Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Elisa Francesca Roselli
work. Although I am impervious to cold, I am not happy about cycling
because of the poor visibility. My road to work is poorly lit, my
eyesight is bad, my balance perturbed by the dancing beam of my front
light and my glasses fog up every time I stop.
In the car, I really do get to notice what can and cannot be seen from a
motorist's point of view. And I am appalled to discover just how hard it
can be to see cyclists and pedestrians, and how few of them seem to be
aware of this.
Much winter clothing is dark or black to begin with. Then many ride
entirely without lights, or just a little reflector. Great aurioles of
light surround the street lights and the headlights of the oncoming
cars, casting everything else around them into a pitch black shadow from
the glare. A few days ago, I was standing on a pavement waiting for a
bus, looking directly into the traffic. Two cyclists swooped right in
front of me - they were less than 30 feet from me before I even noticed
them.
On mornings and even in the broad daylight of the lunch hour, there is
frequently a freezing smog that not only soups up the air but makes the
ground slippery. This smog can come on quite suddenly - all is clear,
then the car descends into a barely perceptible valley and the
windscreen empties like a movie screen with the projector turned off.
For night riding it has been my personal practise to wear a reflector
vest and blinkie lights on armbands. I have a LED headlight and a small
red backlight. But my lesson from this is that perhaps even I need to up
the ante. I shall get myself a yellow reflector parka from Glow Dog, and
wear that even as a pedestrian. And I need more blinkies, especially in
the back.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but for those of you who do
cycle in the dark, please make sure you are as visible as you can make
yourselves. Perhaps do a visibility test with your gear - ask family or
a neighbor for feedback on whether you can be seen and at what distance,
especially if you are sharing the road with cars and headlights.
Safe riding to all,
EFR
Ile de France
frkr...@gmail.com
Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
>
> In the car, I really do get to notice what can and cannot be seen from a
> motorist's point of view. And I am appalled to discover just how hard it
> can be to see cyclists and pedestrians, and how few of them seem to be
> aware of this.
>
> Much winter clothing is dark or black to begin with. Then many ride
> entirely without lights, or just a little reflector. Great aurioles of
> light surround the street lights and the headlights of the oncoming
> cars, casting everything else around them into a pitch black shadow from
> the glare.
With the "great aurioles of light," Elisa makes a point that the
youngsters in the crowd may not be aware of.
About 15 years ago, I visited a museum devoted to medical matters.
They had a display illustrating the effects of aging. Part of that
showed how aged eyes become cloudy. Supposedly, protein changes in the
lens put a cloudy halo around every bright light. I recall thinking
"Hmm. That doesn't happen with me."
And it didn't - back then. But the effect is beginning to be
noticeable now, 15 years later.
Young people don't normally have this problem, and they may make the
mistake of assuming that, since _they_ can see unlit cyclists and peds
at night, everyone else can. Not so!
So you cool young dudes and dudettes - put lights on your bike, and
carry a tiny LED light when you walk (if you ever do actually walk).
Use reflective stuff, too. It doesn't take much, but it takes
_something_ bright to be seen.
Remember, we old fogies are not only unfashionable and confused, we're
half blind!
- Frank Krygowski
Leo Lichtman
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote: (clip) Remember, we old fogies are not only
I'll be 88 in a couple of weeks, so I guess I have the right to say this.
Older people take longer to form a meaningful picture from what enters their
senses, and longer to react. We try to compensate for these losses, but
many of us don't realize, or hate to admit they occur. The changes are so
gradual we're not always aware of them.
BTW, Elisa, your writing is delightful: "The windscreen empties like a
Claire Petersky
news:43abba84$0$20854$636a...@news.free.fr...
> In the car, I really do get to notice what can and cannot be seen from a
> motorist's point of view. And I am appalled to discover just how hard it
> can be to see cyclists and pedestrians, and how few of them seem to be
> aware of this.
Elisa, I've done this too -- while driving in the dark and passing a
pedestrian or a cyclist, made a note of what it is that I see first. Usually
it's some sort of reflective clothing. Even a tiny reflective patch on a
pair of cycling shoes or reflective piping on a jacket will catch my eye
before the rear blinkie is noticeable. It certainly spurred me to put
reflective tape on my headtube (white) and rear fender (red), and on my
helmet (hi-vis yellow), and wear a fred-like orange vest with a huge
reflective strip, front and back.
I also make a point of complementing peds who are highly visible while I'm
on my bike. Having your dog simply wear a reflective collar makes a huge
difference as you walk with it along the roadway shoulder. I'm not whipping
along so fast that I can't call out, "thank you for being so easy to see!"
as I approach and pass. What I find the worst are the stealth peds -- black
pants, black jacket, dark hair, nothing reflective or illuminated. I don't
think they realize how difficult they are to see.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
elyob
"Elisa Francesca Roselli" <nos...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:43abba84$0$20854$636a...@news.free.fr...
> in the dark, please make sure you are as visible as you can make
> yourselves. Perhaps do a visibility test with your gear - ask family or a
> neighbor for feedback on whether you can be seen and at what distance,
> especially if you are sharing the road with cars and headlights.
The 'choir' are still awaiting a wafflycat jpeg ... :(
> Safe riding to all,
You too. Although mine is a little mothballed at the moment. New Years
resolutions .. stop being such a lazy ****, learn to pull a reasonable
wheelie and learn to rollerblade better and backwards.
Leo Lichtman
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lic...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:FDVqf.184549$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote: (clip) Remember, we old fogies are not only
> unfashionable and confused, we're half blind!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess age has also affected my ability to add, or remember. <ake that,
"I'll be 78 in a couple of weeks..."
gds
Time does speed up as we age. I know I made it from 50 to 60 a lot
faster than I did 10 to 20
;-)
Bill Sornson
I was gonna say, Leo... 88?!? 78 is impressive enough!
Simon Mason
In defence of dark clothing - bright colours don't really work in the dark.
One of my colleagues looked at my dark silver jacket and asked why I didn't
have a yellow one on until I explained that the silver was made of
reflective material and therefore far more visible than any bright colours.
--
Simon Mason
owd...@googlemail.com
Nonsense. Light/bright colours are much more visible than dark colours
when picked up by headlights or any other lights for that matter. Thats
what "light" or "bright" mean more or less i.e. more visible. DARK
CLOTHING IS WHAT YOU'D WEAR IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN. Or are you
arguing that black is white?
happy christmas
Jacob
Tony Raven
>
> Nonsense. Light/bright colours are much more visible than dark colours
> when picked up by headlights or any other lights for that matter. Thats
> what "light" or "bright" mean more or less i.e. more visible. DARK
> CLOTHING IS WHAT YOU'D WEAR IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN. Or are you
> arguing that black is white?
>
With Scotchlite Black Diamond material, black can be white at night ;-)
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?W=0&Manufacturer=&UberCatName=&Cat=cycle&CategoryName=Reflectives&ProdID=5360011877&UberCat=0
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
Eatmorepies
> In these dark winter months, I am car-pooling with a colleague to get to
> work. Although I am impervious to cold, I am not happy about cycling
> because of the poor visibility. My road to work is poorly lit, my eyesight
> is bad, my balance perturbed by the dancing beam of my front light and my
> glasses fog up every time I stop.
>
> In the car, I really do get to notice what can and cannot be seen from a
> motorist's point of view. And I am appalled to discover just how hard it
> can be to see cyclists and pedestrians, and how few of them seem to be
> aware of this.
>
> Much winter clothing is dark or black to begin with. Then many ride
> entirely without lights, or just a little reflector. Great aurioles of
> light surround the street lights and the headlights of the oncoming cars,
> casting everything else around them into a pitch black shadow from the
> glare. A few days ago, I was standing on a pavement waiting for a bus,
> looking directly into the traffic. Two cyclists swooped right in front of
> me - they were less than 30 feet from me before I even noticed them.
>
I see riders in stealth clothing quite often - it's little wonder that they
get hit, sad though that is. At night I ride in a bright yellow Altura
Nevis - it's very visible. Also I don't use one of those tiny LED lights on
the back but a large area one that has several LEDs in it and a large
expanse of reflector/refractor lens. I ride in the countryside so I am quite
easy to see because of the lack of distracting light sources, if I was in a
town I would be very nervous of riding busy roads in the dark.
John
Tony Raven
>
> I see riders in stealth clothing quite often - it's little wonder that they
> get hit, sad though that is. At night I ride in a bright yellow Altura
> Nevis - it's very visible. Also I don't use one of those tiny LED lights on
> the back but a large area one that has several LEDs in it and a large
> expanse of reflector/refractor lens. I ride in the countryside so I am quite
> easy to see because of the lack of distracting light sources, if I was in a
> town I would be very nervous of riding busy roads in the dark.
>
That's more lack of confidence than real risk. I ride frequently in
London in the dark and have very little that gives me concerns.
I've been looking at bike lights for conspicuousness following recent
threads here. For the front, conventional halogen or similar lights
blend into the background of car lights but the bluish tinged white LEDs
do stand out. The most effective I've seen is two out of phase flashing
white LEDs on the front which were unmissable even with a lot of car
headlights around. For the rear a really bright red slowish flashing
LED seems to be the best but they still blend in rather too well with
the surrounding red car lights.
Jeff Williams
Great article.
Please remember, even if you don't need lights to enable you to see,
lights make you visible to other people. Motor vehicles generally move
much faster than bicycles. If you and a motor vehicle driver can both
see the same distance under current lighting, the mvd will typically
have far less time to react to your presence and avoid turning you into
a hood ornament. Do yourself a favour and be obvious.
On behalf of commercial drivers (and cyclists) everywhere, Merry Christmas.
Claire Petersky
news:43ac5...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> I ride in the countryside so I am quite easy to see because of the lack
> of distracting light sources, if I was in a town I would be very nervous
> of riding busy roads in the dark.
Funny, I have the opposite attitude -- I feel fine riding in town, where
there's lots of amibient lighting, then when it's just little ol' me
peddling along the dark, dark road in the middle of nowhere. I think we're
all just more naturally confident in the environment where we have the
greatest experience.
frkr...@gmail.com
Claire Petersky wrote:
> What I find the worst are the stealth peds -- black
> pants, black jacket, dark hair, nothing reflective or illuminated. I don't
> think they realize how difficult they are to see.
