More on lights.
Keiron
research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision at
night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception issues
and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less blinding.
Does anyone then have experience using a red light for forward lighting
(illegal on the road in the UK I realise but i'd be prepared to take the
risk on quite roads), also perhaps an excellent off road option?
What about other colour options? I assume if what is said about red is
true then the longer wavelengths are superior?
terryc
> I read the recent "bright lights" posting which got me in to a bit of
> research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision at
> night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception issues
> and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less blinding.
This is one of those areas of research that are interesting, but for
bicycle riders in the realm of sillness.
Think about it?
White light includes red light. Why throw away 7/8ths of the light?
Andre Jute
You can legally show, or at least usually get away with showing, an
amber light to the front. Or you could just throw radiation not in the
visible spectrum and use goggles to see the road. If anyone asks why
you to these weird lengths, say you're involved in secret work for the
government. -- Andre Jute
_
a) not all lights are white; and
b) if the improvement in perception is sufficient, it may be worth any
loss.
Keiron
> White light includes red light. Why throw away 7/8ths of the light.
Bulbs and LEDs are pretty powerful now, I suspect a decently powered red
light source could be produced, Besides it was widely stated in the
"bright light" post that brighter isn't actually better. (and what "_"
said)
Bill Sornson
> Does anyone then have experience using a red light for forward
> lighting (illegal on the road in the UK I realise but i'd be prepared
> to take the risk on quite roads), also perhaps an excellent off road
> option?
http://comics.com/frank&ernest/2008-12-21/
HTH!
Keiron
haha. That had occured to me although steaming through the streets or
wood at night on a bike is probably not all that covert, a requisite for
secret government work i'd suggest.
But truly, it was consideration as my current lighting research is in
preparation for touring with an element of stealth camping where such bit
of kits would doubtless prove useful. But god knows what infra red
emitters are available or even if it would work.
Keiron
Haha. I imagine my influence with the police will be less than santa's
too.
Nate Nagel
Also a red light used as a headlamp could give misleading information to
other road users, because that color is reserved for the rear of a vehicle.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Peter Cole
The human eye has rod & cone cells. The rod cells are much more numerous
and 100x more sensitive to light, but they do not distinguish color. The
rod cell response peaks in the blue-green wavelengths, and is virtually
non-existent in reds. Rods give us our night vision, but cone cells give
us color and detail perception.
Some DIY bike light makers have deliberately used blue-green LED's
claiming a many-fold increase in actual perceived brightness. Sounds
good in theory. Red light can be used to preserve night vision because
night vision is insensitive to it. Red bike lights for illumination of
the road would seem to be a poor idea. Off-road, they'd make foliage
look very dark, another disadvantage.
You don't have to "throw away" light with modern LED lamps. LEDs are
quantum devices which naturally emit at a narrow wavelength. White LEds
are typically made by either blending light from multiple monochrome
LEDs or by exiting a blend of phosphors with a monochrome LED.
A monochrome blue-green LED certainly seems more efficient overall when
factoring the spectral sensitivity of the eye.
jim beam
> I read the recent "bright lights" posting which got me in to a bit of
> research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision at
> night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception issues
> and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less blinding.
>
> Does anyone then have experience using a red light for forward lighting
if you want to use red in the front, you should change the title to "moron
lights".
> (illegal on the road in the UK I realise but i'd be prepared to take the
> risk on quite roads), also perhaps an excellent off road option?
>
> What about other colour options? I assume if what is said about red is
> true then the longer wavelengths are superior?
use lenses on your own eyes, not the bike. otherwise you mess with the
ability of other road users to judge speed and distance, thus jeopardizing
your [and their] safety.
Keiron
Granted and alluded to in original post along with my veiled annoyance
with such a law. Other countries (so i'm lead to believe) don't require
front lights to be white and in fact red lights are accepted as front
lights; i presume motorists in these areas don't kill cyclists with
regularity. Indeed given that a red setup is required for the rear
obviously red lights provide enough light by which to be seen in which
case they're presumably equally visible from the front. It shouldn't
matter which direction you're travelling in then as you'll be equally
visible. Motorists should just not be c*nts! IMHumbleO. Unless I've
missed an issue????
jim beam
???? care to list any?
Keiron
> terryc wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:17 +0000, Keiron wrote:
>>
>>> I read the recent "bright lights" posting which got me in to a bit of
>>> research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision
>>> at night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception
>>> issues and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less
>>> blinding.
>>
>> This is one of those areas of research that are interesting, but for
>> bicycle riders in the realm of sillness.
>>
>> Think about it?
>> White light includes red light. Why throw away 7/8ths of the light?
>
> The human eye has rod & cone cells. The rod cells are much more numerous
> and 100x more sensitive to light, but they do not distinguish color. The
> rod cell response peaks in the blue-green wavelengths, and is virtually
> non-existent in reds. Rods give us our night vision, but cone cells give
> us color and detail perception.
>
> Some DIY bike light makers have deliberately used blue-green LED's
> claiming a many-fold increase in actual perceived brightness. Sounds
> good in theory. Red light can be used to preserve night vision because
> night vision is insensitive to it.
Ah ok, this is perhaps the point the original source was trying to make
but better expressed here (or better understood I guess).
Red bike lights for illumination of
> the road would seem to be a poor idea. Off-road, they'd make foliage
> look very dark, another disadvantage.
>
What do you mean by detail perception in the first paragraph? For example
are there conditions were 3d detail would be increased and 2d decreased
or are such factors linked proportionally? I.e. in context: would red
light at night provide better outline information to the eye i.e. picking
out depth? or are surface and depth details the same?
> You don't have to "throw away" light with modern LED lamps. LEDs are
> quantum devices which naturally emit at a narrow wavelength. White LEds
> are typically made by either blending light from multiple monochrome
> LEDs or by exiting a blend of phosphors with a monochrome LED.
What wavelength is this narrow band at or is it atypical?
> A monochrome blue-green LED certainly seems more efficient overall when
> factoring the spectral sensitivity of the eye.
Fascinating! Thanks Pete, I understand green leds are available
commercially so I'll give them a shot until I have the savvy to build a
set.
Thansk
Andre Jute
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:17 +0000, Keiron wrote:
> > I read the recent "bright lights" posting which got me in to a bit of
> > research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision at
> > night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception issues
> > and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less blinding.
>
> > Does anyone then have experience using a red light for forward lighting
>
> if you want to use red in the front, you should change the title to "moron
> lights".
I think it is worth keeping an open mind for a little longer. After
all, we are not confused by amber lights to the front, rear and sides
of cars and slow-moving vehicles. That tells us that white-front and
red-rear is just a convention. But the red light is aversion-making:
"If I crash into that, everyone will know I'm an idiot and the judge
will presume I was in the wrong, so I have to be especially careful of
red lights." However, the biggest risk to cyclists is not from the
rear but to front and sides. So why not put a red light at the front
as well? That's merely an argument for consideration, you understand?
My own, better idea is to have amber flashing lights on all sides of
the bike to mark it as an obstacle/slow-moving vehicle/turning vehicle/
let drivers mistake it for a car as long as possible.
The problem is that no one sells good flashing or steady amber lights,
so the cyclist is thrown back on one of Scharfie's heath robbinson
schemes, which always costs more than two of the best Cateyes.
Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
Keiron
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:17 +0000, Keiron wrote:
>
>> I read the recent "bright lights" posting which got me in to a bit of
>> research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision
>> at night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception
>> issues and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less
>> blinding.
>>
>> Does anyone then have experience using a red light for forward lighting
>
> if you want to use red in the front, you should change the title to
> "moron lights".
>
AHAHAHAAHHAHAAHA! It should be obvious that my intention is to find the
best solution, in all factors. Sorry that my physics isn't up to scratch.
>
>> (illegal on the road in the UK I realise but i'd be prepared to take
>> the risk on quite roads), also perhaps an excellent off road option?
>>
>> What about other colour options? I assume if what is said about red is
>> true then the longer wavelengths are superior?
>
> use lenses on your own eyes, not the bike.
Not an impossibility.
> otherwise you mess with the
> ability of other road users to judge speed and distance, thus
> jeopardizing your [and their] safety.
How would this be the case in the context of the question?
Thanks
Keiron
Currently no but I will look this up
Keiron
> On Dec 26, 4:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:17 +0000, Keiron wrote:
>> > I read the recent "bright lights" posting which got me in to a bit of
>> > research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision
>> > at night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception
>> > issues and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less
>> > blinding.
>>
>> > Does anyone then have experience using a red light for forward
>> > lighting
>>
>> if you want to use red in the front, you should change the title to
>> "moron lights".
>
> I think it is worth keeping an open mind for a little longer. After all,
> we are not confused by amber lights to the front, rear and sides of cars
> and slow-moving vehicles. That tells us that white-front and red-rear is
> just a convention. But the red light is aversion-making: "If I crash
> into that, everyone will know I'm an idiot and the judge will presume I
> was in the wrong, so I have to be especially careful of red lights."
> However, the biggest risk to cyclists is not from the rear but to front
> and sides. So why not put a red light at the front as well? That's
> merely an argument for consideration, you understand?
