnage in the
> streets must be awful. I would expect all cyclists to be exterminated
> within their expected lifetimes. If I ride for 64 years of my life, I
> would expect to get hit about 10 times.
>
> Maybe bicycle fashion is the problem?
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=dazzle+camouflage+bicycle+jacket&tbm=isch>

They won't hold off a New York SUV, but they may stop you getting
torpedoed by a German submarine :-)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage#/media/File:USS_West_Mahomet_(ID-3681)_cropped.jpg

[sms]

On 3/20/2017 11:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:26:35 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Anytime someone doesn't like the results of a study they try to pick it
>> apart.
>
> Actually, common practice is to first blame someone and then pick
> apart the argument. However, I prefer to undermine the study and let
> it collapse under its own weight.
>
> If "pick it apart" is an unacceptable method of debating the merits of
> a study, what would you consider to be an acceptable method for this
> newsgroup? I could use propaganda, various logical fallacies,
> anecdotal evidence, my personal feelings, or perhaps fabricate a
> contradictory study. Methinks that "pick it apart" is the same as
> breaking down the study into individual claims and seeing how each one
> holds together under stress.

There is a tendency to nitpick little things and then to declare the
entire study as worthless, when in fact, other than perhaps in drug
trials, there is just not going to be a "perfect study." Yet the goal of
the study was to determine if flashing lights were effective, and if so,
use the data to remove a ban on flashing lights. The company that was
involved in the study certainly had a vested interest in the outcome,
but they are only one of a multitude of companies that are benefiting
from the outcome.

Yet we used to often see studies that were almost completely bogus,
touted as proving something. I recall one study on cycling rates
following the imposition of an MHL where those doing the study decided
that they would simply not count a large group of cyclists that passed
by the counting location because they didn't think that they were normal
cycling traffic. That was a study to "prove" that MHLs caused a decrease
in cycling rates.

Yet the Odense study was actually pretty good as far as these things go,
with two control groups so factors other than the presence or absence of
lights cancelled out. And while it was only a 32% reduction in accident
rates, the fact that 85% cyclists "felt safer" is also a positive
outcome if it leads to higher cycling rates. Part of the reason that
cycling rates trend up following the passing of an MHL is probably the
same reason--"oh, if I wear a helmet then I'll be safe."

[cycl...@gmail.com]

If they did not want it picked apart they only had to provide the actual numbers. And they didn't. Why do you suppose that was?

[AMuzi]

I don't know but significance and meaning may vary.

Just read a newspaper headline about a "new drug found 70%
better than aspirin". Of 3600 people over 5 years there were
2.3% heart attacks in the daily aspirin group and 1.6% heart
attacks in the new new group.

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

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 7:42:32 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>
> Unfortunately it does not conceal the fact that what you stated, "a
> comparison of bike lights versus no bike lights", was not what the
> Odense study tested, nor was it the results of the study.

But John, the whole point is that you have NO IDEA what they accomplished with a study that so obviously had such a small study group that they wouldn't even publish the size of it.

You know that in statistical analysis concerning small percentages of injuries and fatalities as bicycle accidents that the study size has to be gigantic to reveal any pertinent information. So why would you pretend differently?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

John, how old are you? I spent four years in the Air Force in five different states and three different countries and never heard of such a requirement. I then spent three years in commercial aviation and never heard of such a thing either.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I have never believed that a small barely visible flashing light on the back of a bike could possibly be more visible that a bright red and yellow jersey. How could it compare to a dayglow green or yellow jacket?

The very idea that a large bike with a large person on it would be invisible unless protected by an LED the size of a pen-head with a lens on top of it to spread the light to the point where it's visible is pretty rediculous.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 11:23:35 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> I see one problem with the study. There's little correlation between
> accident crash rate and being conspicuous. The problem that drives of
> vehicles that hit bicyclists almost always proclaim that they didn't
> see the bicyclist. That might be because the bicyclist was not easily
> visible, but could also be because the driver wasn't paying attention,
> was distracted, in desperate need of corrective vision, or was under
> the influence of booze, drugs, or passengers. For these drivers no
> amount of conspicuous clothing or flashing lights will improve their
> driving.

Let's remember that the most common excuse for a car accident is, "I didn't see him." So why should it be any different for a car-bicycle crash with equal invalidity?

> That begs the question of what is the ratio of attentive drivers to
> impaired losers? I don't know. If I arbitrarily assign a 50/50
> distribution, then I'll probably find that the overwhelming majority
> of bicycle crashes are caused by the impaired losers. That means that
> visibility has little effect on the conscientious drivers, who will
> probably be paying attention to their driving, and little effect on
> the impaired losers, who will probably be immune to any improvements
> in visibility.

I was pulled over by a cop and given a mechanical ticket (out of date tag). How did he pick me out of the lot of San Mateo Bridge traffic? I was the only one driving the speed limit and attentive. This says an awful lot about the attentiveness of the average driver.

[sms]

The numbers are almost certainly there--if you pay for the full study. A
lot of studies are like that. They publish a summary for free, but you
have to pay for the full study. I guess that the thought is that it
would be organizations with a budget for which a few hundred dollars (or
in this case about $40) would not be a big deal.

But in countries where flashing lights are already legal and widely
used, and the benefits well-established, why would anyone pay anything
just to get the raw data?

Yesterday it was cloudy here. I was driving in the morning. Gray cars in
gray conditions don't stand out. But you see cyclists with DRLs coming a
mile away (literally), long before you see any bright clothing. I doubt
if anyone here really believes that on bicycles DRLs (flashing or
steady) are not effective. Just look at motorcycles which have been
required to have a DRL for decades (at least in most states). But an
Australian study stated that using a low beam headlight as a DRL was not
optimal, "Headlights waste energy when used as DRLs because, on low
beam, they are designed to direct most light below the horizontal and
away from the eyes of other road users." In the U.S. the effectiveness
of motorcycle DRLs is estimated at only a 13% reduction in crashes.
However this was before modulated DRLs started to be used.

<https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0178-w.pdf>

[sms]

You do realize how statistical sampling works don't you?

The study had 4000 participants, 2000 with the lights, 2000 without the
lights <https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LvthAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA168>.

This is an _enormous_ sample for a country of that size.

Denmark has about 4 million residents of cycling age. About 55%, or 2.2
million, cycle. The study had 4000 participants, 2000 with lights and
2000 without lights.

This would produce a result with a 2% margin of error and a 99%
confidence level. Even if 100% of those of cycling age cycled, the
sample size needed barely goes up.

Whatever criticism you may have of that particular study, sample size
cannot be one of them!

[Andre Jute]

Is there any research that breaks down conspicuity (`for instance bright clothing) and "active" devices like flashing lamps? It seems to me that, without disagreeing fundamentally with your eminently sensible argument that accidents are caused by the self-impaired losers, that even losers would some of the time catch a strong enough blinky in their peripheral vision, jerk the wheel and slam on the brakes, and perhaps kill themselves before they kill a cyclist.

Andre Jute
Bring back eugenics for dangerous drivers!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:44:21 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Is there any research that breaks down conspicuity (`for instance bright
>clothing) and "active" devices like flashing lamps?

Probably, but I couldn't find much online that would be considered
relevant. There's plenty about the effects of camouflage, which
todays fashions seem to emulate. The problem here is that in order to
obtain statistics on visibility and accidents, the clothing and
illumination of the bicycle rider would need to be documented. To the
best of my limited knowledge, this has not been done. In order to
prove my point that inattentive losers are the drivers that most often
cause car+bicycle accidents, the mental state of the driver would need
to be determined. Since that is most often volunteered by the driver
involved, the data would inconclusive. About all I can add to my
contention is that of the 3 local bicycle riders that were killed on
the highway, all died as a result of a drunk driver.

>It seems to me that,
>without disagreeing fundamentally with your eminently sensible argument
>that accidents are caused by the self-impaired losers, that even losers
>would some of the time catch a strong enough blinky in their peripheral
>vision, jerk the wheel and slam on the brakes, and perhaps kill themselves
>before they kill a cyclist.