They certainly don't.
I did a little reading on the research regarding ped (and cyclists)
visibility. One paper talked about an experiment on a closed course,
where motorists were to drive slowly toward a pedestrian standing in
the road directly in front. The motorists were to stop when they saw
the ped. With dark clothing and no reflectors or lights, the first
pedestrian subject actually had to jump out of the way to prevent being
run over! And the driver _knew_ he was there... somewhere!
And again, it's a shame, because the papers showed that it takes only
minimal measures to be easily seen. Small reflective patches on wrists
or shoes, or very small lights, made peds easily noticeable and
recognizeable a great distance away ( hundreds of yard, IIRC).
What worked best, BTW, was reflectors that showed "human walking"
motion, the characteristic swing of arms and legs. We're hard-wired to
notice that motion. This helps pedal reflectors work, I believe.
I rarely walk at night without a tiny flashlight.
- Frank Krygowski
Fritz M
> Nonsense. Light/bright colours are much more visible than dark colours
> when picked up by headlights or any other lights for that matter.
That's true, but not true enough.
I was driving at night on an unlit street last week. A half-mile ahead
of me was a shopping center with bright lights. I nearly hit a cyclist
-- I only saw him at the last minute when I saw his silhouette in the
supermarket lights. I swerved to avoid him and that's when I noticed
the faint outline of his flourescent yellow jacket in my headlights.
After I passed I saw that he had a very bright front light.
Bright colored clothing is not generally adequate for night visibility.
You might as well be wearing black. I don't ride at night without
lighting front, back and sides. I generally have reflective material on
me, bike, or bags also.
Tony W
"Eatmorepies" <naj9d...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:43ac5...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> I ride in the countryside so I am quite easy to see because of the lack
> of distracting light sources, if I was in a town I would be very nervous
> of riding busy roads in the dark.
My experience on country lanes is that the greatest danger is being blinded
by oncoming traffic and losing the edge of the road. It is then easy to
veer either into the middle of the road or into the ditch.
Neither are good. On country lanes a light that says to the driver 'dip you
bastard' is required.
In town a combination of something flashing and something reflecting seems
to work well.
T
David Martin
Tony W wrote:
> My experience on country lanes is that the greatest danger is being blinded
> by oncoming traffic and losing the edge of the road. It is then easy to
> veer either into the middle of the road or into the ditch.
I figure that I can step sideways rapidly enough, so I head for the
dazzling lights whilst obviously shielding my eyes. That way I don't
fall in the ditch I now cannot see.
Works a treat up here.
On one occasion I stopped in teh middle of the road becasue I could not
see due to the twunt dazzling me. As it was a single track road and he
wasn't going very fast he had almost come to a halt before realising
why I wasn't moving. He dipped and then apologised. It is quite
civilised up here.
..d
Simon Brooke
Petersky ('cpet...@mouse-potato.com') wrote:
> "Elisa Francesca Roselli" <nos...@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:43abba84$0$20854$636a...@news.free.fr...
>
>> In the car, I really do get to notice what can and cannot be seen from
>> a motorist's point of view. And I am appalled to discover just how
>> hard it can be to see cyclists and pedestrians, and how few of them
>> seem to be aware of this.
>
> Elisa, I've done this too -- while driving in the dark and passing a
> pedestrian or a cyclist, made a note of what it is that I see first.
> Usually it's some sort of reflective clothing.
Driving home recently, coming out of the streetlit area into the dark
with dipped headlights, slight river mist, I saw a /something/ ahead of
me which I didn't immediately interpret. There was a red light, not very
bright, and nothing else clear at all. Fortunately I assumed it to be
the nearside rear light of a car with a defective offside rear light,
and steered to pass it wide. I didn't see the pedal reflectors until I
was really quite close, and it was only when I'd seen them that I could
interpret from the blur an elderly man in dark clothing on a bike.
It was startling to me how close I was before I could interpret what I
was looking at, and had I not already been well out on the carriageway I
would have to have braked quite sharply. To be fair his light wasn't
very bright at all, and I think his pedal reflectors must have been
dirty, but it was still a surprise - I think myself very careful of
cyclists. Bright, blinking rear lights and retro-reflective trim on
clothing are definitely worth it.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.
Rod King
Have you considered that if your colleague is driving so fast that they
cannot pick out a cyclist then the appropriate action may be to slow down
rather than moan about them wearing dark clothing.
When motorists say that a cyclist was invisible or they just didn't see them
it is usually because they aren't looking. What you are really complaining
about was that there was little time to take avoiding action when seeing a
cyclist. That is a car speed issue rather than a cyslist visiblity issue.
Cyclists in flourescent jackets enable drivers to go faster. Hence when they
do hit a cyclists theor pedestrian they are more likely to kill them.
I believe that the responsibility is squarely with the motorist to conduct
their driving so that they can avoid any obstacles that are within their
vision. That means GO SLOWER.
Merry Christmas
Rod King
"Elisa Francesca Roselli" <nos...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:43abba84$0$20854$636a...@news.free.fr...
owd...@googlemail.com
Fritz M wrote:
Obviously there are occasions when a bright jacket is not enough but
the probability is that the lighter/brighter the more likely it is to
be seen. Even better if the cyclist also has a big bright back light
preferably not flashing, and as much reflective material as possible.
Seems one has to keep repeating the obvious in this discussion!
Look at it this way - if you wanted to move around at night without
being spotted would you wear dark non-reflective clothes, carry no
lights, perhaps black up your face with burnt cork in the old fashioned
way, or would you wear bright light reflective clothing, carry bright
lamps etc etc? Clue to the answer - the first approach is called
"camouflage" (though I'm not sure how you spell it). Geddit!
Or to look at it another way - try drawing a black figure on black
paper. Er, how else can I explain this difficult concept!
happy christmas
Jacob
Just zis Guy, you know?
<1135380049.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>Obviously there are occasions when a bright jacket is not enough but
>the probability is that the lighter/brighter the more likely it is to
>be seen. Even better if the cyclist also has a big bright back light
>preferably not flashing, and as much reflective material as possible.
>Seems one has to keep repeating the obvious in this discussion!
You'd think so, wouldn't you? As an enthusiastic advocate of lights
and bright clothing I've devoted some energy to finding actual proof
of the above, to no avail.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Simon Brooke
>
> Simon Mason wrote:
>> "Elisa Francesca Roselli" <nos...@free.fr> wrote in message
>> news:43abba84$0$20854
>> >
>> > Much winter clothing is dark or black to begin with.
>>
>> In defence of dark clothing - bright colours don't really work in the
>> dark. One of my colleagues looked at my dark silver jacket and asked
>> why I didn't have a yellow one on until I explained that the silver
>> was made of reflective material and therefore far more visible than
>> any bright colours.
>
> Nonsense. Light/bright colours are much more visible than dark colours
> when picked up by headlights or any other lights for that matter. Thats
> what "light" or "bright" mean more or less i.e. more visible. DARK
> CLOTHING IS WHAT YOU'D WEAR IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN. Or are you
> arguing that black is white?
Yes. All cats - even white ones - really are black in the night time, and
so are all jackets. On a dark night a person in a white or fluorescent
jacket is just as visible as a person in a black one - i.e. you might
see their silhouette against the sky if you're lucky but that's all
you'll see. In good moonlight the white jacket will be most visible, but
still only a very vague blur. Starlight alone is not normally enough for
human eyesight to tell black from white.
Fluorescent clothing is good in daytime poor light, because ultra-violet
penetrates mist and cloud much better than visible light, so on a dull
or foggy day fluorescent clothes look extra bright. But they're
completely useless at night since the moon reflects relatively little
ultra-violet.
Neither white nor fluorescent is anything like as good when illuminated
by headlights as retro-reflective, and when not illuminated each is
exactly as black as any of the others. If you do wear retro-reflectives,
piping along seams is particularly effective because it makes a visible
'stick man' image from which the observer can infer your position and
actions.
If you don't believe me, just ask any of your friends who goes hunting.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; "If I were a Microsoft Public Relations person, I would probably
;; be sobbing on a desk right now" -- Rob Miller, editor, /.
David Martin
owd...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Look at it this way - if you wanted to move around at night without
> being spotted would you wear dark non-reflective clothes, carry no
> lights, perhaps black up your face with burnt cork in the old fashioned
> way, or would you wear bright light reflective clothing, carry bright
> lamps etc etc? Clue to the answer - the first approach is called
> "camouflage" (though I'm not sure how you spell it). Geddit!
> Or to look at it another way - try drawing a black figure on black
> paper. Er, how else can I explain this difficult concept!
How do you camouflage yourself to get into the Houses of Parliament?
wear bright fluorescent jackets etc.
If you ask the average motorist, they'll be able to tell you exactly
how many no-lights-dark-clothes-invisible-cant-see-the-buggers they saw
but won't remember a single one wearing an EN40whatever reflective
vest. Retroreflective *is* the new urban camouflage. Apparently it is
easier to get away with shoplifting if you wear a reflective vest,
safety helemt and site boots. Urban camouflage again.
..d
Tony Raven
>
> Fluorescent clothing is good in daytime poor light, because ultra-violet
> penetrates mist and cloud much better than visible light, so on a dull
> or foggy day fluorescent clothes look extra bright. But they're
> completely useless at night since the moon reflects relatively little
> ultra-violet.
>
Ultraviolet light doesn't penetrate better. Fog particles are generally
in the Mie scattering or geometric optics regimes which gives similar
penetration for all wavelengths Which is why the sun viewed through
mist is either just dimmer or dimmer and redder and overcast days are
darker, not bluer.
Ron Wallenfang
"Tony W" <tonyr...@chapmore.co.uk> wrote .
>
> My experience on country lanes is that the greatest danger is being
> blinded by oncoming traffic and losing the edge of the road. It is then
> easy to veer either into the middle of the road or into the ditch.