>
A defence of the practise of reasoning. I likes the cut of yer jib sir!
jim beam
should i be shocked that you couldn't be bothered to check your facts?
jim beam
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:18:06 +0000, jim beam wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:17 +0000, Keiron wrote:
>>
>>> I read the recent "bright lights" posting which got me in to a bit of
>>> research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision
>>> at night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception
>>> issues and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less
>>> blinding.
>>>
>>> Does anyone then have experience using a red light for forward
>>> lighting
>>
>> if you want to use red in the front, you should change the title to
>> "moron lights".
>>
> AHAHAHAAHHAHAAHA! It should be obvious that my intention is to find the
> best solution, in all factors. Sorry that my physics isn't up to
> scratch.
item one is not a matter of physics, it's a matter of convention and law.
red is rear.
item two is physics - if you use red on the front, other road users base
their judgment accordingly, and thus closing speed with oncoming traffic
will be faster than the other road user anticipates. this can lead to you
into a head-on with someone that expects you to be moving away from them.
Ryan Cousineau
Keiron <pop0...@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
LEDs are available in a variety of wavelengths. It's built into the
design of the LED. White LEDs have had bad habits in the past like
emitting only a few narrow wavelengths of light, but people are paying
more attention to this now (it's quantified now as the "Color Rendering
Index").
You might enjoy this 1995 article about the quest to build the first
blue-emitting LED, which has been key to the creation of white-emitting
LEDs as well:
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.03/blue.laser.html>
It explains a lot about how LEDs are made.
There's a short follow-up from 1998:
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.08/updata.html>
> > A monochrome blue-green LED certainly seems more efficient overall when
> > factoring the spectral sensitivity of the eye.
>
> Fascinating! Thanks Pete, I understand green leds are available
> commercially so I'll give them a shot until I have the savvy to build a
> set.
There's some interesting study to be done here, but I think that
throwing away accurately rendered color by using oddball colored
lighting is not going to be fruitful for driving/riding lights. The
basic problem is that under odd-colored lights, some things are going to
be misperceived. Red LEDs are used in certain circumstances because they
don't wash out your night vision, but that's meant for cases where
you're going to briefly use the red LED, and then go back to looking
into a dark place. The goal with most "seeing" bicycle lights is to
eliminate the dark.
What you may find is that, for example, green LEDs are more efficient
than white LEDs in terms of lumens/W, which means you can throw more
green light out into the world for the same amount of power, or your
batteries last longer. If you can do that with minimal loss of visual
information, that might be a win.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Keiron
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:02:22 +0000, Keiron wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:18:06 +0000, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:17 +0000, Keiron wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read the recent "bright lights" posting which got me in to a bit of
>>>> research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision
>>>> at night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception
>>>> issues and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less
>>>> blinding.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone then have experience using a red light for forward
>>>> lighting
>>>
>>> if you want to use red in the front, you should change the title to
>>> "moron lights".
>>>
>> AHAHAHAAHHAHAAHA! It should be obvious that my intention is to find the
>> best solution, in all factors. Sorry that my physics isn't up to
>> scratch.
>
> item one is not a matter of physics, it's a matter of convention and
> law. red is rear.
>
> item two is physics - if you use red on the front, other road users base
> their judgment accordingly, and thus closing speed with oncoming traffic
> will be faster than the other road user anticipates. this can lead to
> you into a head-on with someone that expects you to be moving away from
> them.
>
So many points to be made but then I'd feel like I was being as pedantic
as you. I'll keep it to these:
It shouldn't be a huge stretch to see this post challenge convention if
some viable results/truths came of it. Whilst laws and conventions are
law and convention it doesn't mean they're always right, the most right,
at all right. Besides which if people see lights it should be an
indication to further engage the brain no matter what the colour.
jim beam
Keiron
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:05:29 +0000, Keiron wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:49:40 +0000, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:02:22 +0000, Keiron wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:18:06 +0000, jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:17 +0000, Keiron wrote:
>>>>>
Snip
>>>
>> So many points to be made but then I'd feel like I was being as
>> pedantic as you. I'll keep it to these:
>>
>> It shouldn't be a huge stretch to see this post challenge convention if
>> some viable results/truths came of it. Whilst laws and conventions are
>> law and convention it doesn't mean they're always right, the most
>> right, at all right. Besides which if people see lights it should be an
>> indication to further engage the brain no matter what the colour.
>
> there's a web site for people like you:
>
> http://www.darwinawards.com/
>
>
Yawn
rms
>the bike to mark it as an obstacle/slow-moving vehicle/turning vehicle/
>let drivers mistake it for a car as long as possible.
>The problem is that no one sells good flashing or steady amber lights,
>so the cyclist is thrown back on one of Scharfie's heath robbinson
>schemes, which always costs more than two of the best Cateyes.
What do you think about these two amber light options?
http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/STROBE-3A/AMBER-XENON-FLASHER/-/1.html
http://www.storesonline.com/site/440848/product/AllPSLK-XENONSTROBE
(Both noted on http://bicyclelighting.com )
rms
Keiron
Cheers Ryan: most 'illuminating' read.
>> > A monochrome blue-green LED certainly seems more efficient overall
>> > when factoring the spectral sensitivity of the eye.
>>
>> Fascinating! Thanks Pete, I understand green leds are available
>> commercially so I'll give them a shot until I have the savvy to build a
>> set.
>
> There's some interesting study to be done here, but I think that
> throwing away accurately rendered color by using oddball colored
> lighting is not going to be fruitful for driving/riding lights. The
> basic problem is that under odd-colored lights, some things are going to
> be misperceived. Red LEDs are used in certain circumstances because they
> don't wash out your night vision, but that's meant for cases where
> you're going to briefly use the red LED, and then go back to looking
> into a dark place. The goal with most "seeing" bicycle lights is to
> eliminate the dark.
> What you may find is that, for example, green LEDs are more efficient
> than white LEDs in terms of lumens/W, which means you can throw more
> green light out into the world for the same amount of power, or your
> batteries last longer. If you can do that with minimal loss of visual
> information, that might be a win.
Green, green/blue definitely seems worth exploring, cheers.
Keiron
haha. I reckon the top one would look pretty sexy attached to the
helmet. Not sure why I hadn't checked out sheldons site to begin with.
fool!
cheers
SMS
While I've used these strobes a lot, the newer LED rear lights like the
CatEye TL-DL1100 are a better choice now (other than in terms of
price!). The older LED lights were pretty bad; they used very low cost,
low intensity LEDs, and they had no side-pointing LEDs to provide side
visibility (these are still the norm for most LED flashers, but at least
now there are some alternatives).
With the huge increase in availability (and decrease in cost) of the
high power LED flashlights, the need to carry a separate 12V battery is
less now than in the past. A lot of these new flashlights can use
standard cell Li-Ion rechargeable batteries. I.e. when you can buy a 230
lumen flashlight that has two power levels and a strobe, and can run on
an 18650 or 18500 Li-Ion or two CR123 batteries, or three AAA batteries,
and it costs $23, it changes a lot in terms of what you need to spend
(or build) in order to have decent lights
("http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.17401").
SMS
I'm not sure who wrote the post you responded to (probably someone in my
kill-file because I don't see it), but as you've seen he's obviously
incorrect.
First of all, both flashing and steady amber lights are _widely_
available, and second, they are far less expensive than the best CatEyes.
The best CatEye tail light is the LD-1100, which sells for $40. Amber
Xenon flashers, both the 12V powered and the self-contained AA powered
are less expensive.
You don't need to go to Xenon flashers either. You can buy amber LED
marker lamps that run off of a 12V battery (i.e.
"http://www.hyper-lights.com/product_info.php?products_id=434") very
inexpensively. They don't flash, but you can always attach a flasher to
them if that's necessary.
If you don't care about LEDs or xenon tube strobes, of course you can
buy amber marker lights at any auto parts store.
Tom Sherman
> rms wrote:
>>> My own, better idea is to have amber flashing lights on all sides of
>>> the bike to mark it as an obstacle/slow-moving vehicle/turning vehicle/
>>> let drivers mistake it for a car as long as possible.
>>
>>> The problem is that no one sells good flashing or steady amber lights,
>>> so the cyclist is thrown back on one of Scharfie's heath robbinson
>>> schemes, which always costs more than two of the best Cateyes.
>>
>> What do you think about these two amber light options?
>>
>>
>> http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/STROBE-3A/AMBER-XENON-FLASHER/-/1.html
>>
>>
>> http://www.storesonline.com/site/440848/product/AllPSLK-XENONSTROBE
>>
>> (Both noted on http://bicyclelighting.com )
>
> I'm not sure who wrote the post you responded to (probably someone in my
> kill-file because I don't see it), but as you've seen he's obviously
> incorrect.
>
> First of all, both flashing and steady amber lights are _widely_
> available, and second, they are far less expensive than the best CatEyes.
>
> The best CatEye tail light is the LD-1100, which sells for $40. Amber
> Xenon flashers, both the 12V powered and the self-contained AA powered
> are less expensive.
>
> You don't need to go to Xenon flashers either. You can buy amber LED
> marker lamps that run off of a 12V battery (i.e.
> "http://www.hyper-lights.com/product_info.php?products_id=434") very
> inexpensively. They don't flash, but you can always attach a flasher to
> them if that's necessary.
>
> If you don't care about LEDs or xenon tube strobes, of course you can
> buy amber marker lights at any auto parts store.