Based on my personal experience as a rather marginal driver, I would
guess(tm) that the collision would be over well before the inattentive
driver even realized that he had just run over or hit a cyclist. The
local bums and transient tend to ride their bicycles without much
concern about getting hit by vehicles. The bums expect car drivers to
do something radical in order to accommodate their erratic riding
style. This has happened to me several times while simply exiting the
driveway from my office at very low speeds. I would come very close
to hitting one of these black clad and unlit cyclists, which required
me slamming on my car brakes and coming to a panic stop. If the
timing had been only slightly different, I would have hit the rider,
and only then realized what had happened. If that's the case (as I
contend) with many accidents, enhanced lighting or clothing would do
nothing because the driver literally has not seen the cyclist BEFORE
the accident.

However, your contention that an inattentive driver might be brought
out of their slumber by the use of attention getting devices such as
flashing lights, flare guns, loud noises, concussion grenades, etc
seems possible for some circumstances. If the driver is drugged,
drunk, or otherwise running on reduced capacity, I would guess that
the accident would be over before they respond to such stimuli. If
the driver is sleepy, then response time is slowed, but at least
there's a chance of getting their attention. If they're distracted by
a cell phone conversation, it takes time for them to change context
and analyze the situation. In other words, I think it's possible, but
unlikely for a driver to react sufficiently quickly.

But, what about riding down the road with a flashing light that could
be seen for miles? Wouldn't that get a drivers attention long before
they need to react? I don't think so. People tend to follow set
patterns. In this case, drivers know what to expect on the road. For
example, I got hit by a dentist in his Pontiac while I was riding on
the wrong side of the road. He was operating at full capacity, yet
didn't see me because he didn't expect to see anything in the wrong
way bike lane. It's much the same with blinking lights on bicycles.
Drivers do not expect to see these which causes the driver to make
them disappear until it's too late. At best, they might take extra
time to identify this unusual and strange flashing apparition, which
only increases their reaction time.

[John B.]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:21:55 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Nope.

The facts are:

According to the Bicycling Embassy of Denmark, 9 out of 10 Danes own
bicycles, while only 40% own cars. 17% of all trips are by bicycle and
20% of all commuters travel by bicycle, on the average, Danes cycle
1.5 km a day, 44 % of all children aged 10-16 cycle to school.

The population of Odense is some 175,245 and:
31% of all people visiting the city center of Odense arrive by
bicycle.
Bicycle traffic constitutes 24% of all traffic.
Odense has more than 545 km cycle lanes.

There are some 26,000 students in Odense University, and if the same
parentage of collage students cycle as does the 10 - 16 age group
there are 11,000 cyclists in the University, of whom, apparently, some
36% participated in the study.

In short a country where bicycling is not only an accepted form of
transportation but a very, very, commonly used form of travel.

Given that from what I read Reelight gave a set of lights to each of
the 2,000, "with permanently on light" participants in the study I
don't find the numbers to be especially astonishing.

Another point. All bicycles in Denmark ridden after dark must, by law,
be equipped with a white headlight and a red rear light. Failure to
comply with this law results in a 700 Kroner fine. Given the heavy use
in Denmark I would suggest that all, or nearly all bicycles are
equipped with lights.

As far as I can tell 700 DKK is about 20% of the average monthly
salary.

>This would produce a result with a 2% margin of error and a 99%
>confidence level. Even if 100% of those of cycling age cycled, the
>sample size needed barely goes up.
>
>Whatever criticism you may have of that particular study, sample size
>cannot be one of them!

I see nothing wrong with the study. The objection was the definition
of it as a study of bicycles with lights and those without lights.
Which was.... just not true at all.

Now, I see, the story has been changed and the lights/no lights story
has morphed into a whole new story.

Very adroit footwork I must say.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 23:37:08 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/20/2017 11:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:26:35 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Anytime someone doesn't like the results of a study they try to pick it
>>> apart.
>>
>> Actually, common practice is to first blame someone and then pick
>> apart the argument. However, I prefer to undermine the study and let
>> it collapse under its own weight.
>>
>> If "pick it apart" is an unacceptable method of debating the merits of
>> a study, what would you consider to be an acceptable method for this
>> newsgroup? I could use propaganda, various logical fallacies,
>> anecdotal evidence, my personal feelings, or perhaps fabricate a
>> contradictory study. Methinks that "pick it apart" is the same as
>> breaking down the study into individual claims and seeing how each one
>> holds together under stress.

>There is a tendency to nitpick little things and then to declare the
>entire study as worthless, when in fact, other than perhaps in drug
>trials, there is just not going to be a "perfect study." Yet the goal of
>the study was to determine if flashing lights were effective, and if so,
>use the data to remove a ban on flashing lights. The company that was
>involved in the study certainly had a vested interest in the outcome,
>but they are only one of a multitude of companies that are benefiting
>from the outcome.

(...)

You ignored my question. If "pick it apart" is an unacceptable method
of discussing the merits of a study, what is an acceptable method?
Picking at the details while ignoring the main points is common
enough. You are doing it right here in this discussion. My main
point was that there is no proof that a correlation between bicycle
crashes and flashing lights constitutes causation. You ignored that
and went on to deal with the trivia.

Let me propose a method, extracted from my previous rant, which I use:
1. Go to the original source. Avoid summary or survey sources.
2. Find what person or organization is paying for the study. That
often reveals a hidden agenda.
3. Compare the abstract and summery in the report with the actual
data. Often, they're quite different.
4. Look for inconsistencies, dubious sources, "normalization",
pre-selection of participants, and statistical creativity.

All this is certainly "pick it apart" methodology. Oddly, I can't
find a better way to deal with a study or report.

You also seem to ignoring the not so trivial problem that we *ALL* are
discussing the issue without access to the original report and numbers
from the trial. I would like to see the number of accidents with and
without the flashing lights, the methodology, and how the numbers were
produced before blundering further with my guesswork.

[Frank Krygowski]

Good example. I've mentioned this before, but that specific point is
treated in great detail in the book _Bad Science_ by Ben Goldacre. He
says both researchers pushing either the drug or their own publication
invariably use the "70% better" line; but most medical issues (and, I'll
add, "bike safety" issues) involve rare events. It's MUCH better to
give the actual percentages.

Or even better, what Goldacre calls the "natural frequencies" - out of
10,000 people, how many will get heart attacks while using aspirin? How
many while using the new drug?

In Scharf's case: Out of 10,000 bike commuters, how many will be hit
while using no daytime lights? How many while using the advertised
light that was given away to promote the study?

The difference is probably very, very small.



--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/21/2017 11:25 AM, sms wrote:
> On 3/21/2017 7:24 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> If they did not want it picked apart they only had to provide the
>> actual numbers. And they didn't. Why do you suppose that was?
>
> The numbers are almost certainly there--if you pay for the full study. A
> lot of studies are like that. They publish a summary for free, but you
> have to pay for the full study. I guess that the thought is that it
> would be organizations with a budget for which a few hundred dollars (or
> in this case about $40) would not be a big deal.
>
> But in countries where flashing lights are already legal and widely
> used, and the benefits well-established, why would anyone pay anything
> just to get the raw data?
>
> Yesterday it was cloudy here. I was driving in the morning. Gray cars in
> gray conditions don't stand out. But you see cyclists with DRLs coming a
> mile away (literally), long before you see any bright clothing. I doubt
> if anyone here really believes that on bicycles DRLs (flashing or
> steady) are not effective. Just look at motorcycles which have been
> required to have a DRL for decades (at least in most states).

The _very_ significant difference between bikes and motorcycles is the
typical speed. The closing speed between a motorcycle and an oncomoing
car can easily be 120 mph. That closing speed is vanishingly rare for a
cyclist.

What that means is that in situations where there actually is some risk
of colliding - say, a left cross situation - the motorcyclist can be
hundreds of yards away and thus almost invisible. The bicyclist's body
and bike are much closer and much more visible than the motorcyclist's.

It's true that gutter riders are less conspicuous in left cross and
pull-out situations. But that should be solvable by cyclist education.
Those (like me) who typically ride in more visible lane positions just
don't have the dozens of close calls you frequently allude to. (I had
precisely one, in about 1977, and it taught me to stay out of the gutter.)