>
> Neither are good. On country lanes a light that says to the driver 'dip
> you bastard' is required.
>
Do I ever agree with that! Most of my commuting route has streetlights of
greater or lesser adequacy, but always enough to cut the glare from the
lights of oncoming traffic, which usually isn't using the bright beam
anyway. But get on a dark lonely road and encounter an oncoming car with
the brights on, and it's stunning how quickly and badly you can become
disoriented relative to the edge of the road! I have already stopped
altogether and waited for the traffic to pass, and shouted some
"encouragement" for the driver to dim his lights.
I'm also part of the choir being preached to on this whole thread. My home
commute in the winter is in the dark. I use a bright chartreuse vest with
several reflective strips like highway dept workers use, plus a flashing
rear light (less helpful than the reflective vest) and a Cateye Opticube
front light - low power but 5 beams of blue light that are easier to see
than to see by. My TREK gloves and shoes also have reflectors, but they're
only good down to about 15 F.
My understanding is that the two biggest contributors to bike rider
fatalities are failure to yield right of way and riding invisibly at night.
D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch
> Elisa, I've done this too -- while driving in the dark and passing a
> pedestrian or a cyclist, made a note of what it is that I see first.
> Usually it's some sort of reflective clothing. <snip>
I have often done this as well. The things I notice most often are
spoke and pedal reflectors. I'm sure that's because of the way they move.
The things I am least likely to notice are dark clothing and fixed
reflectors. I'm not sure I have EVER had my eye caught by one of those
useless front reflectors.
A few weeks back I was riding on one of the darker stretches of my
early morning commute, and suddenly there was a pedestrian in the street
squarely in front of me. He was dressed in dark clothing, crossing away
from the crosswalk. I saw him in time to lean the bike a bit and pass
behind him, but I don't think he even knew I was on the same planet with
him. Most likely he was listening for cars instead of looking for
traffic, in which case he'd have seen my headlights.) I couldn't resist
giving him a friendly toot on my marine air horn. He jumped so much I
could hear the stuff in his backpack go "whoomp."
Of the four main visibility items (brightly colored clothing,
reflective clothing, reflectors, and lights) my definite preference for
night riding is all four, (except that I took off my front reflector to
make room for my headlight).
Bill
--------------------------------------------
| As long as people believe in absurdities |
| they will continue to commit atrocities. |
| --Voltaire |
--------------------------------------------
Zoot Katz
>
>So you cool young dudes and dudettes - put lights on your bike, and
>carry a tiny LED light when you walk (if you ever do actually walk).
>Use reflective stuff, too. It doesn't take much, but it takes
>_something_ bright to be seen.
>
>Remember, we old fogies are not only unfashionable and confused, we're
>half blind!
uhh, judging by the vernacular aesthetics, across differing youth
populations today, one could reasonably conclude that the fashionably
cool dudes and doodettes are at least half bind too.
I causally, at 2am, stopped a couple of perforated and studded punks
on the street and asked them if they thought my belt was cool.
He liked the belt. She liked the buckle. Then they looked closer at
six of the others I had and realised they were recycled bicycle parts.
That got them both excited and I respectfully listened to what they
had to say. (hmmm)
They're not so blind they can't spot kool zut when they see it.
My night vision has diminished somewhat. No cloudy halos though unless
it's through a water droplet lens. Even then I'm most often able to
spot the silhouette of a stealth rider against the background street
lighting. The riders with red blinkies, front and rear, are worse than
a stealth rider, IMO.
Know that stealth riding plainly and simply requires a different
technique than you or I choose to practice. We're lit. They see us so
stealth riders will stay out of _our_ way. No need for knotted
knickers.
It makes cycling safer for us because we can always point to some
stats and show that some certain percentage of unlit cyclists
experience car/bike collisions at night.
--
zk
Nuck 'n Futz
> I causally, at 2am, stopped a couple of perforated and studded punks
> on the street and asked them if they thought my belt was cool.
>
> He liked the belt. She liked the buckle. Then they looked closer at
> six of the others I had and realised they were recycled bicycle parts.
> That got them both excited and I respectfully listened to what they
> had to say. (hmmm)
>
> They're not so blind they can't spot kool zut when they see it.
Somewhere, on some alt.punk newsgroup, s/he's posting about this strange old
biker coot who, roaming the alleys at 2 AM, made them look at his "belt"
(hoping it's not a euphemism).
Weirdo! <eg>
owd...@googlemail.com
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <1135365932....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> owd...@googlemail.com ('owd...@googlemail.com') wrote:
>
> >
> > Simon Mason wrote:
> >> "Elisa Francesca Roselli" <nos...@free.fr> wrote in message
> >> news:43abba84$0$20854
> >> >
> >> > Much winter clothing is dark or black to begin with.
> >>
> >> In defence of dark clothing - bright colours don't really work in the
> >> dark. One of my colleagues looked at my dark silver jacket and asked
> >> why I didn't have a yellow one on until I explained that the silver
> >> was made of reflective material and therefore far more visible than
> >> any bright colours.
> >
> > Nonsense. Light/bright colours are much more visible than dark colours
> > when picked up by headlights or any other lights for that matter. Thats
> > what "light" or "bright" mean more or less i.e. more visible. DARK
> > CLOTHING IS WHAT YOU'D WEAR IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN. Or are you
> > arguing that black is white?
>
> Yes. All cats - even white ones - really are black in the night time, and
> so are all jackets. On a dark night a person in a white or fluorescent
> jacket is just as visible as a person in a black one - i.e. you might
> see their silhouette against the sky if you're lucky but that's all
> you'll see. In good moonlight the white jacket will be most visible, but
> still only a very vague blur. Starlight alone is not normally enough for
> human eyesight to tell black from white.
Yes when there is no light then nothing is visible. However when there
is some light then light/reflective surfaces will be seen better than
dark/non reflective ditto.
>
> Fluorescent clothing is good in daytime poor light, because ultra-violet
> penetrates mist and cloud much better than visible light, so on a dull
> or foggy day fluorescent clothes look extra bright. But they're
> completely useless at night since the moon reflects relatively little
> ultra-violet.
Yes when there is no light then nothing is visible. However when there
is some light then light/reflective surfaces will be seen better than
dark/non reflective ditto.
> Neither white nor fluorescent is anything like as good when illuminated
> by headlights as retro-reflective, and when not illuminated each is
> exactly as black as any of the others. If you do wear retro-reflectives,
> piping along seams is particularly effective because it makes a visible
> 'stick man' image from which the observer can infer your position and
> actions.
Thin piping is less likely to be seen than thick piping, or large
blocks of reflective material. A "solid" man is more visible than a
"stick" man
>
> If you don't believe me, just ask any of your friends who goes hunting.
If you don't believe me just keep your eyes open!
cheers
Jacob
Roger Houston
"Rod King" <ro...@therosebankcentre.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43ac8458$0$82662$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> Elisa
>
> Have you considered that if your colleague is driving so fast that they
> cannot pick out a cyclist then the appropriate action may be to slow down
> rather than moan about them wearing dark clothing.
>
> I believe that the responsibility is squarely with the motorist to conduct
> their driving so that they can avoid any obstacles that are within their
> vision. That means GO SLOWER.
Right. IOW, "don't overdrive your headlights". If you cant see something
in your path in time to stop, you're speeding (violation of the Basic Speed
Law). That's true of driving in the dark, of course, but it's also the case
when you drive faster than the speed on the yellow diamond-shaped sign with
the curving arrow and the "35 mph" on it. That sign means that the
sightline of the road ahead is such that, if you're driving faster than the
posted speed, you cannot stop in time to avoid an object in the roadway.
Sometimes it's a deer, sometimes it's a cyclist, and hereabouts, sometimes
it's a big-assed combine or hay-wagon.
But expecting people to drive within the capability to see the road ahead is
sort of futile, isn't it? I mean, look at all the "chain-reaction"
accidents where motorists speeding down the freeway at 80mph heedlessly hurl
themselves into a fog bank?
owd...@googlemail.com
Next time I cycle in town at night I intend to disguise myself as an
unlit stretch of tarmac so that motorists will be able to pick me out
amongst the reflective jackets.
cheers
Jacob
owd...@googlemail.com
I wouldn't, as the logic of your argument suggests that hunters are not
very intelligent i.e. they would shoot at any reflective material if it
is not identifiable as a person. I mean I ask you - how many bears,
deer, pheasants etc wear reflective patches?
cheers
Jacob
Simon Brooke
>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message <1135365932....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> owd...@googlemail.com ('owd...@googlemail.com') wrote:
>>
>> > Nonsense. Light/bright colours are much more visible than dark
>> > colours when picked up by headlights or any other lights for that
>> > matter. Thats what "light" or "bright" mean more or less i.e. more
>> > visible. DARK CLOTHING IS WHAT YOU'D WEAR IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE
>> > SEEN. Or are you arguing that black is white?
>>
>> Yes. All cats - even white ones - really are black in the night time,
>> and so are all jackets. On a dark night a person in a white or
>> fluorescent jacket is just as visible as a person in a black one -
>> i.e. you might see their silhouette against the sky if you're lucky
>> but that's all you'll see. In good moonlight the white jacket will be
>> most visible, but still only a very vague blur. Starlight alone is not
>> normally enough for human eyesight to tell black from white.
>
> Yes when there is no light then nothing is visible. However when there
> is some light then light/reflective surfaces will be seen better than
> dark/non reflective ditto.
Uh-huh. And at night, there is effectively no light. So...
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left
Helen Deborah Vecht
> As the darkness has been starting earlier, and with less than optimal
> conditions, I've seen several of these 'stealth' riders of late. Last
> night there was a fellow with no lights, no reflectors, wearing dark
> clothing and riding against traffic on a busy avenue. Sheesh!
<pedant>
Darkness is starting later now (after December 10)
<pedant>
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
Jeff Williams
> Elisa
>
> Have you considered that if your colleague is driving so fast that they
> cannot pick out a cyclist then the appropriate action may be to slow down
> rather than moan about them wearing dark clothing.