What are the comparative power usages for amber LEDs, xenon tubes and
incandescents (of roughly similar output)?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll
OldRoads
wrote:
> SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>
>
> > rms wrote:
> >>> My own, better idea is to have amber flashing lights on all sides of
> >>> the bike to mark it as an obstacle/slow-moving vehicle/turning vehicle/
> >>> let drivers mistake it for a car as long as possible.
>
> >>> The problem is that no one sells good flashing or steady amber lights,
> >>> so the cyclist is thrown back on one of Scharfie's heath robbinson
> >>> schemes, which always costs more than two of the best Cateyes.
>
> >> What do you think about these two amber light options?
>
>
> >>http://www.storesonline.com/site/440848/product/AllPSLK-XENONSTROBE
>
> >> (Both noted onhttp://bicyclelighting.com)
>
> > I'm not sure who wrote the post you responded to (probably someone in my
> > kill-file because I don't see it), but as you've seen he's obviously
> > incorrect.
>
> That would have been "The André Jute", who in his own mind is never wrong.
>
> > First of all, both flashing and steady amber lights are _widely_
> > available, and second, they are far less expensive than the best CatEyes.
>
> > The best CatEye tail light is the LD-1100, which sells for $40. Amber
> > Xenon flashers, both the 12V powered and the self-contained AA powered
> > are less expensive.
>
> > You don't need to go to Xenon flashers either. You can buy amber LED
> > marker lamps that run off of a 12V battery (i.e.
> > "http://www.hyper-lights.com/product_info.php?products_id=434") very
> > inexpensively. They don't flash, but you can always attach a flasher to
> > them if that's necessary.
>
> > If you don't care about LEDs or xenon tube strobes, of course you can
> > buy amber marker lights at any auto parts store.
>
> What are the comparative power usages for amber LEDs, xenon tubes and
> incandescents (of roughly similar output)?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
>
> - Show quoted text -
A pulsing white light stands out quite well in the city.
Vin - Menotomy Vintage Bicycles
http://OldRoads.com
Frank Krygowski
> >My own, better idea is to have amber flashing lights on all sides of
> >the bike to mark it as an obstacle/slow-moving vehicle/turning vehicle/
> >let drivers mistake it for a car as long as possible.
> >The problem is that no one sells good flashing or steady amber lights,
> >so the cyclist is thrown back on one of Scharfie's heath robbinson
> >schemes, which always costs more than two of the best Cateyes.
>
> What do you think about these two amber light options?
>
>
> http://www.storesonline.com/site/440848/product/AllPSLK-XENONSTROBE
>
> (Both noted onhttp://bicyclelighting.com)
>
Those are precisely the things people complain about when they say a
"blinking" light is hard to track, and confuses and annoys other road
users. Using those on a bicycle is silly, IMO.
- Frank Krygowski
terryc
> Bulbs and LEDs are pretty powerful now, I suspect a decently powered red
> light source could be produced,
I'd like to see the figures please.
My 2c is that there would be no problem doing this off road, aka
basically a dark place and night vision kicking in.
OTOH, it might be easier to use and infra red light and movie cam
onto a screen (LCD panel onto ofthe old barbag?).
> Besides it was widely stated in the
> "bright light" post that brighter isn't actually better. (and what "_"
> said)
Yes, in certain conditions, this is true, but that often involves very
restricted conditions and young eyes.
terryc
> I presume motorists in these areas don't kill cyclists with
> regularity.
Please check that.
> Indeed given that a red setup is required for the rear
> obviously red lights provide enough light by which to be seen in which
> case they're presumably equally visible from the front.
> It shouldn't matter which direction you're travelling in then
> as you'll be equally visible.
"Visibiliy" is not an absolute, but relative term.
A red light on the rear of a bicycle on a darkened road where people
expect bicycles could be a bicycle,it might just be a motorcycle
far off.
A red light on a bicycle with the bicyclist wearing "white"
clothing and reflecto vest is generally considered a bicycle
because it is recognisable as such.
Peter Cole
This is an article describing one guy's blue-green light design:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Ultimate-Night-Vision-Headlamp---500%2B-lumens-with-/?comments=all
I don't know about the theory, it sounds interesting. One practical
matter though is that there's a lot more interest in high power white
LEDs than blue-green ones, so white LEDs in high wattage have become
more available since the time of this article.
At this point, I wouldn't bother building a light. You can get a very
nice regulated 3W/200+ lumen light for $20-25, in either a flashlight or
headlamp format. Hardly seems worth screwing around with anything else.
Andre Jute
> >My own, better idea is to have amber flashing lights on all sides of
> >the bike to mark it as an obstacle/slow-moving vehicle/turning vehicle/
> >let drivers mistake it for a car as long as possible.
> >The problem is that no one sells good flashing or steady amber lights,
> >so the cyclist is thrown back on one of Scharfie's heath robbinson
> >schemes, which always costs more than two of the best Cateyes.
>
> What do you think about these two amber light options?
>
>
> http://www.storesonline.com/site/440848/product/AllPSLK-XENONSTROBE
>
> (Both noted onhttp://bicyclelighting.com)
>
> rms
I've seen them. By the time you have paid postage and for fixings to
the bike and for 12V worth of batteries and a charger and a switch and
a battery holder and cable, you'll be outta eighty bucks for parts and
carriage, which woulda bought you two Cateye LD1100 at your friendly
local LBS, which is what I use because it is the best rear light
available at a reasonable price, and the best daylight flasher bar
none. Yeah, I know, Scarfie claims on his netsite that you can build a
light for peanuts, but if Scarfie ran a business, his ideas of
accounting for the costs involved in a kit of parts would one day make
him very popular with customers and the next cause the trading
standards authorities to call on him with a warrant.
Even when you can buy a Xenon kit (and there are bike-specific
versions of the kit you offer a URL to) for less than a Cateye TL-
LD1100, they will still be much more expensive to operate. Those
things chew batteries.
For these reasons, while recognizing that a same-strength amber
flashing or steady light will be more visible than a red one, in
consideration of the practicalities and costs I use a storebought
Cateye LD1100 multimode flasher even though I'm a longtime electronics
hobbyist who has no problem knocking up a light. (I have some homemade
front lights used for offroading.)
Andre Jute
Keep an open mind and firm hand on your wallet
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Those aren't the only problems. On top of that you have personal
choice and environmental/professional conditioning. For instance,
though I probably know as much as anyone here about the quality of
light (because I have to, as a sometime painter and filmmaker and
still a typographer), if I were put in your sample group for a test
your results would be skewed. You see, while I know rationally that
the cold white light of the LED is superior (casts less contrasty
shadows, nearer the appearance of sunlight through a northern window,
etc), I prefer the warm yellow light of the halogen lamp because that
is how my entire environment has deliberately and expensively been set
up all my life, how all my screens are set up; without even thinking
about it, I consider any light which doesn't meet the graphic studio
standard to be substandard. Many other people have similar
environmental/professional quirks that they cannot tell you about
because they don't even know they have them. And on top of that you
have to add personal choice, and the sort of physical differences you
point out above.
Personally, I think it is crap to say a less bright light is as good
as a brighter light under almost any conditions, and I can't think of
any of those that apply to a bicycle light except if a very bright
single light has a very narrow focus (the excess, concentrated
brightness would interfere with your important peripheral vision) and
then it is already by definition incompetent and undesirable as a
bicycle lamp. More light must be better, with caveats about its
distribution so that other road users are not blinded or otherwise
inconvenienced.
Andre Jute
Visionary
terryc
> However, the biggest risk to cyclists is not from the
> rear but to front and sides.
Stats?
> So why not put a red light at the front as well?
Because the convention on land is that white means the vehicle is
approachng you and that red means the vehicle is travelling away or inthe
same direction.
in anycase you are changing the subject, from seeing to being seen.
> My own, better idea is to have amber flashing lights on all sides of the
> bike to mark it as an obstacle/slow-moving vehicle/turning vehicle/ let
> drivers mistake it for a car as long as possible.
I achieved that by in-spoke reflectors. Actually I use a pair of ring
eflectorss offset. This has the effect of pulsating in vehicle lights
and I know from feed pack that it grabs their attention.
> The problem is that no one sells good flashing or steady amber lights,
> so the cyclist is thrown back on one of Scharfie's heath robbinson
> schemes, which always costs more than two of the best Cateyes.
The real problem is that many bicyclists have never opened their eyes and
lookat where the strong lights are. They are on the motor vehicles.
If you want to be see, then reflectors are the way to go.
Wear light clothing, wear a reflective vest, spiral reflective tape around
your bicycle frame, have red reflectors to the rear, have wite reflectors
to the front and hve good in-spoke relectors inyour wheels.
Andre Jute
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:52:40 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
> > However, the biggest risk to cyclists is not from the
> > rear but to front and sides.
>
> Stats?
Some stats were given last week in the other lights thread. But the
preponderance of front and side hits by motor vehicles on cars is
widely known and accepted; I first came across the numbers on Ken
Kifer's site.
> > So why not put a red light at the front as well?
>
> Because the convention on land is that white means the vehicle is
> approachng you and that red means the vehicle is travelling away or inthe
> same direction.
Uh-huh. Sometimes it is a good idea to go against the accepted
convention to attract attention.
>
> in anycase you are changing the subject, from seeing to being seen.
Sorry. I see them as connected problems relating to my safety.
> > My own, better idea is to have amber flashing lights on all sides of the
> > bike to mark it as an obstacle/slow-moving vehicle/turning vehicle/ let
> > drivers mistake it for a car as long as possible.