BTW, my wife and I made one of our frequent long drives home today. On
a two lane highway, I saw a cyclist coming toward us with a front
blinking DRL. Even if I did notice the light before the cyclist himself
(I doubt it, but it's hard to say), I thought "What's the point?" He
was in a bike lane on the other side of the road in a place with no
intersections for about a mile; and I would have seen him easily if I
did have to turn across his path, just as I've seen hundreds of daytime
cyclists without DRLs in the past.

Of course, he may have had a St. Christopher's medal. That may have
been what really made me notice him. ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/21/2017 10:49 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I was pulled over by a cop and given a mechanical ticket (out of date tag). How did he pick me out of the lot of San Mateo Bridge traffic? I was the only one driving the speed limit and attentive. This says an awful lot about the attentiveness of the average driver.

I don't mean to disagree with the reason the cop paid attention to you.
But I'll raise another possibility.

As I understand it, many (perhaps most?) cop cars these days have
equipment that reads the license plate and tells the cop if there is a
problem associated with it. The problems can be anything from expired
plate to warrant for arrest and beyond. Maybe you were in a database
that the cop's computer accessed.

The scary thing about this relatively new development is that last I
heard, in some states the results of "plate reading" systems are public
record. That means a potential burglar can demand to see every time
your plate has been detected and where; and from that, perhaps learn
when your house is guaranteed to be empty. Or an ex-spouse can track a
former spouse's car and use the data for stalking or other nefarious
purposes. It really does smack of "big brother" or worse.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:53:38 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:
> I know how some people dislike any statements that are based on actual
> facts, but the data are pretty clear.
>
> See: <https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LvthAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA168>
>
> It was interesting that in the Odense study, conducted by Reelight,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Odense Cycle City and the University of Aalborg, accident rates went
> down by 32% with the use of daytime lights, but a cyclist's "sense of
> security" went up by 85%!

It's funny how often research just happens to find what the person
paying for the research would like it to find (unless you're a
Republican politician paying for climate change research).

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if daytime flashing lights did have a
net positive effect on rider safety. Seems to me the problems with
those are when they are a rider's only light at night.

My car has daytime running lights set to be on by default. Motorcycles
have headlights on when riding during the day or night by law here. The
research on DRLs is not especially consistent but seems net positive,
sometimes barely so and sometimes significantly so:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TRS/2011/TRS1009.pdf

"The most recent large-scale study on this topic conducted in the United
States is a 2008 NHTSA study that found that DRLs had no statistically
significant effects on the types of crashes studied, except for a 5.7
percent reduction in the involvement of light trucks/vans in two-vehicle
crashes. A 2004 NHTSA study that used different analysis methodology
found that DRLs reduced opposite-direction fatal crashes by 5 percent
and opposite-direction/angle non-fatal crashes by 5 percent. That study
also found a 12 percent reduction in crashes involving pedestrians and
bicyclists, and a 23 percent reduction in opposite-direction crashes
involving motorcyclists."

Of at least some interest to us, there may be some evidence that DRLs on
cars might reduce your chances of getting killed in a collision with
one. None of the studies cited seem to have tried DRLs on bicycles.

But the article also points out that methodology has an effect on the
existence, direction and magnitude of any particular outcome. A
seemingly large result with one methodology might not be statistically
significant with another.

[John B.]

5On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:54:43 -0500, Tim McNamara

There are innumerable;e studies of the effect of various warning
devices for aircraft viability. highway warning systems, lighting for
ships, and so on that spell such mundane subjects as optimum flash
rate, minimum effective light brightness and so on.

As an example, International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea 1972 (Colregs), states that a masthead (white) light must be
visible at 6 miles for a vessel of more than 50 meters, from 50 - 12 M
for 3 miles and for a vessel less than 12 M for 2 miles. the red an
green side lights for 3, 2 and 1 miles.

I have never seen such specifications for bicycles. Rather I read
"Ooooo this is a really bright light. It has got to be safe"

I did see, once, a really bright bicycle light. It was about 08:00
(sun up about 05:00) and I was riding on a road with little traffic.
This incredibly bright light came over a hill, perhaps a kilometer
ahead of me. I actually could saw the light before I could see what it
was mounted on. When we finally passed each other I could see that
this guy had a black tube, about a foot and a half long, mounted on
his handle bars. I think he had a six cell mag-light clamped on his
bike, but as I didn't stop to talk with him I can't be sure. But it
sure was bright.

But I don't see six cell mag-lights being suggested for bicycles :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:55:46 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

There is some information available, although not much. Reelight
apparently donated some 2,000 fore and aft flashing permanently
mounted and, essentially, always on lights for the study. The study
was in Denmark where I would guess that all, or nearly all, bicycles
are equipped with conventional lights as I have read that if one is
caught riding after dark the fine is a rather substantial amount -
perhaps a week's pay if my figures were correct, and in fact in one of
the reports it was stated that the test was between bicycles with a
permanently mounted and always on flashing light and bicycles equipped
with "conventional bicycle lights"

The results of the study was stated to be that the law covering
bicycle lighting was changed to allow flashing lights to be used.

(Hey Mister! Want to participate in this study? Well give you this
thing and all you have to do is fill out this report each week)

As an aside I might also mention that a good friend (now deceased)
owned a company that did financial analysis and the majority of the
studies he did were for companies that were investigating the
possibility of entering a specific market.

Surveys were a major factor in many, maybe most, of his market studies
and I remember him once stating he "could design a survey to prove
anything that the client required".

--
Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

On 3/21/2017 7:54 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:53:38 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>> I know how some people dislike any statements that are based on actual
>> facts, but the data are pretty clear.
>>
>> See: <https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LvthAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA168>
>>
>> It was interesting that in the Odense study, conducted by Reelight,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Odense Cycle City and the University of Aalborg, accident rates went
>> down by 32% with the use of daytime lights, but a cyclist's "sense of
>> security" went up by 85%!
>
> It's funny how often research just happens to find what the person
> paying for the research would like it to find (unless you're a
> Republican politician paying for climate change research).

You can understand the frustration of companies designing and producing
a product when there is a really stupid law that prevents them from
selling their product in some countries. It was pretty smart to actually
get with a university to do a well-designed study rather than just
lobbying the government without any data at all.

Reelight may have supplied the 2000 lights used in the study, but the
benefit of the law banning flashing lights being overturned benefits all
cyclists and many companies; Reelight is just a bit player in the
bicycle lighting business.

[sms]

1. Attack the statistical sample.
2. Attack the methodology.
3. Attack the premise.

Alas it's not possible to do any of those three with the Odense study. A
huge sample, a sound methodology, and a provable premise.

You can't even claim "risk compensation."

[jbeattie]

However, it is amazing to me that a little flea-watt light makes such a dramatic difference. I frequently encounter people with Knog Frogs and various blinkies that I don't notice until long after seeing the rider. Like John B, I've encountered riders with lights so bright that I see them before the rider, but those are rare cases -- as they should be. Riders should not be mistaken for BNSF locomotives. I want to slap those people.

As I understand it, the bicycle mode share in Odense is around 24%. There are lots of cyclists. One wonders why the addition of little flea-watt lights would make the flocks of cyclists more visible during the day. Not saying it ain't so, but it just seems odd. This is a bike commute in Portland: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7613/26749158621_c46661f837_z.jpg Gee, I didn't see those ten-thousand riders without lights, officer!

-- Jay Beattie.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:56:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>There is some information available, although not much. Reelight
>apparently donated some 2,000 fore and aft flashing permanently
>mounted and, essentially, always on lights for the study. The study
>was in Denmark where I would guess that all, or nearly all, bicycles
>are equipped with conventional lights as I have read that if one is
>caught riding after dark the fine is a rather substantial amount -
>perhaps a week's pay if my figures were correct, and in fact in one of
>the reports it was stated that the test was between bicycles with a
>permanently mounted and always on flashing light and bicycles equipped
>with "conventional bicycle lights"

So, the participants were expected to REMOVE their conventional
lighting system and replace it with a Reelight model? Or did they
leave both of them connected?

>The results of the study was stated to be that the law covering
>bicycle lighting was changed to allow flashing lights to be used.

That's probably true, as it provides a sales incentive. It also
explains why they ran the test in Denmark, where bicycles are very
common. I doubt that the Danish rule makers would accept a similar
study performed in another country as the basis for changing their
rules.