>
> When motorists say that a cyclist was invisible or they just didn't see them
> it is usually because they aren't looking. What you are really complaining
> about was that there was little time to take avoiding action when seeing a
> cyclist. That is a car speed issue rather than a cyslist visiblity issue.
> Cyclists in flourescent jackets enable drivers to go faster. Hence when they
> do hit a cyclists theor pedestrian they are more likely to kill them.
>
> I believe that the responsibility is squarely with the motorist to conduct
> their driving so that they can avoid any obstacles that are within their
> vision. That means GO SLOWER.
>
> Merry Christmas
>
> Rod King
>
Hey Rod.
While there is some truth to your viewpoint, it is not entirely correct.
Many cyclists ride without lights or reflectors while wearing dark
clothes. Typically, cyclist ride at the side of the road rather than in
the middle of the lane. All of this makes seeing a cyclist difficult at
night.
On the other hand, drivers have no trouble seeing other motor vehicles
as they have lights and, to an extent, reflectors.
No driver should drive at a speed such that he cannot stop within seeing
distance.
Similarly, every cyclist (or pedestrian or driver) should take
reasonable steps to be visible.
No driver is willingly going to drive at, say, 10KMH on the off-chance
that there might be a stealth cyclist up ahead when, without a stealth
cyclist, 35KMH is a reasonable speed. To expect the driver to do so is
unreasonable.
As a driver, I do not control other users of the road. I am responsible
for, and in control of, my own actions. I drive at speeds such that my
braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.
As a cyclists, we do not control other users of the road. We are
responsible for, and in control of, our own actions. We first must put
ourselves in the right and then educate others. If we do those two
things, I am convinced our casualty rates will plummet.
Merry Christmas and a Safe New Year
Jeff
Wally
>> Yes when there is no light then nothing is visible. However when
>> there is some light then light/reflective surfaces will be seen
>> better than dark/non reflective ditto.
> Uh-huh. And at night, there is effectively no light. So...
Umm, don't cars have headlights? Or are we talking about unlit cyclists
(true darksiders?) crashing into each other? :-)
--
Wally
www.melodolic.com/IOTT
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Pinky
of the pond!
--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Elisa Francesca Roselli" <nos...@free.fr> wrote in message
Bill Sornson
> Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to you cross posters on
> both sides of the pond!
Ah. Troll.
Good one.
The Wogster
The whole situation is kinda dumb, but it really comes down to clothing
design, why is it that winter coats are dark colours, when much of the
time, it's dark out. I work for a courier company, and the courier
jackets make use of reflective stripes of material, driving into a dark
parking area, you can see two stripes one about 1.2m and 1.7m off the
ground, it's easy to deduct that it's a person walking, especially since
the stripes are moving. Really all jackets and coats should require it,
hmmm, there is something to mention to clothing designers.....
As for cyclists, the key is to be as visible as possible, at all times,
and if that means wearing a neon orange safety vest, with reflective
yellow stripes, and having a steady red, and a blinking amber rear
light, and three headlights (locomotive style -- one in the middle up
high {on the bars}, and two down near the ground { one on each fork leg
} ), then so be it. BTW you can buy a mesh orange safety vest for as
little as $5, many cycling rain jackets have the reflective tape already
applied, a roll of reflective tape can be had from many places.
As for the people on bikes, where you get a person who dresses all in
black, and rides a reflectorless black bike at night with no lights,
well I believe the term is darwinism...... However I think that cycling
clubs and cycling groups and alternative transportation groups, and even
automotive groups, should get together to put on a Visible Cycling
campaign, to promote being visible when cycling.
W
David Martin
Jeff Williams wrote:
> I drive at speeds such that my
> braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
> night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
> headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
> cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
> things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
> cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.
You don't need to be able to identify a cyclist. You need to be able to
identify a road. If you can see the road then it is clear to proceed,
If you can see soemthing that is not road then it isn't. (Gross
simplification but otherwise true.)
..d
Simon Brooke
('at...@dotat.atdot') wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>>> Yes when there is no light then nothing is visible. However when
>>> there is some light then light/reflective surfaces will be seen
>>> better than dark/non reflective ditto.
>
>> Uh-huh. And at night, there is effectively no light. So...
>
> Umm, don't cars have headlights? Or are we talking about unlit cyclists
> (true darksiders?) crashing into each other? :-)
Cars do indeed have headlights, which is why retro-reflectives are so
effective. However, even with headlights, the difference between a white
jacket and a black one is not easily distinguishable until you are much
too close.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; killing [afghan|iraqi] civilians is not 'justice'
crabsallover
our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
temporarily blinded by some very bright house security lights. The
cyclists, all around the age of 14, had no lights and no reflective
gear. One of the cyclists was our son!
As a result of this shocking incident I started an online source of
cycle safety info - we also sell cycle conspicuity gear & other cycle
safety gadgets.
www.BeSeenOnABike.com was born!
Chris Street (Happy Xmas Day)
Jeff Williams
True enough. However:
At a distance of 100m, a cyclist seen from behind occupies less than 1
degree of my field of view. Relative to a dark background, most
cyclists do not demonstrate significant movement in a very short period
of time. Given the profile of a cyclist seen from behind at a distance
of 100m or so, in the dark a cyclist can easily be mistaken for an
inanimate object.
As I noted in my prior post, cyclists tend to ride at the side of the
road, not in the middle of the lane. That doesn't mean a cyclist might
not swerve towards the middle of the lane to avoid a pothole, etc.
And don't forget that cyclists can be riding on crossroads. A cyclist
may not be on my road until shortly before I close in on the intersection.
If you'd rather not be seen, that's y'all's business. Personally, I'd
rather give the four-wheelers an opportunity to see me and, hopefully,
avoid me.
Jeff
Leo Lichtman
"crabsallover" (clip) conspicuity (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Comnspicuity?
Mike Kruger
news:1135470994.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
site that I've not seen here in the U.S., like reflective rucksack covers
[note to flamers: I'm not saying they aren't in YOUR local bike shop; I'm
saying I'VE never seen them.]
So, as my U.S. contribution, I give you Hokey Spokes. These are LED lights
for your spokes. They have enough computer power to cycle through patterns,
or you can put in your own message, say "Merry Xmas" using red and green
spokes.
These are, admittedly, somewhere on the border between a visibility aid and
a conversation piece.
Zoot Katz
>>
>> If you ask the average motorist, they'll be able to tell you exactly
>> how many no-lights-dark-clothes-invisible-cant-see-the-buggers they saw
>> but won't remember a single one wearing an EN40whatever reflective
>> vest. Retroreflective *is* the new urban camouflage. Apparently it is
>> easier to get away with shoplifting if you wear a reflective vest,
>> safety helemt and site boots. Urban camouflage again.
>>
>Yes you are so right. There's more to camouflage than meets the eye!
>Next time I cycle in town at night I intend to disguise myself as an
>unlit stretch of tarmac so that motorists will be able to pick me out
>amongst the reflective jackets.
I think cello-taping large denomination bills to frame tubes, fenders
and helmet would have the best chance for increasing ones visibility.
Most everyone is looking for money.
--
zk
Rod King
Some comments :-
Most actually do ride with reflectors. It is illegal in this country to sell
a complete bike
without pedal reflectors.
>Typically, cyclist ride at the side of the road rather than in
> the middle of the lane. All of this makes seeing a cyclist difficult at
> night.
I ride at least 1m out from the side of the road, but I would hardly say it
was difficult to see an abject 1m wide by 2 m tall in front of you, even if
it is wearing dark clothing.
>
> On the other hand, drivers have no trouble seeing other motor vehicles
> as they have lights and, to an extent, reflectors.
>
> No driver should drive at a speed such that he cannot stop within seeing
> distance.
>
> Similarly, every cyclist (or pedestrian or driver) should take
> reasonable steps to be visible.
Not, you are wrong to make this comparison. A motorist should drive at a
speed such that he can stop within seeing distance because he/she is in
control of the vehicle that will cause the damage to the cylist or
pedestrian. He/she is in control of the dangerous vehicle and therefore
bears a far greater responsibility to avoid anything in its path.
The cyclist has no similar responnibility. It does have a right to be on the
road regardless of the colour of the clothing. Whilst reflective clothing
makes it easier for the motorist to see the cylist it does not absolve the
motorist from the responsibility to avoid cyclists wearing unreflective
clothes.
>
> No driver is willingly going to drive at, say, 10KMH on the off-chance
> that there might be a stealth cyclist up ahead when, without a stealth
> cyclist, 35KMH is a reasonable speed. To expect the driver to do so is
> unreasonable.
>
Chance does not come into it. The driver should only drive at a speed that
is within the distance they can see. On full beam then they may be safe
doing 100 kph.
> As a driver, I do not control other users of the road. I am responsible
> for, and in control of, my own actions. I drive at speeds such that my
> braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
> night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
> headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
> cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
> things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
> cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.
You have just contradicted yourself!!!
>
> As a cyclists, we do not control other users of the road. We are
> responsible for, and in control of, our own actions. We first must put
> ourselves in the right and then educate others. If we do those two
> things, I am convinced our casualty rates will plummet.
>
There is nothing wrong about not wearing reflective clothing at night.
Casualty rates are primarily connected to driver actions rather than cyclist
actions. In the Netherlands most cyclists do not wear reflective clothing
yet they have far lower accident rates per km cycled than the UK. If we want
accident rates for cyclists to plummet then we need to get the differential
speed between the cyclist and motorist to also plummet in urban areas. In
the UK it is 3 times what it is in most Northern European towns. That means
a third of the time to notice and avoid cyclists. That's why 20mph urban
speed limits are so important.
Whilst disagreeing, let take the opportuunity to reflect on the fact that we
both enjoy cycling and want to promote it.
Have a good Christmas Jeff
Best wishes
Rod King
Wally
> As for the people on bikes, where you get a person who dresses all in
> black, and rides a reflectorless black bike at night with no lights,
> well I believe the term is darwinism......
No, it's ninjas. Bloody ninja cyclists going to conventions.
Ninjas!
--
Major M.D. Scrote
Helen Deborah Vecht
> My wife was travelling in a friends car in March 2005, quite close to
> our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
> temporarily blinded by some very bright house security lights.