>
> I achieved that by in-spoke reflectors. Actually I use a pair of ring
> eflectorss offset. This has the effect of pulsating in vehicle lights
> and I know from feed pack that it grabs their attention.
I just popped over to my shopping list to add ring reflectors for my
new bike... Always something you forget!
> > The problem is that no one sells good flashing or steady amber lights,
> > so the cyclist is thrown back on one of Scharfie's heath robbinson
> > schemes, which always costs more than two of the best Cateyes.
>
> The real problem is that many bicyclists have never opened their eyes and
> lookat where the strong lights are. They are on the motor vehicles.
> If you want to be see, then reflectors are the way to go.
Nice bit of lateral thinking that, a cycling karate move to use your
opponent's strength to your own advantage.
Aside: At my LBS you can get any number of reflectors free of charge
from a box near the workshop door. Just take a handful. The kids
insist they be removed from their bikes because reflectors aren't
"cool".
> Wear light clothing, wear a reflective vest, spiral reflective tape around
> your bicycle frame, have red reflectors to the rear, have wite reflectors
> to the front and hve good in-spoke relectors inyour wheels.
It is worth leaving good Dutch or German lights on your bike even if
you don't use them: they usually have superb, large inbuilt
reflectors.
Andre Jute
Ein perfektes Sorglos-Rad für Schöngeister
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> The real problem is that many bicyclists have never opened their eyes and
> lookat where the strong lights are. They are on the motor vehicles.
> If you want to be see, then reflectors are the way to go.
>
> Wear light clothing, wear a reflective vest, spiral reflective tape around
> your bicycle frame, have red reflectors to the rear, have wite reflectors
> to the front and hve good in-spoke relectors inyour wheels.
The above paragraphs seem to imply that they are better than lights.
They are not. Reflectors are worth having not because they are highly
effective, but because they cost and weigh almost nothing. They
deliver pretty good bang for the buck only because they require very
few bucks.
Reflectors work only if the angles are right - that is, angles between
light sources, reflectors, and driver's eyes. On things like tall
vehicles, those angles can be all wrong, especially up close. I've
read reports of tests where drivers said the bike's reflectors went
dark as their vehicle got close to the bike. Lights don't do that.
Spiral reflective tape around your frame may help a tiny bit (and I
haven't tried it) but it sounds weak to me. I've got reflective tape
on a cylindrical pedal body. It's much less visible than would be a
flat piece of tape, simply because only a thin line is positioned to
reflect back properly. I suspect tape on the frame would be the same.
And regarding reflective vests and light clothing: I've got a few
scientific papers on file reporting on studies of pedestrians at
night. Turns out white jackets don't show up, and reflective vests
aren't well recognized as people.
Reflectors on moving parts of your bike are effective. Pedal or crank
reflectors are usually very good, because the "biomotion" lights up
circuits in a driver's brain. Lights are absolutely necessary, no
matter how many reflectors you use. And you don't need to blind the
rest of the world to be safe at night.
- Frank Krygowski
terryc
> On Dec 26, 9:46 pm, terryc <newssevenspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The real problem is that many bicyclists have never opened their eyes and
>> lookat where the strong lights are. They are on the motor vehicles.
>> If you want to be see, then reflectors are the way to go.
>>
>> Wear light clothing, wear a reflective vest, spiral reflective tape around
>> your bicycle frame, have red reflectors to the rear, have wite reflectors
>> to the front and hve good in-spoke relectors inyour wheels.
>
> The above paragraphs seem to imply that they are better than lights.
No, but they are a very useful part of being seen and recognised as a
bicycle rider.
> Reflectors are worth having not because they are highly effective, but
> because they cost and weigh almost nothing. They deliver pretty good
> bang for the buck only because they require very few bucks.
Exactly.
> Reflectors work only if the angles are right - that is, angles between
> light sources, reflectors, and driver's eyes. On things like tall
> vehicles, those angles can be all wrong, especially up close. I've
> read reports of tests where drivers said the bike's reflectors went
> dark as their vehicle got close to the bike. Lights don't do that.
Correct, but they have done their job if the driver sees the reflectors,
then notices that they go dark. If that is a problem, then that just
implies extra reflectors. It is a shame that it is hard to get those 6"
reflectors from the era of sissy-bars now.
> Spiral reflective tape around your frame may help a tiny bit (and I
> haven't tried it) but it sounds weak to me.
It is simply another reflective device to take advantage of the light
provided by motor vehicle headlights. Apart from showing up in photographs
I've taken, antedotal feedback is that is catches drivers attention and
helps them identify a bicycle. It adds the the sideways visibility.
> I've got reflective tape on
> a cylindrical pedal body. It's much less visible than would be a flat
> piece of tape, simply because only a thin line is positioned to reflect
> back properly. I suspect tape on the frame would be the same.
It tends to show up as approx 1" squares along the frame. It wold shw up
as thin strips if I had it on the racks.
>
> And regarding reflective vests and light clothing: I've got a few
> scientific papers on file reporting on studies of pedestrians at night.
> Turns out white jackets don't show up, and reflective vests aren't well
> recognized as people.
How old are the reports? In Australia in the last few decades we have
gone from "only thse freak bicycle riders" wearing reflective vests to
every "road" worker wearing reflective vests, which includes a police
officer when they alight from their vehicle. so that would definitely be
changed in this country.
> Reflectors on moving parts of your bike are effective.
That is why I like the inspoke rings.
> Pedal or crank reflectors are usually very good, because the
> "biomotion" lights up circuits in a driver's brain.
My pedals have reflectors because the bear traps I buy come with them, but
I've never bother adding them to pedals or cranks. I'd be more inclinded
to add reflective ankle straps keeps as pants clips.
> Lights are absolutely necessary, no
> matter how many reflectors you use.
Yes, the reflectors are seen first from a long way off, then the light
clothing (size) and then the lights.
> And you don't need to blind the
> rest of the world to be safe at night.
On busy roads with a solid background of neon advertsing, I'll stick to
my 50 watt even though it requires a heavy battery. Naturally, I drop back
to the 20 watt elsewhere. YeyesMV.
Michael Press
terryc <newsseven...@woa.com.au> wrote:
Add reflectors on the pedals and trouser clips
to generate a distinctive signature.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<c91c741d-f9fe-47b1...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:46 pm, terryc <newssevenspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The real problem is that many bicyclists have never opened their eyes and
> > lookat where the strong lights are. They are on the motor vehicles.
> > If you want to be see, then reflectors are the way to go.
> >
> > Wear light clothing, wear a reflective vest, spiral reflective tape around
> > your bicycle frame, have red reflectors to the rear, have wite reflectors
> > to the front and hve good in-spoke relectors inyour wheels.
>
> The above paragraphs seem to imply that they are better than lights.
> They are not. Reflectors are worth having not because they are highly
> effective, but because they cost and weigh almost nothing. They
> deliver pretty good bang for the buck only because they require very
> few bucks.
>
> Reflectors work only if the angles are right - that is, angles between
> light sources, reflectors, and driver's eyes. On things like tall
> vehicles, those angles can be all wrong, especially up close. I've
> read reports of tests where drivers said the bike's reflectors went
> dark as their vehicle got close to the bike. Lights don't do that.
There are reflectors, and then there are corner reflectors.
Some retail reflectors are corner reflectors,others are
not. With a narrow beam flashlight you can test the reflectors
in the retail store. Stand off 20 feet at various shallow
angles from the reflectors and observe the reflections.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector>
--
Michael Press
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> The real problem is that many bicyclists have never opened their
>>> eyes and look at where the strong lights are. They are on the
>>> motor vehicles. If you want to be seen, then reflectors are the
>>> way to go.
The most effective reflectors are heel patches of Scotchlite (or pedal
retro reflectors) the sinusoidal motion of pedals is a natural signal
for practically everyman of approaching a bicycle from behind.
>>> Wear light clothing, wear a reflective vest, spiral reflective
>>> tape around your bicycle frame, have red reflectors to the rear,
>>> have white reflectors to the front and have good in-spoke reflectors
>>> in your wheels.
I find better 15mm wide segments of Scotchlite between about six
spokes or 30° of the rim because this can be seen from ahead as well
and behind equally well. I've had good experience with this and even
had photographs in unlit tunnels in the Alps ruined because the flash
reflection obscured the rider.
>> The above paragraphs seem to imply that they are better than
>> lights. They are not. Reflectors are worth having not because
>> they are highly effective, but because they cost and weigh almost
>> nothing. They deliver pretty good bang for the buck only because
>> they require very few bucks.
I disagree, having seen good reflectors from my car often. I prefer
them to flashing HID lamps and steady ones.
>> Reflectors work only if the angles are right - that is, angles
>> between light sources, reflectors, and driver's eyes. On things
>> like tall vehicles, those angles can be all wrong, especially up
>> close. I've read reports of tests where drivers said the bike's
>> reflectors went dark as their vehicle got close to the bike.
>> Lights don't do that.
There is only one angle of interest for good reflectors, and these are
all retro-reflectors that send light back the path of incidence.