>As an aside I might also mention that a good friend (now deceased)
>owned a company that did financial analysis and the majority of the
>studies he did were for companies that were investigating the
>possibility of entering a specific market.
>
>Surveys were a major factor in many, maybe most, of his market studies
>and I remember him once stating he "could design a survey to prove
>anything that the client required".

Agreed. I used to work in the advertising and market research sector.
I've also been involved in writing "customer satisfaction" surveys.
Most such surveys have nothing to do with the alleged topic. It's not
unusual to ask questions about unrelated products, buying habits,
driving habits, spending habits, mileage traveled, discretionary cash
available, etc. For example, the survey could be structured asking
indirectly if you bicycle commute, would you consider buying an
ADDITIONAL tail light for your machine(s). Here's one way how it's
done:

[Q] If this daytime flashing light saved your life, would you
consider purchasing one for all your bicycles?

Notice that the question assumes that the flashing light works and
will save lives. That would be followed by a few similar questions,
all assuming that the device works and saves lives. The last question
would be:

[Q] Do you believe the world would be a better place if everyone used
daytime flashing lights on their bicycles?

Most participants will automatically say yes because that's the
expected and "correct" answer. Then, the marketing people can say
"Almost everyone who took the survey would probably purchase a daytime
flashing bicycle light and will recommend it to all their friends".
Never mind that there's a big difference between "used" and "buy" and
that the entire survey assumes that the device works as expected.

Hint: Such survey questions are invariably answered by participants
in top down order. The first few questions involve the greatest
amount of considered thought by the participant. By the time they get
down to the last few questions, they are tired, bored, in a hurry, and
not really thinking clearly. Their resistance to suggestion is then
at its lowest. So, the really important questions are asked last.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:17:38 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>> You ignored my question. If "pick it apart" is an unacceptable method
>> of discussing the merits of a study, what is an acceptable method?
>
>1. Attack the statistical sample.
>2. Attack the methodology.
>3. Attack the premise.

Very good. Please add:
4. Attack the data, if there was any manipulation.
5. Attack the conclusions, if they do not relate to the data.
6. Attack the presentation, if it is structured to confuse.
7. Attack the researchers, if they have an obvious agenda.
8. Attack the publisher, if they edited the report to be "suitable
for publication".
9. Attack the reader, if they are not expected to understand the
report.
10. Attack the author, if present himself as an expert, but without
sufficient qualifications.
11. Attach the sponsor, if there is any potential conflict of
interest.
12. Attack the references, if they are irrelevant, as most are.
13. Attack those not involved in the study, if their involvement would
have improved the accuracy and validity. If that's not available,
accuse the non-involved of sabotaging the study or influencing the
participants.

With these additions, I would suspect that all this constitutes "pick
it apart" and does not constitute an alternative method of argument.
Might as well be blunt... there is no other way to properly debate a
study other than taking it apart, seeing how it ticks, and debunking
everything available, point by point. The other available techniques,
such as propaganda, brainwashing, subliminals, and pontification, are
not really valid methods of debate and discussion.

>Alas it's not possible to do any of those three with the Odense study.

Correct. Since the study is not available, YOU cannot claim that it's
valid, authoritative, or even useful from just a summary or extract.
One needs the original study in order to make claims.

>A huge sample, a sound methodology, and a provable premise.

Huh? You just declared that it's not possible to analyze the report
and now you repeat your claims. I can do that too. Suppose I write a
report on my study of bicycle sales and declare that at the present
rate of cycling acceptance, everyone on the planet will soon own and
ride a bicycle. I then lock the study behind a pay wall and produce a
summary or abstract that declares that 50% more LBS owners believe
that bicycle production will soon flood the planet. You would have no
clue as to the size of my LBS shop owner sample, how I came to my
conclusion, and what I've done to prove it. Your claims that the
flashing light reduced crashes by 30% is much the same as my claim.

>You can't even claim "risk compensation."

Huh? I don't understand.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/22/2017 8:15 AM, sms wrote:
>
>
> Reelight may have supplied the 2000 lights used in the study, but the
> benefit of the law banning flashing lights being overturned benefits all

> cyclists ...

IF a significant benefit actually exists. I don't believe that has been
proven.

> ... and many companies...

Well, of course, any propaganda that leads people to buy products is
good for the companies! (And also for the guerilla marketers!)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:34:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I think he had a six cell mag-light clamped on his
>bike, but as I didn't stop to talk with him I can't be sure. But it
>sure was bright.
>
>But I don't see six cell mag-lights being suggested for bicycles :-)

No problem:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/bicycle-flashlight.html>

[cycl...@gmail.com]

No offense but what leads you to believe that if you're so far away you can't see bright clothing that you need to be seen with a flashing light?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 8:25:43 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:

The only hard numbers I can find for bicyclist deaths is 117 in Norway in 2015. So in Sweden with Zero Vision is couldn't be more than half of that.

One other number that I discovered was Norway had 2.2 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants.

This would have a test group of .044 deaths. For a ten year test that would STILL give you a death rate of only a half person for the test group.

So can you explain to me how you could get ANY serious statistics from that?

[sms]

On 3/22/2017 7:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> However, it is amazing to me that a little flea-watt light makes such a dramatic difference.

True. Just think how much of a difference a more powerful light would make.

[sms]

On 3/22/2017 9:38 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:34:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think he had a six cell mag-light clamped on his
>> bike, but as I didn't stop to talk with him I can't be sure. But it
>> sure was bright.
>>
>> But I don't see six cell mag-lights being suggested for bicycles :-)
>
> No problem:
> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/bicycle-flashlight.html>

You've been posting the link to that photo for years.

At least order one of these: <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000AO3H24> or
build one of these <http://nordicgroup.us/s78/images/IMG_0303.JPG>.

Bungie cords are unacceptable.

[John B.]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:51:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:56:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>There is some information available, although not much. Reelight
>>apparently donated some 2,000 fore and aft flashing permanently
>>mounted and, essentially, always on lights for the study. The study
>>was in Denmark where I would guess that all, or nearly all, bicycles
>>are equipped with conventional lights as I have read that if one is
>>caught riding after dark the fine is a rather substantial amount -
>>perhaps a week's pay if my figures were correct, and in fact in one of
>>the reports it was stated that the test was between bicycles with a
>>permanently mounted and always on flashing light and bicycles equipped
>>with "conventional bicycle lights"
>
>So, the participants were expected to REMOVE their conventional
>lighting system and replace it with a Reelight model? Or did they
>leave both of them connected?

Nope. the Reelight SL-100's mount on the axle or skewer end and are
powered by two magnets attached to the spokes. If there were
conventional lights installed there is no need to remove them. The SL
100 is stated to: emit 29,000 mcd (microcandela's ( a unit for
measuring light) from the front light and 10,000 from the rear light.

Note: the SL100's can be bought as a set with a white front light and
a red rear

See:
https://www.reelight.com/en/products/sl100/sl100/sl100-flash-compact-front-light/
https://www.reelight.com/en/faq/

Years ago I found a book in a used book shop that purported to be a
study on Thai social customs. It was quite obviously someone's
dissertation, although hopefully not for a PhD degree.

The author had never visited Thailand prior to the survey. He could
not speak the language and depended on a translator. He knew nothing
about the Buddhist religion as practiced in Thailand and the village
he surveyed had been used in a number of previous surveys.

He asked questions such as "If someone steals your water buffalo what
would you do?" The answer he used in his analysis was, "Nothing. The
thief probably needs it more that I do."

Another question was, "If you discovered that your wife was sleeping
with another man what would you do?" The answer, "I would forgive
her."

Now based on Buddhist morality these are nearly perfect answers but
based on the years I have lived in the country the real answers would
have been:

"I would get my shotgun and shoot that thieving SOB" and "I'd beat her
until she couldn't walk and take her back to her mother and get the
Sin Sod (bride price) back."

As the dissertation was published it is probable that it was
acceptable to the school but I've always wondered what sort of a grade
it resulted in?

(As an aside, I also wonder how much of U.S. foreign policy is based
on similar information :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Easy question. All of it, of course.