Perhaps you should campaign to abolish the security lights instead.
They burn much energy and seldom actually increase security. Dazzling
road users is a real risk, as your wife found out. They make the night
sky all but invisible which is unfair to stargazers..
Cyclists can never win the glare generation game. In the dazzle of
security lights or badly adjusted headlights, reflective kit won't be of
much use, unfortunately.
We should stop escalating light levels, use our night vision and DRIVE SLOWLY!
Tony Raven
>
> At a distance of 100m, a cyclist seen from behind occupies less than 1
> degree of my field of view. Relative to a dark background, most
> cyclists do not demonstrate significant movement in a very short period
> of time. Given the profile of a cyclist seen from behind at a distance
> of 100m or so, in the dark a cyclist can easily be mistaken for an
> inanimate object.
>
Which is why having two flashing LED lights with a distance between them
on your bike is so effective. Because they are almost invariably not in
phase, from a distance they create the illusion of something moving
around which is what you need to get someone's visual attention.
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
Tony Raven
>
> We should stop escalating light levels, use our night vision and DRIVE SLOWLY!
>
That'll never catch on - its far too sensible ;-)
Merry Christmas
Nick Kew
> Perhaps you should campaign to abolish the security lights instead.
Hey, that's my private members bill when they elect me:-)
A law requiring them to be shielded so they don't cause
a public nuisance outside an owner's property, or anywhere
to which the public have lawful right of access.
They're a serious nuisance when out walking, too.
And there's even one that comes into my field of vision
while sitting at my computer at home and makes life painful.
Bah, Humbug.
--
not me guv
Stephen Harding
> So you cool young dudes and dudettes - put lights on your bike, and
> carry a tiny LED light when you walk (if you ever do actually walk).
> Use reflective stuff, too. It doesn't take much, but it takes
> _something_ bright to be seen.
Besides my normal bike commute, I also walk my turbo-supercharged
Irish Setter in the morning before I pedal off to work, and in
the evening after my return from work. Perhaps 3-5 miles per day
(and maybe a 15 miler via MTB on a weekend!).
During the evening walk, I carry a small LED light and am constantly
surprised at how, even with a fairly bright light, I am apparently
not seen until the last minute as I and dog are preparing to dive
off the side of the road (a very dark, curvy road along the local
river course).
I now take to actually waving the light beam back and forth across
where I think the driver's head would be located in the oncoming
vehicle. Seems to do the trick in getting their attention.
My "iluminite" vest from Performance doesn't seem to do much any
more. Used to work quite well (sort of a bluish glow when hit by
car lights), but I think perhaps it's been washed too many times
and now "the glow is gone".
SMH
Simon Brooke
('Mik...@mouse-potato.com') wrote:
>> www.BeSeenOnABike.com was born!
>>
> This cross-posting thing isn't always so bad. I see things here on
> your site that I've not seen here in the U.S., like reflective rucksack
> covers
> [note to flamers: I'm not saying they aren't in YOUR local bike shop;
> [I'm
> saying I'VE never seen them.]
>
> So, as my U.S. contribution, I give you Hokey Spokes. These are LED
> lights for your spokes. They have enough computer power to cycle
> through patterns, or you can put in your own message, say "Merry Xmas"
> using red and green spokes.
>
> http://www.hokeyspokes.com/
>
> These are, admittedly, somewhere on the border between a visibility aid
> and a conversation piece.
Hey, /anything/ which gets drivers attention has to be good, and these
appeal to kids who are otherwise too concerned about their street-cred
to switch their lights on. They are available over here, although I've
never seen them in a LBS.
However, they're not really visible from behind. Something similar for
pedals would be exceeding useful.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
;; LISP as to make no difference.
Simon Brooke
King ('ro...@therosebankcentre.co.uk') wrote:
> Not, you are wrong to make this comparison. A motorist should drive at
> a speed such that he can stop within seeing distance
Yes, (s)he _should_, but on the whole they don't. It's sometimes better
to be alive than to be right.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --
Simon Brooke
('helen...@zetnet.co.uk') wrote:
> "crabsallover" <ch...@street56.fsbusiness.co.uk>typed
>
>> My wife was travelling in a friends car in March 2005, quite close to
>> our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
>> temporarily blinded by some very bright house security lights.
>
> Perhaps you should campaign to abolish the security lights instead.
>
> They burn much energy and seldom actually increase security. Dazzling
> road users is a real risk, as your wife found out. They make the night
> sky all but invisible which is unfair to stargazers..
ABSO-FLAMING-LUTELY! A light for a light leaves _everybody_ blind. What
we should be campaigning for is a strict (and quite low) maximum to the
amount of light /any/ vehicle or roadside light source can produce.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from religious conviction." -- Pascal
Chris Street
My wife was travelling in a friends car in March 2005, quite close to
our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
this we decided to blame the cyclists.
The cyclists, all around the age of 14, had no lights and no reflective
by some very bright house security lights"
One of the cyclists was our son!
As a result of this shocking incident I started an online
source of badly researched and debatable
cycle safety info, - we also spam newsgroups!
www.makemoneyoffcyclists.com was born!
Helen Deborah Vecht
<Spam>
We heard you first time.
If security lights dazzled your wife, she should have stopped and
complained to their owner. Both of you should be campaigning to reduce
glare and dazzle on our streets, not to escalate it.
When truly dazzled by a strong light source, a driver will be blind to
EVERYTHING and all the reflective kit in the world will be USELESS.
SLOW DOWN, STOP.
DO NOT DAZZLE.
DO NOT SPAM
then join the British Astronomical Association Campaign for Dark Skies...
Happy Christmas.
Jeff Williams
Jeff
Glad to hear that, although, in my experience, pedal reflectors are not
very effective. In most parts of N America, it is illegal to ride after
dark without both headlight and taillight, but many potential Darwin
Award winners still do so.
>
>
>>Typically, cyclist ride at the side of the road rather than in
>>the middle of the lane. All of this makes seeing a cyclist difficult at
>>night.
>
>
> I ride at least 1m out from the side of the road, but I would hardly say it
> was difficult to see an abject 1m wide by 2 m tall in front of you, even if
> it is wearing dark clothing.
True enough. However, at 100m or so, in the dark, it is very easy to
mistake that cyclist for an inanimate object. While I might not hit the
cyclist, I might not give the cyclist as much clearance as I would had I
correctly identified the cyclist as a cyclist. 1m clearance if I'm
driving a car is probably enough. 1m clearance if I'm driving a large
truck may not be enough - I might generate enough turbulance to such the
cyclist under my wheels or force the cyclist off the road.
>
>>On the other hand, drivers have no trouble seeing other motor vehicles
>>as they have lights and, to an extent, reflectors.
>>
>>No driver should drive at a speed such that he cannot stop within seeing
>>distance.
>>
>>Similarly, every cyclist (or pedestrian or driver) should take
>>reasonable steps to be visible.
>
>
> Not, you are wrong to make this comparison. A motorist should drive at a
> speed such that he can stop within seeing distance because he/she is in
> control of the vehicle that will cause the damage to the cylist or
> pedestrian. He/she is in control of the dangerous vehicle and therefore
> bears a far greater responsibility to avoid anything in its path.
>
> The cyclist has no similar responnibility. It does have a right to be on the
> road regardless of the colour of the clothing. Whilst reflective clothing
> makes it easier for the motorist to see the cylist it does not absolve the
> motorist from the responsibility to avoid cyclists wearing unreflective
> clothes.
Here we disagree. As a cyclist, I may not bear a ***legal***
responsibility to be visible to other users of the roads (I suspect that
in much of N Am, I DO have a legal responsibility but IANAL). However,
I do bear a ***personal*** responsibility for my own well-being.
Knowing that there are many cracker-jack drivers out there (a
cracker-jack driver being a driver who obtained a drivers licence from a
box of cracker-jack [a brand of candy that comes with a "prize"]), I
cannot imagine why cyclists would fail to take simple, reasonable
actions to reduce their risk. I would rather be wronged than dead right.
>
>
>
>>No driver is willingly going to drive at, say, 10KMH on the off-chance
>>that there might be a stealth cyclist up ahead when, without a stealth
>>cyclist, 35KMH is a reasonable speed. To expect the driver to do so is
>>unreasonable.
>>
>
>
> Chance does not come into it. The driver should only drive at a speed that
> is within the distance they can see. On full beam then they may be safe
> doing 100 kph.
>
>
>
>>As a driver, I do not control other users of the road. I am responsible
>>for, and in control of, my own actions. I drive at speeds such that my
>>braking distance is within my seeing distance. Be mindful that at
>>night, if the only things illuminating a cyclist are my car's
>>headlights, a cyclist may not look like a cyclist (at least not when the
>>cyclist is first in range). Under atypical illumination, ordinary
>>things may be misidentified. By the time I recognise a cyclist as a
>>cyclist, I may well be short on stopping distance.
>
>
> You have just contradicted yourself!!!
Well, no. I did see the object. I did not recognize it as a cyclist.
I do not need to identify an inanimate object to avoid it. I generally
give cyclists a wider berth than inanimate objects as cyclist do not
always follow a straight path.
>
>>As a cyclists, we do not control other users of the road. We are
>>responsible for, and in control of, our own actions. We first must put
>>ourselves in the right and then educate others. If we do those two
>>things, I am convinced our casualty rates will plummet.
>>
>
> There is nothing wrong about not wearing reflective clothing at night.
> Casualty rates are primarily connected to driver actions rather than cyclist
> actions. In the Netherlands most cyclists do not wear reflective clothing
> yet they have far lower accident rates per km cycled than the UK. If we want
> accident rates for cyclists to plummet then we need to get the differential
> speed between the cyclist and motorist to also plummet in urban areas. In
> the UK it is 3 times what it is in most Northern European towns. That means
> a third of the time to notice and avoid cyclists. That's why 20mph urban
> speed limits are so important.
AFAIK, the Dutch have more cyclists than most countries. I wonder if
the general familiarity of drivers with cyclists has anything to do with
their lower casualty rates.