> There are reflectors, and then there are corner reflectors. Some
> retail reflectors are corner reflectors,others are not. With a
> narrow beam flashlight you can test the reflectors in the retail
> store. Stand off 20 feet at various shallow angles from the
> reflectors and observe the reflections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector
Corner reflectors have a maximum entry angle and beyond that they do
not work. These are often call "cube corner" reflectors because they
are in essence the shape of a cube corner, either hollow (made of
mirrors, or solid glass using total internal reflection in air. For
some applications the back side of solid glass reflectors have a
dielectric coating for specific wavelengths or are fully silvered,
which is unnecessary.
Their real name is trihedral reflectors and are used on most plastic
red or orange vehicle reflectors, in contrast to glass bead
(Scotchlite). All surveying today is done with solid optical glass
trihedral reflectors. A trihedral reflector returns the light back
exactly to the source. Therefore, if the observer is not in the axis
of illumination, no reflection is visible. The same is true for high
quality Scotchlite.
If you see one of these, remember to look into the aperture where the
only thing you can see is your own eye as you move around within its
acceptance angle.
--
Jobst Brandt
Victor Kan
...
> The problem is that no one sells good flashing or steady amber lights,
Dinotte Lighting makes an amber light for daytime headlight use:
Frank Krygowski
> In article
> <c91c741d-f9fe-47b1-b9af-7870c83d7...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Reflectors work only if the angles are right - that is, angles between
> > light sources, reflectors, and driver's eyes. On things like tall
> > vehicles, those angles can be all wrong, especially up close. I've
> > read reports of tests where drivers said the bike's reflectors went
> > dark as their vehicle got close to the bike. Lights don't do that.
>
> There are reflectors, and then there are corner reflectors.
> Some retail reflectors are corner reflectors,others are
> not. With a narrow beam flashlight you can test the reflectors
> in the retail store. Stand off 20 feet at various shallow
> angles from the reflectors and observe the reflections.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector>
Almost all reflectors are cube corner reflectors, the kind to which
you're referring. The only other type I know of, bead reflectors, are
used in Scotchbrite fabric and reflective tape, etc.
Both have the same major limitation: they reflect light in a fairly
narrow beam back to its source. If the driver's eyes aren't close to
the source, they won't work. This can be a big problem with, say, a
driver whose left headlight (in the U.S.) is out, or a tall truck.
Cube corner types also have strong limits on entrance angles. That
is, if the reflector isn't reasonably perpendicular to the light,
light can't get into the myriad corners to do the triple bounce.
Then you get problems such as reflectors that are covered with mud or
dust, reflectors that are mounted on fabric (packs or clothing) and
flopping around so they point at the sky, bike-mounted ones that are
bent or broken, helmet mounted reflectors that are too high for the
brightest part of the headlight beam... (yeah, I know, unless you're
on a recumbent - but then, why do you need a helmet? ;-)
Really, it's worth reading all of John Allen's reflector articles
starting at http://www.bikexprt.com/bicycle/reflectors/reflwrk.htm.
Keep clicking "Next."
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I find better 15mm wide segments of Scotchlite between about six
> spokes or 30° of the rim because this can be seen from ahead as well
> and behind equally well. I've had good experience with this and even
> had photographs in unlit tunnels in the Alps ruined because the flash
> reflection obscured the rider.
I like those, as well. They've shown up well in my tests, too.
> >> The above paragraphs seem to imply that they are better than
> >> lights. They are not. Reflectors are worth having not because
> >> they are highly effective, but because they cost and weigh almost
> >> nothing. They deliver pretty good bang for the buck only because
> >> they require very few bucks.
>
> I disagree, having seen good reflectors from my car often. I prefer
> them to flashing HID lamps and steady ones.
Perhaps I overstated by using "only." However, I don't want to
overstate the value of reflectors. I worry that too many cyclists put
excessive faith in reflectors, to the point that they don't use lights
at night.
As stated in the post I just finished, there are many circumstances
where reflectors don't work well. I find most people have a very dim
(hah!) idea of how these things do, and don't, work. So they think
"I've got a front reflector and side-facing reflectors on my bike.
That car that just came up to the stop sign is bound to see me. He
won't pull out in front of me." But that's wrong. A motorist can't
see a cyclist's reflectors unless his headlights are directly hitting
the reflectors, AND several other conditions are satisfied.
Cyclists need lights at night. Reflectors are a backup. They're not
without value, but they're not sufficient.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Sherman
> [...]
> Then you get problems such as reflectors that are covered with mud or
> dust, reflectors that are mounted on fabric (packs or clothing) and
> flopping around so they point at the sky, bike-mounted ones that are
> bent or broken, helmet mounted reflectors that are too high for the
> brightest part of the headlight beam... (yeah, I know, unless you're
Indeed, helmets are even less necessary on a recumbent, since the rider
is less likely to hit his/her head during a fall, minimizing the need
for bump and scrape protection.
On the other hand, a neon yellow-green helmet (or hat) makes the
recumbent rider much more visible.
jim beam
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org considered 28 Dec 2008 05:17:24 GMT the
> The danger with retro reflectors is that they ONLY work if the light
> source is very close in angle to the observation point. For a large
> subset of vehicle types this is not the case, as the driving position is
> a long way above the headlights, as in a large truck or bus. These are
> the very vehicles which seem to have the most difficulty in seeing
> cyclists.
well said.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector
> The danger with retro reflectors is that they ONLY work if the light
> source is very close in angle to the observation point. For a large
> subset of vehicle types this is not the case, as the driving
> position is a long way above the headlights, as in a large truck or
> bus. These are the very vehicles which seem to have the most
> difficulty in seeing cyclists.
Common Scotchlite does not have such a narrow acceptance angle and
most red and orange reflectors on the market have slight off-angle
facets so they also have a greater spread. Beyond that, you must
believe that truck drivers cannot read Scotchlite reflectorized
highway signs or see the Scotchlite road striping. I don't understand
why you want to discourage the use of reflectors other than you don't
understand the optics and fear of them somehow.
Jobst Brandt
jim beam
jobst, what don't you understand??? if a cyclist is shaded, say by
another vehicle, or vegetation, outside the angle of illumination by the
vehicle's lights, but still within the angle of vision of the differently
positioned observer, then lights on the bicycle are by definition much
more effective. that's why all vehicles bother with rear lights, not just
reflectors. there are no circumstances when reflectors can be relied on
more than active lighting. they may assist, but they cannot replace.
Dan O
Only the fredliest fred would assume that anyone had seem him with no
supporting evidence to suggest they actually had (eye contact,
consistent reactive behavior). You find *most* people actually think
as you've outlined above?
You seem to believe that almost everyone is completely clueless about
almost everything.
> A motorist can't
> see a cyclist's reflectors unless his headlights are directly hitting
> the reflectors, AND several other conditions are satisfied.
>
Just because they aren't working optimally doesn't make them
invisible. They're not magic, either.
> Cyclists need lights at night. Reflectors are a backup. They're not
> without value, but they're not sufficient.
>
Needed for what? Sufficient for what? Safety? Safety is relative.
Lights can certainly enhance safety, and along with reflectors provide
near optimum layered defense-in-depth, but are not without additonal
complications and drawbacks of their own. Whether or not they're
*needed* depends on the circumstances.
Jay Beattie
Well, in a general sense you need a headlight because it is required
by law. Some states are toying with changing the UVC to require a
rear flasher, too. I think the ordinary blinky LED is optimal because
it signals your presense before the car gets light reflected off you
or your reflector. The more warning the better. This is particularly
true for me when riding home through the hills -- the cars can see my
flasher on the ascending pitch which is above their lights and off to
the right or left. I still like reflectors and reflective clothing
and intend to get more for my commuter bike, particularly some tape
for my booties. -- Jay Beattie.
Dan O
> by law.
Sure, I agree - but that is still a circumstance. (Whether or not the
rider cares to obey the law is another circumstance ;-)
jim beam
indeed.
SMS
> Well, in a general sense you need a headlight because it is required
> by law. Some states are toying with changing the UVC to require a
> rear flasher, too. I think the ordinary blinky LED is optimal because
> it signals your presense before the car gets light reflected off you
> or your reflector. The more warning the better. This is particularly
> true for me when riding home through the hills -- the cars can see my
> flasher on the ascending pitch which is above their lights and off to
> the right or left. I still like reflectors and reflective clothing
> and intend to get more for my commuter bike, particularly some tape
> for my booties. -- Jay Beattie.
There's a problem I've noticed a lot lately of vehicles failing to turn
on their headlights. On well lit streets they'll forget to turn them on
and it'll take a while before they realize they're not on once they
enter darker areas. On El Camino Real in Menlo Park, it's brightly lit,
then you cross into Atherton where there are no street lights and it's
very dark but you'll often see cars traverse the whole length of
Atherton with no lights on until they enter Redwood City which is again
brightly lit.
You also have the problem of daytime running lights, where drivers don't
realize that they haven't turned on their actual headlights. The DRLs
are "being seen" lights and aren't bright enough to do a good job
reflecting off reflectors (besides the problem of the rear lights not
being on when only the DRLs are on).
So while reflective material is no doubt a good idea, it's a bad idea to
depend on light sources from others to illuminate yourself.