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

[John B.]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:38:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:34:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I think he had a six cell mag-light clamped on his
>>bike, but as I didn't stop to talk with him I can't be sure. But it
>>sure was bright.
>>
>>But I don't see six cell mag-lights being suggested for bicycles :-)
>
>No problem:
><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/bicycle-flashlight.html>

But that is a tiny little 4 cell light. Get the Real Man's 6 cell and
see how that works :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:55:00 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/22/2017 9:38 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:34:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think he had a six cell mag-light clamped on his
>>> bike, but as I didn't stop to talk with him I can't be sure. But it
>>> sure was bright.
>>>
>>> But I don't see six cell mag-lights being suggested for bicycles :-)
>>
>> No problem:
>> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/bicycle-flashlight.html>

>You've been posting the link to that photo for years.

The EXIF info for the picture (click the little camera icon to the
upper right of the photo) says Jan 2011. So, that would be about 6
years. To avoid complaints about posting repetitious links, I change
the URL from the original:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/bicycle-flashlight.html>
When I wear out the new URL, I'll probably switch to:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/bicycle-flashlight.jpg>
or:
<http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/bicycle-flashlight.jpg>
When your patience with those links expire, I have a variety of other
domains available.

>At least order one of these: <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000AO3H24> or
>build one of these <http://nordicgroup.us/s78/images/IMG_0303.JPG>.

The Wald flashlight holder implies that the arrangement might be
permanent, which would not be the case. It's not very useful since
there is no way to adjust the flashlight position.

Your flashlight holder contrivance is clever and probably woth
considering because none of the infamous Santa Cruz bicycle component
thieves would consider removing it for resale. Were I to design and
build such a contrivance, it would be based on a DIN rail mounted
across the handlebars, with a variety of optional attachments
(flashlight, switching, charge controller, horn, bell, evidence
camera, smartphone, GPS, radar, ultrasonic vehicle passing distance
measure, paintball canon, etc).
<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=din+rail+mounting+clip>
I already have most of the DIN rail parts and have just received some
of the cheap eBay flashlights. The plan is to attach 5 or 7
flashlights across the DIN rail, each aimed individually and powered
by 14500 or 18650 batteries. While there are theoretical arguments
that suggest that this approach might be a dumb idea, I want to see
for myself. If it works, I'll upgrade to a MegaLumen photon torpedo
system for the Kickstarter version.

>Bungie cords are unacceptable.

Bungie cords were all I had available at the time. My regular
headlight was lost or stolen, and all I could find was my big heavy
Maglite. I use Bungie cords to secure my junk to the rear rack, so a
repurposed them as a flashlight mount. What it lacked in stability,
aiming accuracy, aesthetics, and sex appeal, the Bungie bicycle
headlight mount (patent pending) was quite adequate to safely
transport me across town after dark.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:49:51 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:38:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:34:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I think he had a six cell mag-light clamped on his
>>>bike, but as I didn't stop to talk with him I can't be sure. But it
>>>sure was bright.
>>>
>>>But I don't see six cell mag-lights being suggested for bicycles :-)
>>
>>No problem:
>><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/bicycle-flashlight.html>

>But that is a tiny little 4 cell light. Get the Real Man's 6 cell and
>see how that works :-)

The 4D Maglite was all that I had available at the time. I would
probably have used a 6D Maglite, but all of mine need some work.
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/maglites.jpg>
I'll probably end up donating these to a local thrift shop. There
were several large Maglites at their store available for sale for $6
and $8 that sat around without buyers for about 2 months. I got the
clue. Nobody wants them, even with the LED bulb conversion.

[Tim McNamara]

LOL. Wait...

And much of our domestic policies are also based on assumptions and
beliefs that have little to nothing to do with reality.

[John B.]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:58:35 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:49:51 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:38:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:34:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think he had a six cell mag-light clamped on his
>>>>bike, but as I didn't stop to talk with him I can't be sure. But it
>>>>sure was bright.
>>>>
>>>>But I don't see six cell mag-lights being suggested for bicycles :-)
>>>
>>>No problem:
>>><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/bicycle-flashlight.html>
>
>>But that is a tiny little 4 cell light. Get the Real Man's 6 cell and
>>see how that works :-)
>
>The 4D Maglite was all that I had available at the time. I would
>probably have used a 6D Maglite, but all of mine need some work.
><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/maglites.jpg>
>I'll probably end up donating these to a local thrift shop. There
>were several large Maglites at their store available for sale for $6
>and $8 that sat around without buyers for about 2 months. I got the
>clue. Nobody wants them, even with the LED bulb conversion.

Not on a 3 or 4 thousand dollar, super light, carbon bicycle anyway

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:31:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>The 4D Maglite was all that I had available at the time. I would
>>probably have used a 6D Maglite, but all of mine need some work.
>><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/maglites.jpg>
>>I'll probably end up donating these to a local thrift shop. There
>>were several large Maglites at their store available for sale for $6
>>and $8 that sat around without buyers for about 2 months. I got the
>>clue. Nobody wants them, even with the LED bulb conversion.

>Not on a 3 or 4 thousand dollar, super light, carbon bicycle anyway
>:-)

I was wondering if anyone made a carbon fiber (CF) bicycle light for
such machines:
<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=carbon+fiber+bicycle+light>
Apparently, nobody does. So, I asked myself why not? My best
guess(tm) is that CF bicycle riders are into saving every milligram of
weight. The added weight of ANY bicycle light or similar accessory,
would be seen as heresy by those practicing the religion of building
and riding ultra-light bicycles.

Drivel:
2AM and still waiting for my Samsung S6 phone to reload everything
from cloud after a failed update to 6.0.1. I can barely think, but
that won't stop me from writing.

[John B.]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 01:52:19 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:31:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>The 4D Maglite was all that I had available at the time. I would
>>>probably have used a 6D Maglite, but all of mine need some work.
>>><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/maglites.jpg>
>>>I'll probably end up donating these to a local thrift shop. There
>>>were several large Maglites at their store available for sale for $6
>>>and $8 that sat around without buyers for about 2 months. I got the
>>>clue. Nobody wants them, even with the LED bulb conversion.
>
>>Not on a 3 or 4 thousand dollar, super light, carbon bicycle anyway
>>:-)
>
>I was wondering if anyone made a carbon fiber (CF) bicycle light for
>such machines:
><https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=carbon+fiber+bicycle+light>
>Apparently, nobody does. So, I asked myself why not? My best
>guess(tm) is that CF bicycle riders are into saving every milligram of
>weight. The added weight of ANY bicycle light or similar accessory,
>would be seen as heresy by those practicing the religion of building
>and riding ultra-light bicycles.
>

You are getting into the realm of the Weight Weenies. The weight
everything and then drill holes in it crowd. Funny thing it was nearly
a religion and now they tell you that just because your wheels are
heavier then ever if they are streamlined they say they are better.

>Drivel:
>2AM and still waiting for my Samsung S6 phone to reload everything
>from cloud after a failed update to 6.0.1. I can barely think, but
>that won't stop me from writing.

I just bought a new phone, Samsung J2 with 6.0.1. I do not find the
latest Android to be that wonderful. they seem to have stream-lined it
to the point that you can't accomplish what you want to do.

I usually backup my "contacts" list to my gmail account. With 6.0 I
can't figure out how that is done and if you disable the Facebook App
the phone stops working :-( When you try to turn it on it pops up a
warning "Facebook has stopped" and goes no further.

It demonstrates the deterioration of modern America. Kids used to be
able to buy a "Chemistry Set" that contained enough stuff to make
nitro glycerin. Now you can't buy a telephone that you can control :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

+1
On this we can agree.

[AMuzi]

Our common expression is, "They improved it until it didn't
work."


Nitro glycerin? You had some deluxe version I suppose. We
could only manage nitrogen triiodide.

[John B.]

Nope, nitro-glycerin although we had to get the glycerin from my
mate's mom's kitchen.

We did our experiments in the cellar under his home and we poured the
results into used 30-06 cartridge cases put them in our pockets and
bicycled out to an unused quarry and threw them against rocks. And!
One actually exploded.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:20:50 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You are getting into the realm of the Weight Weenies. The weight
>everything and then drill holes in it crowd. Funny thing it was nearly
>a religion and now they tell you that just because your wheels are
>heavier then ever if they are streamlined they say they are better.

I'm just trying to deduce or guess why there are no CF bicycle lights.
I can get most everything else in CF but not lights. If the industry
can produce CF water bottle cages, helmets, and bicycle pumps, why not
lights?