>
> Whilst disagreeing, let take the opportuunity to reflect on the fact that we
> both enjoy cycling and want to promote it.
>
> Have a good Christmas Jeff
>
> Best wishes
>
> Rod King
And to you sir. A pleasure holding a polite discourse with you.
Jeff
Helen Deborah Vecht
> As a result of this shocking incident I started an online
> source of badly researched and debatable
> cycle safety info, - we also spam newsgroups!
> www.makemoneyoffcyclists.com was born!
OOps!
I didn't read the whole post, so didn't spot the spoof.
Seasonal apologies,
Helen
(who has been known to _give away_ reflective things...)
Rod King
Seasons Greetings
I am definately not against the right of any cyclist to amximise their
visibility and go beyond what is legally requird.
However, what I am agaianst is the knee jerk reaction that appears when a
motorist sees a perfectly legal cyclist in dark clothing and blames the
cyclist for not wearing something brighter.
Imagine if you are driving along in your car and are suddenly rear-ended by
a 4x4 or truck. How would you respond to the drivers saying "I'm sorry, but
I just didn't see you. But why is your car not painted flourescent yellow
because that way it would have been more visible.
I am against the reaction that trasfers the guilt of the driver for going to
fast into the mistake of the cyclist for not going beyond what is legally
required.
Every time we promote a one sided recomendation that cyclists need to be
careful that they can be seen by cars going too fast for the circumstances
then we are reinforcing the idea that the responsibility is on the cyclist
rather than the driver.
When I am driving I NEVER have a problem seeing cyclists whether they are
wearing reflective clothing or no. I campaign for 20 mph speed limits in
urban areas which allows motorists to take responsibility for their actions
and drive at an appropriate speed to encourage cycling and walking as an
everyday activity that does NOT require one to dress up like a Christmas
tree.
Best wishes
Rod King
Cheshire
Leo Lichtman
"Rod King" wrote: (clip) Every time we promote a one sided recomendation
fast for the circumstances then we are reinforcing the idea that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bicycles generally go slower than cars, present a narrower profile, and have
fewer watts of lighting. It's not a question of BLAME. It's a matter of
survival. You can define excess speed as that which leads to car to rear
end a cyclist in the dark--we could discuss it as a philosophical
question--but, I, for one, recognize that my life is at stake, so I choose
to protect myself against those drivers who may be "wrong" by your
definition.
Solely for the sake of emphasis, I suggest you visualize riding in the dark
on a straight stretch of highway where the speed limit is, say, 65 MPH.
And, to be sure you don't give up any of your rights, TAKE THE LANE.
badger
David Martin wrote:
> Retroreflective *is* the new urban camouflage. Apparently it is
> easier to get away with shoplifting if you wear a reflective vest,
> safety helemt and site boots. Urban camouflage again.
Na, likely to be pikeys, easier to turn a blind eye than face months of
problems...
Claire Petersky
news:nXgrf.14390$iz3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Elisa Francesca Roselli" <nos...@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:43abba84$0$20854$636a...@news.free.fr...
>> In these dark winter months, I am car-pooling with a colleague to get to
>> work.
[snip]
> Cross posting is a total pain. Bah Humbug to you cross posters on both
> sides of the pond!
While the post, "NYT Article: Police Surveillance of Cyclists as Political
Dissidents" should not have been cross-posted to the uk.rec.cycling group --
and probably should have been more properly posted to rec.bicycles.soc
rather than r.b.misc -- the "Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark" is
relevant, I'd aver, for both an international and local forum. I have been
in the tropics twice near winter solstice -- once in Mexico, another time in
Hong Kong. In both instances, I was struck not at how long the daylight was,
but at how quickly it became night. Here in the Pacific Northwest,
especially on a grey and drippy day like today, there will be a long dim
twilight fading into dark. Those of us in northern tier states of the US,
and in Canada, struggle this time of year with darkness as do those in
northern Europe. Experience developed locally may be shared with the larger
world, and we all may learn from it.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
Jeff Williams
Rod King wrote:
> Jeff
>
> Seasons Greetings
>
> I am definately not against the right of any cyclist to amximise their
> visibility and go beyond what is legally requird.
>
> However, what I am agaianst is the knee jerk reaction that appears when a
> motorist sees a perfectly legal cyclist in dark clothing and blames the
> cyclist for not wearing something brighter.
I don't take issue with legal cyclists. Here in Canada, when riding at
night, cyclists are required legally to have functioning headlights and
taillights (and reflectors). Far too often (read > 90% of the time),
the cyclists I see at night have no lights, minimal, if any, reflectors,
and are wearing dark clothing. It's not legal, but it is incredibly stupid.
>
> Imagine if you are driving along in your car and are suddenly rear-ended by
> a 4x4 or truck. How would you respond to the drivers saying "I'm sorry, but
> I just didn't see you. But why is your car not painted flourescent yellow
> because that way it would have been more visible.
If I had the legally required lighting, and the lighting was working,
I'd say "see you in court". Vehicles using the roads here are required
to have lights and reflectors so that they are visible at night.
>
> I am against the reaction that trasfers the guilt of the driver for going to
> fast into the mistake of the cyclist for not going beyond what is legally
> required.
I'm not looking to transfer blame from the driver to the cyclist. I am
looking to prevent the need for blame assignment. Based on personal
experience, I know it is a lot easier to avoid highly visible cyclists
than stealth cyclists.
>
> Every time we promote a one sided recomendation that cyclists need to be
> careful that they can be seen by cars going too fast for the circumstances
> then we are reinforcing the idea that the responsibility is on the cyclist
> rather than the driver.
Cars going too fast for the circumstances are a serious problem, and the
drivers thereof need to take responsibility for their actions. What I
am suggesting is that cyclists will be seen earlier if they take steps
to make themselves visible and that can only lead to good results.
>
> When I am driving I NEVER have a problem seeing cyclists whether they are
> wearing reflective clothing or no. I campaign for 20 mph speed limits in
> urban areas which allows motorists to take responsibility for their actions
> and drive at an appropriate speed to encourage cycling and walking as an
> everyday activity that does NOT require one to dress up like a Christmas
> tree.
Well, I disagree with your campaign. I've no doubt that 20 mph is
"safer" than 30 mph. But if you take that concept to it's logical
conclusion, we'd leave the cars parked in the driveways because 0 mph is
"safe" than 20 mph. Unfortunately, while logical, it's not a reasonable
conclusion.
A thought just hit me (I turned the other cheek). Vehicles here are
required to have lights and reflectors so that they are visible to
others at night. Suppose I was walking on the side of the road at night
and I was hit by a stealth cyclist (no lights or reflectors).
Personally, I'd blame the cyclist for the collision. Why shouldn't
cyclists be required (here, they are) to make themselves visible for the
protection of others?
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Rod King
> Cheshire
Jeff
Winnipeg (we're in the midst of a heat wave: 1C as the high)
Simon Brooke
King ('ro...@therosebankcentre.co.uk') wrote:
> I am against the reaction that trasfers the guilt of the driver for
> going too fast into the mistake of the cyclist for not going beyond
> what is legally required.
Hear hear! Couldn't agree with you more.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; When all else fails, read the distractions.
Tony W
"Jeff Williams" <fros...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:gSErf.302$Js7...@fe19.lga...
snip
>>
>> When I am driving I NEVER have a problem seeing cyclists whether they are
>> wearing reflective clothing or no. I campaign for 20 mph speed limits in
>> urban areas which allows motorists to take responsibility for their
>> actions
>> and drive at an appropriate speed to encourage cycling and walking as an
>> everyday activity that does NOT require one to dress up like a Christmas
>> tree.
>
> Well, I disagree with your campaign. I've no doubt that 20 mph is "safer"
> than 30 mph. But if you take that concept to it's logical conclusion,
> we'd leave the cars parked in the driveways because 0 mph is "safe" than
> 20 mph. Unfortunately, while logical, it's not a reasonable conclusion.
snip
Given that the average speed of urban traffic in Britain is now little more
than 10 mph a 20 mph speed limit on residential roads would have negligible
effects on journey times but might discourage those who insist on maximum
acceleration, maximum braking as their driving style.
Britain's 'default' urban speed limit of 30 mph is relatively high by the
standards of our European neighbours who regularly use 30 kph (~18 mph) in
residential areas.
Given the survivability figures for 'accidents' involving cars at 20 and at
30 mph it should be a no brainer -- but most people seem to assume our
streets are for cars and not for humans.
T
jonatha...@wlc.ac.uk
> No driver should drive at a speed such that he cannot stop within seeing
> distance.
> Similarly, every cyclist (or pedestrian or driver) should take reasonable steps to be visible.
Agreed re. drivers & cyclists, both are operating vehicles.
Not so sure about pedestrians. Last night I was walking along a lane
near home in the dark. The lane was part of a path that the Romans
recorded as being in use when they first reached NE England, so
pedestrians have been using it for at least 1800 years, quite possibly
a lot longer. Until well within the last 100 of these years, no-one
expected these pedestrians to be carrying lights. I'm not convinced
that they (inc. I) shoud be expected to start carrying lights now just
to allow the recent arrivals (drivers) to travel faster. There is 1700+
years of precedent for pedestrians being able to use the road without
having to carry a light.
Jon
David Martin
jonatha...@wlc.ac.uk wrote:
> Jeff Williams Dec 24, 3:12 pm wrote:
>
> > No driver should drive at a speed such that he cannot stop within seeing
> > distance.
>
> > Similarly, every cyclist (or pedestrian or driver) should take reasonable steps to be visible.
>
> Agreed re. drivers & cyclists, both are operating vehicles.
It seems to me to be the case that rear lights are to allow following
vehicles to go faster, and front lights are to warn those who may be
about to move into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
How can a cyclist render themself invisible when the driver will surely
not be able to see a clear road ahead? The law is quite clear in that
you drive within the limits of what you see to be clear, not what you
cannot see to be occupied.
..d
Jeff Williams
Interesting point.
I'm not suggesting that pedestrians be required to carry lights.
Especially not so that drivers can travel faster.