Some flashers are also reflectors, but many are not.
jim beam
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>> Well, in a general sense you need a headlight because it is required by
>> law. Some states are toying with changing the UVC to require a rear
>> flasher, too. I think the ordinary blinky LED is optimal because it
>> signals your presense before the car gets light reflected off you or
>> your reflector. The more warning the better. This is particularly true
>> for me when riding home through the hills -- the cars can see my
>> flasher on the ascending pitch which is above their lights and off to
>> the right or left. I still like reflectors and reflective clothing and
>> intend to get more for my commuter bike, particularly some tape for my
>> booties. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> There's a problem I've noticed a lot lately of vehicles failing to turn
> on their headlights. On well lit streets they'll forget to turn them on
> and it'll take a while before they realize they're not on once they
> enter darker areas. On El Camino Real in Menlo Park, it's brightly lit,
> then you cross into Atherton where there are no street lights and it's
> very dark but you'll often see cars traverse the whole length of
> Atherton with no lights on until they enter Redwood City which is again
> brightly lit.
>
> You also have the problem of daytime running lights, where drivers don't
> realize that they haven't turned on their actual headlights.
i've noticed this a lot lately. i think that if we're going to be stuck
with drl's, we also need light sensor switching so lights automatically
come on in the dark - and the retards don't get to drive with their real
lights off. they should automatically turn on when it rains too - it's
always incredible to me to see drivers here in the bay area, when there's
a monsoon of biblical proportion and visibility down to a few yards,
happily driving with no lights.
Frank Krygowski
> On Dec 28, 7:55 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > overstate the value of reflectors. I worry that too many cyclists put
> > excessive faith in reflectors, to the point that they don't use lights
> > at night.
>
> > As stated in the post I just finished, there are many circumstances
> > where reflectors don't work well. I find most people have a very dim
> > (hah!) idea of how these things do, and don't, work. So they think
> > "I've got a front reflector and side-facing reflectors on my bike.
> > That car that just came up to the stop sign is bound to see me. He
> > won't pull out in front of me." But that's wrong.
>
> Only the fredliest fred would assume that anyone had seem him with no
> supporting evidence to suggest they actually had (eye contact,
> consistent reactive behavior).
I don't understand. There are countless times you _must_ assume you've
been seen. Otherwise you'd be stopping very frequently.
> You find *most* people actually think as you've outlined above?
Yes, I think that's accurate.
You may not be familiar with the notorious Derby case, where the
plaintiff's legal team (including expert witness John Forester) put a
reflectorized bike with no lights in a mall and surveyed people on
whether the bike was safe for night riding. IRRC, "yes" was almost
universal. That indicates a healthy degree of ignorance. (But it's
what won the case for the dope on the bike riding wrong-way on the
sidewalk with no lights.)
Furthermore, I've talked about the issue in many cycling classes I've
taught, and even more in a presentation I did at a bike club on night
riding equipment. Based on the questions and comments (like, "I never
knew that" and like "We could just put mirrors on the bike"), I think
most people are very confused about how these things work.
> You seem to believe that almost everyone is completely clueless about
> almost everything.
<sigh> Down, boy. You seem offended because I don't do a lot of
"Yeah, me too!" posts.
>
> > A motorist can't
> > see a cyclist's reflectors unless his headlights are directly hitting
> > the reflectors, AND several other conditions are satisfied.
>
> Just because they aren't working optimally doesn't make them
> invisible. They're not magic, either.
>
> > Cyclists need lights at night. Reflectors are a backup. They're not
> > without value, but they're not sufficient.
>
> Needed for what? Sufficient for what? Safety? Safety is relative.
> Lights can certainly enhance safety, and along with reflectors provide
> near optimum layered defense-in-depth, but are not without additonal
> complications and drawbacks of their own. Whether or not they're
> *needed* depends on the circumstances.
You need to make your position more clear. If you think it's fine for
cyclists to ride at night with no lights, but only reflectors, say
so. But IMO, that does move you into the "clueless" camp.
Personally, I think the only exceptions to "need lights at night" are
Jutean exceptions to normal reality, like "What if the street lights
are as bright as daylight, and you're closely followed by an escort
car with floodlights, and you're not moving over 8 mph, and the police
have cleared the roads of all other vehicles..."
For anything like normal, practical cycling, reflectors alone don't
cut it.
So, are you really arguing for night riding without lights?
- Frank Krygowski
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Only the fredliest fred would assume that anyone had seem him with
>> no supporting evidence to suggest they actually had (eye contact,
>> consistent reactive behavior).
> I don't understand. There are countless times you _must_ assume
> you've been seen. Otherwise you'd be stopping very.
>> You find *most* people actually think as you've outlined above?
> Yes, I think that's accurate.
> You may not be familiar with the notorious Derby case, where the
> plaintiff's legal team (including expert witness John Forester) put a
> reflectorized bike with no lights in a mall and surveyed people on
> whether the bike was safe for night riding. IRRC, "yes" was almost
> universal. That indicates a healthy degree of ignorance. (But it's
> what won the case for the dope on the bike riding wrong-way on the
> sidewalk with no lights.)
> Furthermore, I've talked about the issue in many cycling classes I've
> taught, and even more in a presentation I did at a bike club on night
> riding equipment. Based on the questions and comments (like, "I never
> knew that" and like "We could just put mirrors on the bike"), I think
> most people are very.
>> You seem to believe that almost everyone is completely clueless
>> about almost everything.
> <sigh> Down, boy. You seem offended because I don't do a lot of
> "Yeah, me too!" posts.
> So, are you really arguing for night riding without lights?
Hey! that's the way to win arguments. Rephrase the opponents message
to make it ridiculous and attack that position setting him up for
ridicule.
I posted what I think are the most effective reflectors and the
conclusion was that I opposed using lights. Beyond that, the example
of highway tractor-semi trailer rigs not being able to see a
retro-reflector is bogus. When on a highway where this might occur,
the approach distance due to speed difference is large and the
dispersion angle adequate to give a driver a clear image of reflectors
of a bicycle.
Thanks,
Jobst Brandt
jim beam
you should know jobst - you give lessons in that technique!
>
> I posted what I think are the most effective reflectors and the
> conclusion was that I opposed using lights.
bizarre and illogical given the facts.
> Beyond that, the example of
> highway tractor-semi trailer rigs not being able to see a
> retro-reflector is bogus.
really? so reflectors are effective at all angles of incidence? or are
you going to define the angles and relate those to this situation???
> When on a highway where this might occur, the
> approach distance due to speed difference is large and the dispersion
> angle adequate to give a driver a clear image of reflectors of a
> bicycle.
"adequate" is way too indefinite, even for jobstian inexactitudes.
particularly given the fact that lights are, by definition, visible from a
much greater distance than any reflector.
> Thanks.
for what? yet more jobstian misinformation and failure to understand the
basics?
peter
> You may not be familiar with the notorious Derby case, where the
> plaintiff's legal team (including expert witness John Forester) put a
> reflectorized bike with no lights in a mall and surveyed people on
> whether the bike was safe for night riding. IRRC, "yes" was almost
> universal. That indicates a healthy degree of ignorance. (But it's
> what won the case for the dope on the bike riding wrong-way on the
> sidewalk with no lights.)
I agree with the point of your post but wonder if you have a citation
that gives that description of the Derby case?
My recollection from reading some of Forester's notes was that Johnson
was riding on the correct side of the street (in the roadway) down a
significant grade when an oncoming car turned left directly in front
of him. The circumstances illustrate one of the main problems with a
'reflector only' approach - many accidents involve one of the vehicles
turning across the path of the other. In that case the reflector will
only catch the light from the other vehicle in the last moment before
impact and may well be too late for the driver to react and avoid a
collision.
Car headlights are deliberately designed to minimize the amount of
light they shine toward the left side of the road to avoid blinding
oncoming traffic. So if you have a rather wide road and an oncoming
cyclist staying 'as far to the right as practicable' then the oncoming
car's headlights won't send much light at all in the direction of the
bike's front reflector. Only when the car starts its left turn will
the reflector become visible and that might be only a second before
impact. Hilly roads with varying grades (which was apparently the case
here) can make the problem worse since the aim of the headlights might
not be in the same plane as the bicycle reflector.
russell...@yahoo.com
Oppose using rear lights on bicycles? Would you also propose all
motorized vehicles only have reflectors and no rear lights? Since you
believe reflectors do as much if not more good than rear lights. I
think reflectors are good and useful as a supplement to rear lights.
Supplement, not substitute.
Beyond that, the example
> of highway tractor-semi trailer rigs not being able to see a
> retro-reflector is bogus. When on a highway where this might occur,
> the approach distance due to speed difference is large and the
> dispersion angle adequate to give a driver a clear image of reflectors
> of a bicycle.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben C
> I read the recent "bright lights" posting which got me in to a bit of
> research which in turn revealed that red lights are better for vision at
> night as they highlight obstacles with much less depth perception issues
> and, whilst highly visible to those around are much less blinding.
>
> Does anyone then have experience using a red light for forward lighting
> (illegal on the road in the UK I realise but i'd be prepared to take the
> risk on quite roads), also perhaps an excellent off road option?
>
> What about other colour options? I assume if what is said about red is
> true then the longer wavelengths are superior?
Red is the longest visible wavelength. Infra red would make a poor light
source since it is invisible.
But you could try yellow. French cars always used to have yellow
headlamps, possibly on the assumption they were better in fog or
something. Or just to be different. But a yellow light would not confuse
oncoming traffic the way a red one would.
Problem is if you're putting a yellow or red filter on a white light
then you're reducing the brightness which is unlikely to be good.