>I just bought a new phone, Samsung J2 with 6.0.1. I do not find the
>latest Android to be that wonderful. they seem to have stream-lined it
>to the point that you can't accomplish what you want to do.

We shall soon see. I've noticed some things missing but also some
useful stuff added. It's difficult to tell at this point if I have a
winner or a pile of bugs.

>I usually backup my "contacts" list to my gmail account. With 6.0 I
>can't figure out how that is done and if you disable the Facebook App
>the phone stops working :-( When you try to turn it on it pops up a
>warning "Facebook has stopped" and goes no further.

Ummm, try Google Takeout:
<https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout>
<https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3024190>
I just ran it and downloaded 123MBytes of compress whatever. It's a
bit on the large side because I have some Google music and videos
tossed into the mix. It seems to get everything. In the past, it
would show the size of each archive before downloading. Now, you have
to download before it offers any useful numbers. However, after
midnight, things never go smoothly. I forgot about takeout and didn't
run it before last nights upgrade. I lost all my downloaded maps. Oh
well.

>It demonstrates the deterioration of modern America. Kids used to be
>able to buy a "Chemistry Set" that contained enough stuff to make
>nitro glycerin. Now you can't buy a telephone that you can control :-)

Well, there's some truth to that. When I took High Skool chemistry in
the early 1960's, there was everything needed to fabricate a small
bomb factory. I waited until college before actually doing that.
Today, students get colored liquids instead of chemicals, which are
useless for making anything really dangerous. Learn By Destroying is
a thing of the past.

Hint: I still carry an old LG VX8300 dumb cell phone for making phone
calls. The battery lasts several days. It's totally reliable and has
much better range than my various smartphones. The smartphone acts as
a PDA (personal digital accomplice) where the phone section is not
activated. 5 cents per minute (about $15/month) for the voice only
plan. Cheep.

[Andre Jute]

We didn't have a chemistry kit (remind you someday to tell you the heartbreaking story of how I walked the 300 miles to my first university to take up my scholarship, my boots around my neck to save the soles) but there were always sticks of dynamite lying around, left over from blowing holes in the mountain to hide the still from the revenuers. You take a frying pan and put it over the fire. Place the stick of dynamite in the pan. It's quite safe. Drops of jelly will sweat out of the dynamite. That's nitro. It's not safe. Brush the drops of jelly carefully into a bottle, holding the bottle sideways so the drops don't splash too hard. When you have enough in the bottle, stand well back and throw the bottle against a tree, then run like hell, because the top of that tree is coming for you. Or, if you're hungry, or alligators are bothering you, lower the bottle carefully into the water of a river or a lake or even a swamp, and from well back throw in a rock, then collect dead fish and alligators. -- AJ

[John B.]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:35:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:20:50 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You are getting into the realm of the Weight Weenies. The weight
>>everything and then drill holes in it crowd. Funny thing it was nearly
>>a religion and now they tell you that just because your wheels are
>>heavier then ever if they are streamlined they say they are better.
>
>I'm just trying to deduce or guess why there are no CF bicycle lights.
>I can get most everything else in CF but not lights. If the industry
>can produce CF water bottle cages, helmets, and bicycle pumps, why not
>lights?

I suspect it is that thing called "demand". Practically every bike I
see has a bottle cage on it and far less often do I see a light.

But I suspect that with a intensive SAFEYTY! program it might be
possible to change that.

Calcium Carbide is also quite useful as a fishing tool. A screw top
bottle or can, a bit of calcium carbide and a rock. Put the rock and
the carbide in the bottle/can, add the cap, after punching a tiny nail
hole in it, and drop in the lake. After a few minutes fish will start
to float by. Belly up.

>Hint: I still carry an old LG VX8300 dumb cell phone for making phone
>calls. The battery lasts several days. It's totally reliable and has
>much better range than my various smartphones. The smartphone acts as
>a PDA (personal digital accomplice) where the phone section is not
>activated. 5 cents per minute (about $15/month) for the voice only
>plan. Cheep.

We have a "pre-paid" option here where you buy a prepaid sim card
which can then be "topped up" when the money runs out. For a call only
system it is much cheaper than any "plan". Calls are in the 1 - 2
baht/minute ( say 3 - 5 cents).

Years ago I, when I bought my first "hand phone" I had a plan and
every month made my ritual visit to the phone office to pay my bill.
Sometime later my wife decided that if I had a phone she should have a
phone also so I bought her a phone "just like mine", but being a
cautious chap I didn't enter into any contract agreement for her
phone, I just bought a prepaid sim and some top up cards.

At the end of the month it became painfully obvious that although she
talked a lot more than I did that her "bill" was noticeably cheaper
than mine :-(

When I went to the phone company and cancelled my account the nice
young lady there asked me if I minded telling her why I wanted to
cancel my account and I related my little story. She smiled and
replied, "Yes, some people do notice"

Currently I am looking for a small talk only phone. I can buy a brand
new phone for about $20 but I really want one of the tiny phones like
Nokia used to sell. Remember when phones used to be advertised as
small and petite?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:57:48 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:35:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:

>>I'm just trying to deduce or guess why there are no CF bicycle lights.
>>I can get most everything else in CF but not lights. If the industry
>>can produce CF water bottle cages, helmets, and bicycle pumps, why not
>>lights?

>I suspect it is that thing called "demand". Practically every bike I
>see has a bottle cage on it and far less often do I see a light.

That's because removable bicycle headlights are too easy to steal. So,
the owner removes them before parking his bicycle. During the
daytime, my headlight lives in my overflowing bicycle junk bag. The
only time the general public is allowed to view my bicycle headlight
is under cover of darkness. Of course, I rarely ride at night, giving
the impression that I don't own a bicycle headlight. Given my
speculation that a majority of the bicycling world follows a similar
operating paradigm, the general impression would be that few riders
own a bicycle headlight.

However, I do agree that there is little demand for CF (carbon fiber)
bicycle headlights. This is because few people buy CF bicycles just
to win races. I suspect that the vast majority of CF bicycles are
sold as a financial status symbol for the owner. Riding around town
on a $4,000 and up machine is certain to gain the attention of other
envious riders aspiring to own such an expensive machine. The problem
is that one cannot show off such a machine at night, when nobody can
see it. It must be shown during daylight hours when a bicycle
headlight is not needed, thus explaining the lack of demand for CF
headlights.

Assuming a manufactory would accept my market analysis, the
appropriate headlight would an "emergency" light, that would only make
its appearance if the owner is caught after dark and without an
audience. Wires would be aesthetically disgusting and detract from
the spectacle. Therefore battery power would be acceptable. Light
output should be on the dim side, so as not to blind anyone that might
be impressed by the rolling status symbol. Temporarily clamping the
light to aero handlebars might be awkward, but still possible. Of
course, the price should be in line with the rest of the bicycle and
seriously overpriced.

>But I suspect that with a intensive SAFEYTY! program it might be
>possible to change that.

The problem with CF bicycles is that they tend to lack the structural
integrity and safety margins needed to be genuinely safe. Judging by
the numerous photos of CF stress and fatigue failures found online,
riding near impending failure is considered normal. I've often
suspected that this is to maximize the damage from a crash, thus
inspiring a lucrative CF repair and frame replacement market. If
riders were genuinely interested in safety, they would not consider a
CF machine. I would guess(tm) that the prime motivations for
purchasing a CF bicycle are high cost, sex appeal, looks fast even
while standing still, very low mass, and speed potential. If I
extended this list to include trivia, safety would be somewhere near
the bottom.

>Calcium Carbide is also quite useful as a fishing tool. A screw top
>bottle or can, a bit of calcium carbide and a rock. Put the rock and
>the carbide in the bottle/can, add the cap, after punching a tiny nail
>hole in it, and drop in the lake. After a few minutes fish will start
>to float by. Belly up.

I didn't know that was possible. If I ride my bicycle with an
attached carbide lantern into a lake or river, will that also kill the
fish? Kinda sounds like something that deserves a warning label on
the lantern.