I am suggesting that reasonable pedestrians should, when dressing,
consider the effects of their choice of deportment on their safety.
Personal experience tells me that being visible to others reduces my
chances of someone else colliding with me. It's not a guarantee of no
collisions but it does help. If you have the choice of two articles of
clothing, one non-reflective and the other reflective, it does you no
harm to take the reflective option (and it just might be to your benefit).
I'm not certain that the past should be the sole determinant of the
present or the future. Things do change over time and we adapt to those
changes.
Jeff
Brian Huntley
Zoot Katz wrote:
> I think cello-taping large denomination bills to frame tubes, fenders
> and helmet would have the best chance for increasing ones visibility.
> Most everyone is looking for money.
Ooo - you've given me a great idea for the next frame I wrap (previous
ones have been wood grain and rubber.)
Now, where can I get lots of old Yugoslav, Turkish, or Italian bills?
(My LBS occasionally displays a frame covered in stamps. Very pretty.)
Matt O'Toole
> Have you considered that if your colleague is driving so fast that they
> cannot pick out a cyclist then the appropriate action may be to slow down
> rather than moan about them wearing dark clothing.
>
> When motorists say that a cyclist was invisible or they just didn't see
> them it is usually because they aren't looking. What you are really
> complaining about was that there was little time to take avoiding action
> when seeing a cyclist. That is a car speed issue rather than a cyslist
> visiblity issue. Cyclists in flourescent jackets enable drivers to go
> faster. Hence when they do hit a cyclists theor pedestrian they are more
> likely to kill them.
>
> I believe that the responsibility is squarely with the motorist to conduct
> their driving so that they can avoid any obstacles that are within their
> vision. That means GO SLOWER.
You're right Rod, perhaps "dead right." If you're smart you'll put
some effort into being seen.
Matt O.
Matt O'Toole
> In rec.bicycles.misc Claire Petersky <cpet...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> Elisa, I've done this too -- while driving in the dark and passing a
>> pedestrian or a cyclist, made a note of what it is that I see first.
>> Usually it's some sort of reflective clothing. <snip>
>
> I have often done this as well. The things I notice most often are
> spoke and pedal reflectors. I'm sure that's because of the way they
> move. The things I am least likely to notice are dark clothing and fixed
> reflectors. I'm not sure I have EVER had my eye caught by one of those
> useless front reflectors.
Other than a light, I'm not sure what's most effective for being seen from
the front. But from the rear or the side, moving reflectors on pedals,
clothing, or wheels are very effective indeed. Dots of reflective tape on
the insides of rims are very good. Shame on any company (Sidi!) who fails
to put reflective patches on their bike shoes. I don't understand why the
logos on designer wheel sets aren't reflective either, especially at the
prices they sell for.
I'd like to do a lighting workshop, take pictures of what works and
doesen't, and post it all on the web. I'm surprised no one has done it
already, especially the big safety/advocacy organizations like LAB.
Matt O.
frkr...@gmail.com
Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
>
> Other than a light, I'm not sure what's most effective for being seen from
> the front. But from the rear or the side, moving reflectors on pedals,
> clothing, or wheels are very effective indeed. Dots of reflective tape on
> the insides of rims are very good. Shame on any company (Sidi!) who fails
> to put reflective patches on their bike shoes. I don't understand why the
> logos on designer wheel sets aren't reflective either, especially at the
> prices they sell for.
I agree. I think the excuse would be that most companies selling bike
equipment are firmly in the "bikes are toys" camp. They literally
never imagine people actually riding their bikes unless they're
"training" - which means, of course, daylight, smooth roads, no rain,
full mating plumage, and 82% of maximum heart rate (or whatever the
training schedule calls for on that particular day).
> I'd like to do a lighting workshop, take pictures of what works and
> doesen't, and post it all on the web.
I've organized lighting workshops with my bike club. They're great
fun, and the attendees learn a lot. But your web idea is excellent.
(As others may know, there are a couple sites that show headlight
comparisons, but your idea is more thorough, I think.)
There are difficulties, though. In particular, static photos don't
accurately replicate the effect of moving, changing views at night.
ISTM it's difficult finding a way to have consistently proper exposure
settings, to evaluate even stationary situations.
Still, I'd love to see such a thing happen. www.bicyclinglife.com
would be happy to host the results, I'm sure.
> I'm surprised no one has done it
> already, especially the big safety/advocacy organizations like LAB.
I remain tremendously disappointed in the LAB during the past (at
least) ten years. They'd much rather lobby for a bike path than do
something practical for transportational cyclists. Your excellent idea
would, I'm afraid, just confuse them.
Seriously, I think this idea is excellent. How could we make it
happen?
- Frank Krygowski
crabsallover
http://www.beseenonabike.com/shopuk/index.php?cPath=46&osCsid=d7a3979d29f226c9d46d951edddc66a9
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <Y2rrf.47394$6e1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, Mike Kruger
> ('Mik...@mouse-potato.com') wrote:
>
> >> www.BeSeenOnABike.com was born!
>
Simon Brooke
('matto...@letterboxes.org') wrote:
> Other than a light, I'm not sure what's most effective for being seen
> from
> the front. But from the rear or the side, moving reflectors on pedals,
> clothing, or wheels are very effective indeed. Dots of reflective tape
> on
> the insides of rims are very good. Shame on any company (Sidi!) who
> fails
> to put reflective patches on their bike shoes. I don't understand why
> the logos on designer wheel sets aren't reflective either, especially
> at the prices they sell for.
Two of my three pairs of SIDI shoes have retro-reflective areas on the
back. However, wheels and shoes designed for road racing are not
designed for commuting in the dark. If you want to go commuting in the
dark, you probably want kit designed for that purpose.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Tony Blair lies here.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.
Chris Malcolm
> On 23 Dec 2005 08:02:24 -0800, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So you cool young dudes and dudettes - put lights on your bike, and
>> carry a tiny LED light when you walk (if you ever do actually walk).
>> Use reflective stuff, too. It doesn't take much, but it takes
>> _something_ bright to be seen.
> Besides my normal bike commute, I also walk my turbo-supercharged
> Irish Setter in the morning before I pedal off to work, and in
> the evening after my return from work. Perhaps 3-5 miles per day
> (and maybe a 15 miler via MTB on a weekend!).
> During the evening walk, I carry a small LED light and am constantly
> surprised at how, even with a fairly bright light, I am apparently
> not seen until the last minute as I and dog are preparing to dive
> off the side of the road (a very dark, curvy road along the local
> river course).
I once came across a horrible multiple car accident on the A1 at
night. The wreckage could only safely be negotiated slowly and
carefully. Since lots of folk were already helpiung the injured and
trying to clear the road, I legged off to mount advance warning by
waving a torch at oncoming drivers.
After being forced to dive into the hedgerow several times I concluded
that it couldn't possibly be that, wearing bright reflective gear,
standing in the middle of the road, and waving a powerful torch, I
wasn't been seen. I concluded that I was being seen, and being
identified as an annoying impediment to fast motorised progress who
needed to be taught a lesson about who the road belonged to.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Chris Malcolm
> On 23 Dec 2005 15:20:49 -0800, owd...@googlemail.com said in
> <1135380049.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>>Obviously there are occasions when a bright jacket is not enough but
>>the probability is that the lighter/brighter the more likely it is to
>>be seen. Even better if the cyclist also has a big bright back light
>>preferably not flashing, and as much reflective material as possible.
>>Seems one has to keep repeating the obvious in this discussion!
> You'd think so, wouldn't you? As an enthusiastic advocate of lights
> and bright clothing I've devoted some energy to finding actual proof
> of the above, to no avail.
Of course lights and light-coloured clothing makes you more easily
seen than if camouflaged in dark clothing, but the problem with night
time streets is the illumination war between motorised vehicles is
already quite far advanced. Some of the lights modern cars use in
well-lit urban streets not only blind me but actually hurt my eyes.
There is so much competition from glaring light sources all over the
place that even white clothing can be obscured, and cyclists simply
can't carry enough power to compete with motorised vehicle light
power.
That's the *huge* advantage of reflective material -- it directionally
bounces back a good fraction of the light aimed at it, in effect
borrowing some the light power of the motorised vehicle, and greatly
reducing the effect of the inverse square law on distance. Almost
everyone greatly underestimates the visibility adantages of reflective
materials, possibly because their optical behaviour is so
counter-intuitive that we find it hard to believe what they actually
do.
Chris Malcolm
> in message <3130303037363...@zetnet.co.uk>, Helen Deborah Vecht
> ('helen...@zetnet.co.uk') wrote:
>> "crabsallover" <ch...@street56.fsbusiness.co.uk>typed
>>
>>> My wife was travelling in a friends car in March 2005, quite close to
>>> our home. The car almost hit a group of kids cycling. Her friend was
>>> temporarily blinded by some very bright house security lights.
>>
>> Perhaps you should campaign to abolish the security lights instead.
>>
>> They burn much energy and seldom actually increase security. Dazzling
>> road users is a real risk, as your wife found out. They make the night
>> sky all but invisible which is unfair to stargazers..
> ABSO-FLAMING-LUTELY! A light for a light leaves _everybody_ blind. What
> we should be campaigning for is a strict (and quite low) maximum to the
> amount of light /any/ vehicle or roadside light source can produce.
We also need to distinguish between lighting which is meant to
illuminate the road ahead, and light which is meant to make you more
easily seen. The physical and optical requirements of these two
functions are so divergent that it's silly to use one set of lights
for both purposes. It's one of the major causes of the current vehicle
illumination war.
max
"crabsallover" <ch...@street56.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
> Pedalites or Safeways Power Pedals are designed to replace.. pedals.
> http://www.beseenonabike.com
If they're like the ones sold at Target in the US (the pedals on the left
look to be), most adult riders will find them unacceptable due the the
narrowness of the platform.
I found that my fifth and to some extent fourth metatarsal bones were
unsupported, resulting in a v.uncomfortable ride. I removed these pedals
from my bike after two commutes. They're more suited to children's bikes.