Frank Krygowski
> On Dec 28, 6:24 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You may not be familiar with the notorious Derby case, where the
> > plaintiff's legal team (including expert witness John Forester) put a
> > reflectorized bike with no lights in a mall and surveyed people on
> > whether the bike was safe for night riding. IRRC, "yes" was almost
> > universal. That indicates a healthy degree of ignorance. (But it's
> > what won the case for the dope on the bike riding wrong-way on the
> > sidewalk with no lights.)
>
> I agree with the point of your post but wonder if you have a citation
> that gives that description of the Derby case?
>
> My recollection from reading some of Forester's notes was that Johnson
> was riding on the correct side of the street (in the roadway) down a
> significant grade when an oncoming car turned left directly in front
> of him.
You're right, I just double checked. My memory was faulty.
> The circumstances illustrate one of the main problems with a
> 'reflector only' approach - many accidents involve one of the vehicles
> turning across the path of the other. In that case the reflector will
> only catch the light from the other vehicle in the last moment before
> impact and may well be too late for the driver to react and avoid a
> collision.
>
> Car headlights are deliberately designed to minimize the amount of
> light they shine toward the left side of the road to avoid blinding
> oncoming traffic. So if you have a rather wide road and an oncoming
> cyclist staying 'as far to the right as practicable' then the oncoming
> car's headlights won't send much light at all in the direction of the
> bike's front reflector. Only when the car starts its left turn will
> the reflector become visible and that might be only a second before
> impact. Hilly roads with varying grades (which was apparently the case
> here) can make the problem worse since the aim of the headlights might
> not be in the same plane as the bicycle reflector.
All very true!
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Red is the longest visible wavelength. Infra red would make a poor light
> source since it is invisible.
>
> But you could try yellow. French cars always used to have yellow
> headlamps, possibly on the assumption they were better in fog or
> something. Or just to be different. But a yellow light would not confuse
> oncoming traffic the way a red one would.
>
> Problem is if you're putting a yellow or red filter on a white light
> then you're reducing the brightness which is unlikely to be good.
A related question: I know some hunters use yellow shooting glasses
to improve visual acuity. And I've seen advertisements for "blue
blocker" eyeglass lenses that claim to improve vision in certain
conditions (haze & fog, I think).
The latter idea's consistent with what I've read, that complaints of
glare from HID headlights (on cars) are due to the greater scattering
of blue wavelengths inside the human eye, rather than due to greater
light output.
Anyway: Anybody have experience with different lens colors?
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER%20Andre%20GDitCA.html
Andre Jute: Colour for Professional Communicators, in the series
Graphic Design in the Computer Age, B T Batsford, London
Any technical college or design school library should have a copy.
Start at p25. "Real World Colour Models".
HTH.
-- AJ
Michael Press
<f89978ef-871c-4270...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
"russell...@yahoo.com" <russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Seems to me that Jobst was conveying
"I posted what I think are the most effective reflectors
and _your_ conclusion was that I opposed using lights!"
--
Michael Press
Andrew Price
>Red is the longest visible wavelength. Infra red would make a poor light
>source since it is invisible.
That was the reason red was chosen for railway signals to indicate
danger. It was believed that the wavelength would enable it to
penetrate fog and falling snow more easily than other colours.
>But you could try yellow. French cars always used to have yellow
>headlamps, possibly on the assumption they were better in fog or
>something. Or just to be different. But a yellow light would not confuse
>oncoming traffic the way a red one would.
Whether they were better in fog or not, I never found out, but the
light from the yellow headlamps of cars coming in the opposite
direction was most definitely less tiring on the eyes when making long
night journeys. This was particularly evident when approaching the
Belgian and German borders at night, with the increased numbers of
cars with white headlamps coming in the other direction.
jim beam
--
Michael Press
ah, revisionism! always successful in rehabilitation without admission of
incompetence or ignorance.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Anyway: Anybody have experience with different lens colors?
I haven't been following this thread so am not sure if your question
is about lens colors and car lights, or lens colors in general, but in
daylight there are some colors that enhance contrast -- red and
red/browns generally do that. A plain gray lens that transmits the
same amount of light will have things look less constrasty.
Tom Sherman
> [...]
> Personally, I think the only exceptions to "need lights at night" are
> Jutean exceptions to normal reality, like "What if the street lights
> are as bright as daylight, and you're closely followed by an escort
> car with floodlights, and you're not moving over 8 mph, and the police
> have cleared the roads of all other vehicles..."
If the radiance of your personality is sufficient?
Andre Jute
wrote:
> I don't discourage the use of reflectors, but I do warn strongly
> against reliance on them as a substitute for proper lights.
Reflectors definitely need help. Some of the better rear lights from
Spanninga/Basta/BUMM in fact have optical channels to divert some of
the LED's light to illuminating the reflectors. I have several such
lights and the appearance they make from directly behind is pleasingly
large.
I also use only tyres with reflex bands on the sides. Those, together
with spoke-mounted amber reflectors and pedal-edge reflectors whirling
around are very obvious bike-signatures at crosscroads where bikes are
particularly vulnerable.
Side reflectors are good also in other situations. I stopped beside
the rear passenger-side door of an S-class Mercedes but several feet
away (to give him an opportunity to turn without running me over) and
the driver ran the window down to say, "Hello, Andre." I hadn't
recognized him through the shaded glass but when the window was down
saw that my tires and the amber side-reflectors were visible in his
big curved inside mirror, just from the glow cast on them by a street
light. It was clearly a bicycle. He presumably recognized the bike
from the amount of night-vision material on it because my face was
above the roof of his car until I bent to look in after he spoke to
me.
Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
Dan O
> On Dec 28, 3:58 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 7:55 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... I don't want to
> > > overstate the value of reflectors. I worry that too many cyclists put
> > > excessive faith in reflectors, to the point that they don't use lights
> > > at night.
>
> > > As stated in the post I just finished, there are many circumstances
> > > where reflectors don't work well. I find most people have a very dim
> > > (hah!) idea of how these things do, and don't, work. So they think
> > > "I've got a front reflector and side-facing reflectors on my bike.
> > > That car that just came up to the stop sign is bound to see me. He
> > > won't pull out in front of me." But that's wrong.
>
> > Only the fredliest fred would assume that anyone had seem him with no
> > supporting evidence to suggest they actually had (eye contact,
> > consistent reactive behavior).
>
> I don't understand. There are countless times you _must_ assume you've
> been seen. Otherwise you'd be stopping very frequently.
>
So you _assume_ that you've been seen by every motorist before riding
into their potential path? (I didn't think so.) You judge the
relative probability that they've seen you based on innumerable
factors and indications, including things like eye contact and
behaviors consistent with their having seen you. Then you proceed
anyway, *not* upon the assumption that they've seen you, but with a
degree of caution and readiness based on that dynamic probability
judgment.
> > You find *most* people actually think as you've outlined above?
>
> Yes, I think that's accurate.
>
*Most* people?! (You already confirmed - no need to repeat. I just
had to reiterate my incredulousness :-)
>
> Furthermore, I've talked about the issue in many cycling classes I've
> taught, and even more in a presentation I did at a bike club on night
> riding equipment. Based on the questions and comments (like, "I never
> knew that" and like "We could just put mirrors on the bike"), I think
> most people are very confused about how these things work.
>
Did it occur to you that the type of person who would take a class to
learn how to ride a bike may tend to be on the fredly end of the
scale?
> > You seem to believe that almost everyone is completely clueless about
> > almost everything.
>
> <sigh> Down, boy. You seem offended because I don't do a lot of
> "Yeah, me too!" posts.
>
That wasn't supposed to be an attack. I like you, Frank, but you can
be *incredibly* condescending. I can't believe that you actually
believe *most* people would just assume they actually *had* been seen
without supporting indications - just because they *should* have been
seen (by any competent motorist).
>
>
>
>
> > > A motorist can't
> > > see a cyclist's reflectors unless his headlights are directly hitting
> > > the reflectors, AND several other conditions are satisfied.
>
> > Just because they aren't working optimally doesn't make them
> > invisible. They're not magic, either.
>
> > > Cyclists need lights at night. Reflectors are a backup. They're not
> > > without value, but they're not sufficient.
>
> > Needed for what? Sufficient for what? Safety? Safety is relative.
> > Lights can certainly enhance safety, and along with reflectors provide
> > near optimum layered defense-in-depth, but are not without additonal
> > complications and drawbacks of their own. Whether or not they're
> > *needed* depends on the circumstances.
>
> You need to make your position more clear. If you think it's fine for
> cyclists to ride at night with no lights, but only reflectors, say
> so. But IMO, that does move you into the "clueless" camp.
>
I would not recommend that anyone else ride a bike on the road at
night without lights. I use lights, but, depending upon what I'm up
to at any given time, might not "need" them - even at night. If you
had qualified your statement that "Cyclists need lights at night" with
something like "For general riding on public roadways, ... ", then I
wouldn't be picking this bone.
> Personally, I think the only exceptions to "need lights at night" are
> Jutean exceptions to normal reality, like "What if the street lights
> are as bright as daylight, and you're closely followed by an escort
> car with floodlights, and you're not moving over 8 mph, and the police
> have cleared the roads of all other vehicles..."
>
> For anything like normal, practical cycling, reflectors alone don't
> cut it.
>
> So, are you really arguing for night riding without lights?