>When I went to the phone company and cancelled my account the nice
>young lady there asked me if I minded telling her why I wanted to
>cancel my account and I related my little story. She smiled and
>replied, "Yes, some people do notice"

I had a similar experience with my Verizon cell phone bill. I had 3
of my friends on a "family plan" from Verizon. It saved them quite a
bit of money on their cell phone bill, as long as the total number of
minutes per month was under some maximum. Over the years, prepaid
rapidly became cheaper, while monthly plans increased in cost. I
finally noticed when I compared bills with a lady friend and
discovered that I was seriously overpaying.

>Currently I am looking for a small talk only phone. I can buy a brand
>new phone for about $20 but I really want one of the tiny phones like
>Nokia used to sell. Remember when phones used to be advertised as
>small and petite?

Well, if you want small and cute, try a Samsung Juke (SCH-u470) or
<https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+juke&tbm=isch>
I wasn't terribly impressed with the range, battery life,
construction, survivability, picture quality, and overall design, but
they are small and cool looking. In public, it looks like you're
talking into the palm of your upraised hand which attracts onlookers
wondering "where's the phone?"

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/24/2017 11:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> ... I rarely ride at night, giving

> the impression that I don't own a bicycle headlight. Given my
> speculation that a majority of the bicycling world follows a similar
> operating paradigm, the general impression would be that few riders
> own a bicycle headlight.

Many lower-end bikes come with stickers saying "Never Ride at Night."
Surely, such "Danger! Danger!" warnings affect people's behavior.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

Or maybe they just forgot to add a line saying "...without using an approved bicycle light or reflectors". Without the warning not to ride at night the bicycle manufacturer and the store are both open to being sued when some idiot without lights or even reflectors rides at night on a dark road and gets hit.

Cheers

[John B.]

Years ago I bought a Greg LeMond frame and built up a road bike. The
frame came with small, arrow shaped decals near the dropouts, saying
"Failure to tighten this bolt may cause loss of the wheel".

Together with the "Never ride at night" decals that Frank mentions and
your warning about being sued, it probably demonstrates the level of
intelligence that others perceive bicyclists to have.

After all, they have to be told repeatedly, over and over again, to
always wear those helmets that will save their lives, to use the
asphalt melting bright lights, that tiny little flashing lights will
make them 32% safer.

Good Lord! Can these people be bright enough to be out alone? Riding
on public roads?

Perhaps if we could limit bicycle riding so that it takes place only
on approved pathways, never at night, and only under the supervision
of a trained supervisor we could stop the carnage on the roads caused
by these two wheeled killers.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

I've mentioned this case before here on RBT.

My very good friend's company was sued after an underage
thief was killed crossing an Interstate (pedestrians and
cyclists prohibited) with a freshly stolen bicycle. The open
QR front wheel fell out when he came up out of the ditch
onto a traffic lane. The attorney for the mother of said
miscreant argued that while Schwinns in his store had "do
not ride at night" stickers and also "do not ride without
properly securing wheel quick release" stickers, the brand
in question lacked both. The jury opined that the bicycles
we imported were nonconforming to 'accepted industry standards'.

[John B.]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:35:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:57:48 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:35:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I'm just trying to deduce or guess why there are no CF bicycle lights.
>>>I can get most everything else in CF but not lights. If the industry
>>>can produce CF water bottle cages, helmets, and bicycle pumps, why not
>>>lights?
>
>>I suspect it is that thing called "demand". Practically every bike I
>>see has a bottle cage on it and far less often do I see a light.
>
>That's because removable bicycle headlights are too easy to steal. So,
>the owner removes them before parking his bicycle. During the
>daytime, my headlight lives in my overflowing bicycle junk bag. The
>only time the general public is allowed to view my bicycle headlight
>is under cover of darkness. Of course, I rarely ride at night, giving
>the impression that I don't own a bicycle headlight. Given my
>speculation that a majority of the bicycling world follows a similar
>operating paradigm, the general impression would be that few riders
>own a bicycle headlight.

On the other hand, bicycle lights don't seem to be a necessity at all,
at least not here. I often see people riding after dark, or perhaps
more accurately before dawn, with no lights. Of course, these aren't
those with the skin tight panties and the colorful jerseys, it is the
ones with the hum-drum clothing who are going about their daily
shopping chores. They also seem to ride on the "wrong side of the
road", so they can see oncoming traffic I suppose, and usually not too
far from the curb, undoubtedly so that the can hop off and run in an
emergency.

>
>However, I do agree that there is little demand for CF (carbon fiber)
>bicycle headlights. This is because few people buy CF bicycles just
>to win races. I suspect that the vast majority of CF bicycles are
>sold as a financial status symbol for the owner. Riding around town
>on a $4,000 and up machine is certain to gain the attention of other
>envious riders aspiring to own such an expensive machine. The problem
>is that one cannot show off such a machine at night, when nobody can
>see it. It must be shown during daylight hours when a bicycle
>headlight is not needed, thus explaining the lack of demand for CF
>headlights.
>
>Assuming a manufactory would accept my market analysis, the
>appropriate headlight would an "emergency" light, that would only make
>its appearance if the owner is caught after dark and without an
>audience. Wires would be aesthetically disgusting and detract from
>the spectacle. Therefore battery power would be acceptable. Light
>output should be on the dim side, so as not to blind anyone that might
>be impressed by the rolling status symbol. Temporarily clamping the
>light to aero handlebars might be awkward, but still possible. Of
>course, the price should be in line with the rest of the bicycle and
>seriously overpriced.

I suspect that a manufacturer might be inclined to accept your market
analysis if you were to guarantee any losses that he might incur from
following them :-)

>>But I suspect that with a intensive SAFEYTY! program it might be
>>possible to change that.
>
>The problem with CF bicycles is that they tend to lack the structural
>integrity and safety margins needed to be genuinely safe. Judging by
>the numerous photos of CF stress and fatigue failures found online,
>riding near impending failure is considered normal. I've often
>suspected that this is to maximize the damage from a crash, thus
>inspiring a lucrative CF repair and frame replacement market. If
>riders were genuinely interested in safety, they would not consider a
>CF machine. I would guess(tm) that the prime motivations for
>purchasing a CF bicycle are high cost, sex appeal, looks fast even
>while standing still, very low mass, and speed potential. If I
>extended this list to include trivia, safety would be somewhere near
>the bottom.

There is no problem at all in building what would be essentially a
bullet proof CF bicycle. After all, the latest Boeing transport has
large sections of composite materials and I doubt that the insurers
would accept the same excuses that the bicycleing fraternity accepts.

>
>>Calcium Carbide is also quite useful as a fishing tool. A screw top
>>bottle or can, a bit of calcium carbide and a rock. Put the rock and
>>the carbide in the bottle/can, add the cap, after punching a tiny nail
>>hole in it, and drop in the lake. After a few minutes fish will start
>>to float by. Belly up.
>
>I didn't know that was possible. If I ride my bicycle with an
>attached carbide lantern into a lake or river, will that also kill the
>fish? Kinda sounds like something that deserves a warning label on
>the lantern.

Nope, you need the bottle/can with the tiny hole in the lid and the
rock ballast for it to work properly.

My guess that if carbide lights were marketed today, in the U.S. they
would have to be a yard high to include all the warnings. Good Lord!
These things can explode; blow up!.... "are you some sort of
terrorist?"

>>When I went to the phone company and cancelled my account the nice
>>young lady there asked me if I minded telling her why I wanted to
>>cancel my account and I related my little story. She smiled and
>>replied, "Yes, some people do notice"
>
>I had a similar experience with my Verizon cell phone bill. I had 3
>of my friends on a "family plan" from Verizon. It saved them quite a
>bit of money on their cell phone bill, as long as the total number of
>minutes per month was under some maximum. Over the years, prepaid
>rapidly became cheaper, while monthly plans increased in cost. I
>finally noticed when I compared bills with a lady friend and
>discovered that I was seriously overpaying.
>
>>Currently I am looking for a small talk only phone. I can buy a brand
>>new phone for about $20 but I really want one of the tiny phones like
>>Nokia used to sell. Remember when phones used to be advertised as
>>small and petite?
>
>Well, if you want small and cute, try a Samsung Juke (SCH-u470) or
><https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+juke&tbm=isch>
>I wasn't terribly impressed with the range, battery life,
>construction, survivability, picture quality, and overall design, but
>they are small and cool looking. In public, it looks like you're
>talking into the palm of your upraised hand which attracts onlookers
>wondering "where's the phone?"