.max
Simon Brooke
('beta...@earthink.net') wrote:
They look excellent for children's bikes, though.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
[ This mind intentionally left blank ]
Helen Deborah Vecht
> Some of the lights modern cars use in
> well-lit urban streets not only blind me but actually hurt my eyes.
So it's not just me, then?
> There is so much competition from glaring light sources all over the
> place that even white clothing can be obscured, and cyclists simply
> can't carry enough power to compete with motorised vehicle light
> power.
Quite.
> That's the *huge* advantage of reflective material -- it directionally
> bounces back a good fraction of the light aimed at it, in effect
> borrowing some the light power of the motorised vehicle,
Unfortunately, reflective materials vary vastly in their reflective
performance, with some, especially soft plastic materials, deteriorating
markedly in use.
> and greatly
> reducing the effect of the inverse square law on distance. Almost
> everyone greatly underestimates the visibility adantages of reflective
> materials, possibly because their optical behaviour is so
> counter-intuitive that we find it hard to believe what they actually
> do.
I am a great believer in good reflectives (but I have no real evidence
that they prevent accidents. I have good evidence they work as
described.)
A head torch is instructive, camera with a flash likewise.
Jeff Williams
...snip...
> I am a great believer in good reflectives (but I have no real evidence
> that they prevent accidents. I have good evidence they work as
> described.)
...snip...
I was at a seminar given by a member of the corporate security for
Canadian Pacific Rail a few weeks ago. He mentioned that they had
started putting reflective material on the backside of railway crossing
signs (they already had it on the front) and that the effect was
statistically fewer car-train collisions at those locations.
It is direct evidence that reflectives prevent accidents in that case.
Take it as you will concerning car-bike collisions.
Jeff
Simon Brooke
> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>typed
>
>
>> Some of the lights modern cars use in
>> well-lit urban streets not only blind me but actually hurt my eyes.
>
> So it's not just me, then?
No, they're positively dangerous. They're even more dangerous on poorly
lit rural roads, because the contrast is so great you can literally see
nothing else at all.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file
Rod King
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lic...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:WCDrf.191421$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Leo
I do take that lane. And the reason is that its the safest place to be.
With life, comes risk. We all weigh up the risk of our actions against both
the consequences and the alternatives. When cycling, experience tells us
that it is often when you appear to be most vulnerable, ie, in the centre of
a lane, that one is the safest. Equally, cycle helmets and conspicuous
clothing are a comfort and fashion thing that will always depend on the
circumstances. If I am racing a cyle then I wear a helmet. If I was riding
off road downhill, I would wear a a helmet. If I cycle on the roads I never
wear a helmet. If I was cycling at night and wanted to be conspicuous then I
would wear a reflective band, however, there are circumstances when I would
not want to or need to use these if cycling along a well lit road within a
slow speed envirionment.
What I am arguing is that the choice of whether to dress up in reflective
clothing, or wear a helmet is a personal one and should be based upon an
objective and experienced assessment of the risks rather than a knee-jerk
"all cyclusts must wear reflective clothing or they are irresponsible".
Cycling is only about half as dangerous in the UK as walking per km
travelled. Therefore statistically this is of a similar scale. In other
communities, "The Netherland and Germany" cycling is much closer to an
alternative to walking rather than a form of exercise or sport. Hence most
people would not dream of weraing anything other than what they would walk
in. I accept that in different communities then there will be different
risk.
I support your right to wear whatever you like when cycling. Do that based
upon your own judgement and experience. But others should and will make up
their own minds.
Best regards
Rod King
.
>
Rod King
> "safer" than 30 mph. But if you take that concept to it's logical
> conclusion, we'd leave the cars parked in the driveways because 0 mph is
> "safe" than 20 mph. Unfortunately, while logical, it's not a reasonable
> conclusion.
>
about whether the limit should be 30 or 20 or something in between, or you
are arguing for no speed limits.
Therfore your argument seem neither logical or reasonable.
> A thought just hit me (I turned the other cheek). Vehicles here are
> required to have lights and reflectors so that they are visible to
> others at night. Suppose I was walking on the side of the road at night
> and I was hit by a stealth cyclist (no lights or reflectors).
> Personally, I'd blame the cyclist for the collision. Why shouldn't
> cyclists be required (here, they are) to make themselves visible for the
> protection of others?
>
As I have said in earlier posts, cyclists should have lights as per the
legal requirement. But going beyond this is a matter of personal choice,
that's all.
Be Happy
Rod King
Rod King
"Rod King" <ro...@therosebankcentre.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43b1624e$0$82654$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
>
> Cycling is only about half as dangerous in the UK as walking per km
> travelled. Therefore statistically this is of a similar scale.
Typo alert. Should of course be that cycling is only twice.....
Of course, second sentence still holds...
Regards
Rod King
Jeff Williams
> "Jeff Williams" <fros...@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:gSErf.302$Js7...@fe19.lga...
>
>>Well, I disagree with your campaign. I've no doubt that 20 mph is
>>"safer" than 30 mph. But if you take that concept to it's logical
>>conclusion, we'd leave the cars parked in the driveways because 0 mph is
>>"safe" than 20 mph. Unfortunately, while logical, it's not a reasonable
>>conclusion.
>>
>
> I am not sure what you are trying to argue here Jeff. Either we are arguing
> about whether the limit should be 30 or 20 or something in between, or you
> are arguing for no speed limits.
>
> Therfore your argument seem neither logical or reasonable.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
The argument that "slower is safer, therefore we should go slower" is
pointless. Unless you are stationary, you can always slow down,
therefore, unless you are stationary, you can always be safer. The
logical end to this line of reasoning is to park the car/truck/whatever
permanently. That is not a reasonable state of being en masse (it might
be fine for specific individuals).
I certainly would not argue for no speed limits in urban settings (that
would be absurd) but there are certainly rural areas in which I would
happily argue against speed limits (see the following aside before you
start flaming me). When someone advocates a serious change in policy
(and dropping the speed limit by 33% is a serious change), I want to see
evidence of that the change will generate the desired effects. I also
want to see analysis on the other side effects of the change.
Significant policy changes frequently generate unexpected results,
usually to the chagrin of those affected. All too often, those results
would have been expected had proper analysis been done and published. I
rarely hear such information from advocates of serious change.
Have you a website for your advocacy? If so, could you provide a
pointer so I can check it out. Believe it or not, I do try to maintain
an open mind.
Aside: I live in Manitoba. The area of the province is about 250,000
square miles. There are about 1,200,000 people in the province. More
than 2/3 of the population lives in a handful of cities and most of the
remainder live in smaller towns, so the population density is very low
and many of the highways, especially in the north, carry very little
traffic in areas with little or no population. There are stretches of
highway in which you can drive for hours and see no sign of humanity
other than the road and, maybe, the phone lines along side the road.
Yes, removing the speed limit might result in some drivers exceeding
their capabilities and killing themselves, but we already have drivers
pushing their endurance and killing themselves when they fall asleep at
the wheel. When your behaviour poses minimal risk to others, it ought
not be regulated by some halfwit bureaucrat.
Anyway, we're way off topic, so this will be my last post to this
thread. Thanks for an amicable discussion. Hopefully we'll see more of
this type of discussion in the new year.
Jeff
Rod King
Yes, you are right in that the safest environment for cyclists would be when
all motor vehicles had a maximum speed limit of 0mph!!
With regards to the enrtirely realistic 20mph urban speed limit that already
exists (18.5 mph or 30 kph) in most Norther European towns there are some
excellent reference material at :-
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/campaigns/maintainCampaigns.asp?CampaignID=2
2
http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/
Best regards
Rod King
Helen Deborah Vecht
> Regards
> Rod King
Are you sure?
I thought walking was MORE dangerous than cycling, per kilometre travelled.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Of course lights and light-coloured clothing makes you more easily
> seen than if camouflaged in dark clothing,
I wasn't aware that was in dispute. But, as stated, I am still looking
for any credible evidence that this makes a difference. I wish I could
find some.
--
Guy
gds
Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> I was at a seminar given by a member of the corporate security for
> Canadian Pacific Rail a few weeks ago. He mentioned that they had
> started putting reflective material on the backside of railway crossing
> signs (they already had it on the front) and that the effect was
> statistically fewer car-train collisions at those locations.
>
> It is direct evidence that reflectives prevent accidents in that case.
>
> Take it as you will concerning car-bike collisions.
>
see
http://sheldonbrown.com/reflectors.html for a discussion of why
reflectives are not so effective for cycling.
Tony Raven
You were right the first time. Well almost; walking is about 50% more
dangerous per km than cycling.
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
gds
So are you suggesting that a doubling of risk is inconsequential?
gds
While I agree with you that we all do and should use our experience as
a guide I will add that my 50 + years of riding experience my
perspective much closer to Leo's than to yours.
I think his point that it is not an issue of blame is a key one. To not
recognize the the totally unequal risks to driver vs. rider in a auto
vs. cycle collision is silly. Assigning the blame after such a
collision is a luxury not afforded a dead cyclist.
gds
I apologise for a pet peeve of mine but here goes.
Lots of folks in this newsgroup use the term statistically
insignificant (or significant) improperly. Statistical signifigance
simply means that from the results of sampling that the scores being
compared could have been expected (or not) with a given amount of
statiscal expectation. That is very different from the true
signifigance of the results.
So, in the discussions above it is most likely that the differing
"danger" rates for cycling vs. walking are statisically significant.
Because if the numbers differ by asmuch as 50% as suggested and the
number of examples (the samle sizes) are large then the number
estimated by those samples are likely very different in the
totalp[opulation for walking vs. cycling. That is all that statistical
signifgance tells us.
However, the numbers can be statisically very significantly different
but not practically different. So, if the above "danger" rates are very
small absolute numbers then from a practical matter it doens't matter
to many of us whether or not there is a statisicaly significant
difference. Since I don't know the real numbers I'll just make some up
as an example. Lets say that the "danger" rate for cycling is 1 per
million miles and the "danger" rate for walking is 1.5 per million
miles. For sure these rates are different statistically. However, for
most folks the absolutely small risk would mean that for all practicle
puposes they don't care.
Sorry to be pedantic.