>
No - just sayin' that "need" and "sufficiency" are entirely dependent
upon the objective; and if the objective is "safety", then it's all
relative.
Dan...@gmail.com
Do you mean lenses for eyewear? If so, then yes, I do.
When shooting I prefer to wear contacts so that I can wear yellow
shooting glasses. They bring out contrast and make it easier to see
and sight a small target at a distance. The difference is
noticeable.
For everyday use I wear Rx "drivewear" lenses. http://www.drivewearlens.com/effect.php
They work about as advertised. The difference is not always as
dramatic as shown on that website, but they're a huge step above
normal polarization, and normal polarization is a big step above a
normal lens.
I don’t know about “blue blockers” but my drivewear glasses definitely
do improve vision in the conditions advertised. The bright light
performance is similar to normal polarized lenses, but the difference
in rain and fog is enough to really surprise you. I don’t think I’ll
ever buy another pair of normal or plain polarized Rx sunglasses. I
do like to keep a cheap pair of polarized shades to wear with contacts
for activities that are very high-risk to the glasses.
Frank Krygowski
> On Dec 28, 6:24 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 3:58 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Only the fredliest fred would assume that anyone had seem him with no
> > > supporting evidence to suggest they actually had (eye contact,
> > > consistent reactive behavior).
>
> > I don't understand. There are countless times you _must_ assume you've
> > been seen. Otherwise you'd be stopping very frequently.
>
> So you _assume_ that you've been seen by every motorist before riding
> into their potential path? (I didn't think so.) You judge the
> relative probability that they've seen you based on innumerable
> factors and indications, including things like eye contact and
> behaviors consistent with their having seen you. Then you proceed
> anyway, *not* upon the assumption that they've seen you, but with a
> degree of caution and readiness based on that dynamic probability
> judgment.
I'm alert when I ride. I watch things like the tires of cars at stop
signs to my right, for earliest warning of movement. But I certainly
assume I've been seen very, very often.
ISTM the alternative is what we're sometimes told here: "Pretend
you're invisible." But that's nonsense, and so is never assuming
you've been seen. If that's were truly your strategy, you'd have to
ride in terror and stop often.
> > > You find *most* people actually think as you've outlined above?
>
> > Yes, I think that's accurate.
>
> *Most* people?! (You already confirmed - no need to repeat. I just
> had to reiterate my incredulousness :-)
Try talking to people on your own. Ask them to explain how reflectors
work. Report back.
> > Furthermore, I've talked about the issue in many cycling classes I've
> > taught, and even more in a presentation I did at a bike club on night
> > riding equipment. Based on the questions and comments (like, "I never
> > knew that" and like "We could just put mirrors on the bike"), I think
> > most people are very confused about how these things work.
>
> Did it occur to you that the type of person who would take a class to
> learn how to ride a bike may tend to be on the fredly end of the
> scale?
Some are, some aren't, Dan. I had at least two students who had done
multiple coast-to-coast rides before taking the class. I had people
who raced, people who were bike club officers, people who had ridden
for many years. And yes, I've had beginners.
BTW, "fred" or "fredly" is poorly defined. Some of the most skilled
cyclists I know are termed "freds" by young racer boys. Some of those
boys who should watch the "freds" to learn how to make a left turn in
complicated traffic.
> > You need to make your position more clear. If you think it's fine for
> > cyclists to ride at night with no lights, but only reflectors, say
> > so.
>
> I would not recommend that anyone else ride a bike on the road at
> night without lights. I use lights, but, depending upon what I'm up
> to at any given time, might not "need" them - even at night. If you
> had qualified your statement that "Cyclists need lights at night" with
> something like "For general riding on public roadways, ... ", then I
> wouldn't be picking this bone.
I really don't understand what you're arguing about, then. If one
uses enough weird qualifiers, one can say a cyclist doesn't "need" to
have his eyes open. But practically speaking, a cyclist does need his
eyes open, and he needs lights to ride at night.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
OK, interesting. That's what I was hoping for - a report from someone
who'd actually tried them. Thanks!
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> On Dec 31, 3:35 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 6:24 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 3:58 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Only the fredliest fred would assume that anyone had seem him with no
> > > > supporting evidence to suggest they actually had (eye contact,
> > > > consistent reactive behavior).
>
> > > I don't understand. There are countless times you _must_ assume you've
> > > been seen. Otherwise you'd be stopping very frequently.
>
> > So you _assume_ that you've been seen by every motorist before riding
> > into their potential path? (I didn't think so.) You judge the
> > relative probability that they've seen you based on innumerable
> > factors and indications, including things like eye contact and
> > behaviors consistent with their having seen you. Then you proceed
> > anyway, *not* upon the assumption that they've seen you, but with a
> > degree of caution and readiness based on that dynamic probability
> > judgment.
>
> I'm alert when I ride. I watch things like the tires of cars at stop
> signs to my right, for earliest warning of movement. But I certainly
> assume I've been seen very, very often.
>
Maybe you assume you've been seen, but in the best case, I assume only
that there's a high probability that I've been seen. Of course an
overt acknowledgment from the driver offers the highest probability
and confidence, but in most cases you have far less than this on which
to proceed.
> ISTM the alternative is what we're sometimes told here: "Pretend
> you're invisible." But that's nonsense, and so is never assuming
> you've been seen. If that's were truly your strategy, you'd have to
> ride in terror and stop often.
>
I get scared out there once in a while, but certainly don't "ride in
terror" (or stop often ;-)
Plenty of times I neither assume I've been seen or fear the
consequences otherwise: I often just blast onward, depending on fate
and "the way things are supposed to work" (which isn't the same thing
as assuming that I must have been seen).
> > > > You find *most* people actually think as you've outlined above?
>
> > > Yes, I think that's accurate.
>
> > *Most* people?! (You already confirmed - no need to repeat. I just
> > had to reiterate my incredulousness :-)
>
> Try talking to people on your own. Ask them to explain how reflectors
> work. Report back.
>
> > > Furthermore, I've talked about the issue in many cycling classes I've
> > > taught, and even more in a presentation I did at a bike club on night
> > > riding equipment. Based on the questions and comments (like, "I never
> > > knew that" and like "We could just put mirrors on the bike"), I think
> > > most people are very confused about how these things work.
>
> > Did it occur to you that the type of person who would take a class to
> > learn how to ride a bike may tend to be on the fredly end of the
> > scale?
>
> Some are, some aren't, Dan. I had at least two students who had done
> multiple coast-to-coast rides before taking the class. I had people
> who raced, people who were bike club officers, people who had ridden
> for many years. And yes, I've had beginners.
>
> BTW, "fred" or "fredly" is poorly defined. Some of the most skilled
> cyclists I know are termed "freds" by young racer boys. Some of those
> boys who should watch the "freds" to learn how to make a left turn in
> complicated traffic.
>
I'm usually talking about two kinds of fred when I use that term: The
utterly clueless fictional moron spoil of your "Frank and Fred"
series, and in other cases (not this thread) I might also mean silly
over-the-top safety nannies.
> > > You need to make your position more clear. If you think it's fine for
> > > cyclists to ride at night with no lights, but only reflectors, say
> > > so.
>
> > I would not recommend that anyone else ride a bike on the road at
> > night without lights. I use lights, but, depending upon what I'm up
> > to at any given time, might not "need" them - even at night. If you
> > had qualified your statement that "Cyclists need lights at night" with
> > something like "For general riding on public roadways, ... ", then I
> > wouldn't be picking this bone.
>
> I really don't understand what you're arguing about, then. If one
> uses enough weird qualifiers, one can say a cyclist doesn't "need" to
> have his eyes open. But practically speaking, a cyclist does need his
> eyes open, and he needs lights to ride at night.
>
Never ridden with your eyes closed? See what I mean? :-)
But yeah, I agree with your last paragraph here ("practically
speaking" is sufficient qualifier to neutralize my "absolute-o-
meter").
Seriously, Frank - I do like and respect you (from what I know of
you). Sorry I get so riled and contradictory. I think it's because
you've repeatedly criticized my own riding as if you know all (or even
*anything* about my circumstances) and I were your utterly clueless
Fred. I wouldn't go so far as to say "supercilious", necessarily,
but... (Hopefully the archives and posterity will cut me some
slack ;-)
Frank Krygowski
>
> Seriously, Frank - I do like and respect you (from what I know of
> you). Sorry I get so riled and contradictory. I think it's because
> you've repeatedly criticized my own riding as if you know all (or even
> *anything* about my circumstances) and I were your utterly clueless
> Fred. I wouldn't go so far as to say "supercilious", necessarily,
> but... (Hopefully the archives and posterity will cut me some
> slack ;-)
No problem. Happy New Year, Dan.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan...@gmail.com
Anytime. The link I showed gives a pretty good idea of how they
work. The night/day difference in fog/rain is about accurate - blew
my mind the first time I tried them. If anyone in NE MA wanted to
give them a go I'd be happy to let you try them on, but unless you're
seriously nearsighted you're going to get distorted vision. I assume
you'd still get the night/day difference of how things look through
fog/rain. Same offer stands for my shooting glasses, which are not
Rx, but you could check them out by going to any sporting goods store.
Dan...@gmail.com
Something else about the drivewear I didn't mention, and I don't think
is on their site. I just noticed it today as we got our first good
snowstorm yesterday, and I left work after dark. They do an awesome
job of eliminating snow glare as well.