Nope! None of that Korean made stuff. Nokia has promised to resurrect
the 3310 and I will either wait for that or alternately buy a
"classic", i.e. "old", Nokia.

I will never forget the first person I ever saw talking on a hand
phone using a "hands-free" (as they are referred to here). It was
early in the morning and he was standing on the corner of Orchard
Road, in Singapore, waving his arms and talking in a loud voice. I
thought he was some sort of religious fanatic and hurried by without
looking directly at him :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

My personal opinion is that U.S. courts have perpetrated some
extremely illogical rulings on the population.

An individual orders a cup of hot coffee. They are served a cup of hot
coffee. They then accept and pay for the cup of hot coffee and carry
it away. Subsequently they spill the hot coffee on themselves and it
is determined that it was the people who brewed the coffee that were
at fault.

Now you tell the story about the chap that steals a bicycle and it is
the seller who is at fault that he gets run over.

Here we don't have jury trials which means that one has to convince a
trained jurist that you are correct and I do not believe that they
will accept the premise that not tightening the axle nuts on a bicycle
sitting in your shop is the cause of a bicycle thief crashing. Nor
that spilling hot coffee on yourself is someone else's fault :-)

I suppose that ultimately someone will steal a bicycle and when caught
with the stolen goods, tried, convicted and sentenced, will than sue
the manufacturer of the bicycle since logically if "they" hadn't made
the bicycle it couldn't have been stolen....

It is obvious that "reality" in the U.S. is significantly different
than the rest of the world.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:36:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Many lower-end bikes come with stickers saying "Never Ride at Night."
>Surely, such "Danger! Danger!" warnings affect people's behavior.

I suspect that buyers are immune to such nonsense. Such stickers are
everywhere. I've been involved in a few too many product liability
suits. Part of what has become almost ritual is the final decision or
settlement includes a requirement that the manufacturer attach a
warning label to the product so that future users can take evasive
action. Sometimes it's an insert with the product, which these days
is mostly warnings and repudiation of responsibility documents.

I forgot who's headlight or flashlight had the warning label "Do not
look into lamp while in use" or something like that. Instead of
discouraging me from buying this light, I deduced that anything bright
enough to require a warning label must really be super bright. In
other words, warning labels can sometimes be used to sell the product.

[Sir Ridesalot]

The OLD lady bought the coffee, set it between her legs as she sat on the front passenger seat of the stopped car in the drive-thru lane. Then she removed the lid of the coffee. The driver drove forwards which caused the very hot coffee to spill and scald her in a very sensitive region of her anatomy. IMHO, the fault was due to three people, #1, the woman for putting the hot coffe between her legs and then removing the lid, #2, her son for putting the car into motion whilst his mother had the opened coffee cup between her legs and lastly #3, the store for selling what the courts determined was OVERLY hot coffee.

Cheers

[AMuzi]

> The OLD lady bought the coffee, set it between her legs as she sat on the front passenger seat of the stopped car in the drive-thru lane. Then she removed the lid of the coffee. The driver drove forwards which caused the very hot coffee to spill and scald her in a very sensitive region of her anatomy. IMHO, the fault was due to three people, #1, the woman for putting the hot coffe between her legs and then removing the lid, #2, her son for putting the car into motion whilst his mother had the opened coffee cup between her legs and lastly #3, the store for selling what the courts determined was OVERLY hot coffee.

You emphasize the word 'old' and yet most teenagers have
learned that hot coffee is hot. Maybe 'old' is not such a
critical factor here.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I emphasized the word 'old' because I'm pretty certain that the judge gave the payout he did due to her age and to where the injury was located. then again you'd think that her younger son who was the driver at the time would have had more sense than to putt he car into motion whilst an opened cup of coffee was sitting btween his mother's legs. Had the coffee cup lid been on the cup the hot coffee would not have spilled. Had the woman not had the cup between her legs she'd have not been scalded in an extremely sensitive region of the body. Had the son not put the car in motion whilst the opened coffee cup was whre it was it would not have spilled. In other words, blame was give to everyone *EXCCEPT* the idiots who caused the action in the first place = the customers.

Cheers

[sms]

On 3/25/2017 2:13 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> I emphasized the word 'old' because I'm pretty certain that the judge gave the payout he did due to her age and to where the injury was located.

Wow, how are you certain of that?

The reality is that she got the payout because McDonald's was negligent
and admitted as much.

"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard."

[Frank Krygowski]

A deep pockets firm like McDonalds probably as 700 claims from people claiming
their french fries are too sharp. They'll say they stabbed themselves in the
eye with a french fry.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 11:31:37 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot

>The OLD lady bought the coffee, set it between her legs as she sat on rte front passenger seat of the stopped car in the drive-thru lane. Then she removed the lid of the coffee. The driver drove forwards which caused the very hot coffee to spill and scald her in a very sensitive region of her anatomy. IMHO, the fault was due to three people, #1, the woman for putting the hot coffe between her legs and then removing the lid, #2, her son for putting the car into motion whilst his mother had the opened coffee cup between her legs and lastly #3, the store for selling what the courts determined was OVERLY hot coffee.
>
>Cheers

Nope the courts did not rule that the coffee was overly hot. The
Claimant's Attorney argued that but also evidence was presented that
the Coffee Brewing Institute recommended coffee be brewed at a higher
temperature. as it was more tasteful.

(In detail The Claimant argued that coffee at 190 - 190F was
dangerious and the Coffee Brew3ing Institute states that coffee should
be brewed at 197 - 204F)

The Attorney for the Claimant also mentioned several times during the
hearing that the amount that the serving company made, on a world wide
basis, was several times what the Claimant was asking.

But seriously Frank, you buy a cup of coffee, it is served to you and
you accept it and pay for it and carry it away, off the premises of
the seller, and only then do you spill it in your lap and it is the
fault of the company that sold you the coffee?

As an aside, I read that the same stunt was tried in England and the
Court refused to hear the claim. I believe that they stated that it
was, "without merit".
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Good Lord! Most pre-school children have been taught not to pull the
pot off the stove and scald themselves.

But the adjective "old" does serve to imply that the poor "old" soul
was too feeble to take care of herself.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 14:13:31 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot

The judge did not award either injury or punitive amounts. It was a
jury trial and the jury awarded the amounts.

"They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was
then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7
million in punitive damages.

The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's (Claimant's
Attorney) suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth
of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge
reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory
amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both
McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out
of court for an undisclosed amount."
--
Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

Have you done a double-blind study on that with a statistically
significant sample?

[John B.]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:16:54 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

That, like many of your posts is a bit misleading. the facts are that
during discover;

"documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the
company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by
McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled
claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."

Note: Over a ten year period McDonald's had received, from their
operations in 65 countries (as of 1992), on the average, 70 reports a
year, or approximately 1.07 per country. and the average settlement
was about $700 per claimant. McDonalds offered Mrs. Liebeck $800 and
her attorney offered to settle for $90,000 which McDonalds refused.

McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified
that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to
evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 蚌
(54 蚓) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more
pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton
conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if
consumed when served'

Note: this would seem to explain that the plaintiff was aware that the
coffee was hot enough to burn her.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/26/2017 2:12 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> Note: Over a ten year period McDonald's had received, from their
> operations in 65 countries (as of 1992), on the average, 70 reports a
> year, or approximately 1.07 per country. and the average settlement
> was about $700 per claimant. McDonalds offered Mrs. Liebeck $800 and
> her attorney offered to settle for $90,000 which McDonalds refused.
>
> McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified
> that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to

> evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F
> (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard...

All foods hotter than 130 °F. For example, a cup of tea.

Note the recommended temperatures below:

http://www.itoen.com/preparing-tea 175°F - 212°F

http://theteaspot.com/how-to-brew.html 175°F - 212°F

http://the.republicoftea.com/library/how-to-make-tea/how-to-brew-hot-tea/
"short of boiling" to "boiling." Then "let it cool a moment. Sip."

Coffee drinkers are such wimps.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/26/2017 1:30 AM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> But seriously Frank, you buy a cup of coffee...

Whoa! PLEASE don't confuse me with "Sir Ridesalot."

--
- Frank Krygowski