eyeglasses and bicycling



"Peter" <[email protected]> wrote

> >
> Should I get one of the titanium chains to make up for the extra weight of my glass lenses?
>

No, you have to get the Ti frames...;)

Unfortunately, I *have* to, due to 'nickel allergy'. Either Ti or (gag) plastic. No steel frames
(which have a high nickel content)

Pete
 
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:46:37 GMT, McBain_v1
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Do people like Oakley actually fit prescription lenses into their frames? I've yet to see it
>if they do.

I believe Nashbar offers prescription bicycling sunglasses. I remember reading it in their
catalog...
--
Rick Onanian
 
collver1 wrote:
> ``Eyeglass wearers are somewhat protected by their prescription lenses (you ARE wearing plastic,
> NOT glass lenses aren't you?) so one would imagine this danger would pertain more to helmet
> mounted mirrors, if it exists at all.'' This is the first I heard of it. Is it advisable for
> safety reasons to wear plastic corrective lenses instead of glass while bike riding?

Hummm... I never tought of this. My lenses are glass. Several years ago, my face hit the ground hard
enough to break my nose. Glasses got all scratched up, but even then, I never thought of them
breaking and worrying about glass....

Now you've got me worrying.... What IF?

-Pete

--

"It's a sad day for american capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over
Central Park."
J. Moran
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sunglasses of the sporting variety are invariably designed for people who can
> already see. The more impaired segment of the population has to do without.
>
> I'm at -4.5 and -5 diopters, and so polycarbonate lenses are the only real
> option for me (I would otherwise be compelled to wear unmanageably big & thick
> glasses). I have polarized sunglasses made to that prescription which work very
> well, but I wonder what I'm missing in terms of not fogging.

It's not a major issue for me anymore, but I used to have good luck using a bit
of soap on the lenses. Wipe the lenses dry after applying a thin film of soap,
but don't rinse them.

> From as far as I can tell, everything's all right so long as you're under -3
> diopter. Once you're worse than that, specialized 'cycling' glasses are totally
> out of the question.

Are contacts out of the question, too? They are my almost-universal choice for
riding. Ironically, on long rides I get some drying, so the solution to that is
to wear clear shields or sunglasses, which sounds silly even as I type it, but I
get better peripheral vision that way, and I have contacts anyways....

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President,
Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:42:03 -0800, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sunglasses of the sporting variety are invariably
>> designed for people who can already see. The more
>> impaired segment of the population has to do without.
>>
>> I'm at -4.5 and -5 diopters, and so polycarbonate lenses
>> are the only real option for me (I would otherwise be
>> compelled to wear unmanageably big & thick glasses). I
>> have polarized sunglasses made to that prescription which
>> work very well, but I wonder what I'm missing in terms of
>> not fogging.
>
>It's not a major issue for me anymore, but I used to have
>good luck using a bit of soap on the lenses. Wipe the
>lenses dry after applying a thin film of soap, but don't
>rinse them.

I haven't tried that yet. H'mmmm!

>
>> From as far as I can tell, everything's all right so long
>> as you're under -3 diopter. Once you're worse than that,
>> specialized 'cycling' glasses are totally out of the
>> question.
>
>Are contacts out of the question, too? They are my almost-
>universal choice for riding. Ironically, on long rides I
>get some drying, so the solution to that is to wear clear
>shields or sunglasses, which sounds silly even as I type
>it, but I get better peripheral vision that way, and I have
>contacts anyways....

I never really thought about contacts. I've got astigmatism,
too, so I'm not sure contacts are really an option.

I'm lazy and unfussy; contacts always struck me as a much
higher-maintenance regime than eyeglasses. The drying would
be an issue as well. Not to mention my almost pathological
fear of putting stuff into my eye.

(although I went to high school with a girl who had perfect
vision and could touch her eye easy as you like. it was
gross. she was cute though)

-Luigi
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:42:03 -0800, Ryan Cousineau
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Are contacts out of the question, too? They are my almost-
> >universal choice for riding. Ironically, on long rides I
> >get some drying, so the solution to that is to wear clear
> >shields or sunglasses, which sounds silly even as I type
> >it, but I get better peripheral vision that way, and I
> >have contacts anyways....
>
> I never really thought about contacts. I've got
> astigmatism, too, so I'm not sure contacts are really
> an option.

Contacts may simply not correct your astigmatism. My wife is
in the same boat, but does have contacts.

> I'm lazy and unfussy; contacts always struck me as a much
> higher-maintenance regime than eyeglasses. The drying
> would be an issue as well. Not to mention my almost
> pathological fear of putting stuff into my eye.

Well, the new disposables are pretty much "pull them out at
night, put them in before breakfast". I know people who
tried and abandoned contacts because of the fussiness, but
for me the difference in vision (perfect peripheral vision,
perfect vision period, no grease spots on your lenses) made
them ideal.

If you're into sports, no contest for me: contacts don't
fall off, don't fog up, and don't break when you take a ball
in the face or fall off your bicycle.

Contacts don't work for everyone: Mine give me virtually no
trouble 99% of the time, while my wife (who also really
likes her contacts) has some problems with them (drying,
coming out, etc.) Your experience may vary.

> (although I went to high school with a girl who had
> perfect vision and could touch her eye easy as you like.
> it was gross. she was cute though)

If you like contacts, you'll be able to get over the eye-
touching thing. There's a technique I use for insertion
where you're really not touching the eye directly: I pull
down my lower lid and slide the contact in.

If you haven't tried contacts, you owe it to yourself to
give them a shot. If they work for you, you'll love them.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected]
http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
In article <[email protected]>,
luigi12081 @cox.net says...

...

> >Are contacts out of the question, too? They are my almost-
> >universal choice for riding. Ironically, on long rides I
> >get some drying, so the solution to that is to wear clear
> >shields or sunglasses, which sounds silly even as I type
> >it, but I get better peripheral vision that way, and I
> >have contacts anyways....
>
> I never really thought about contacts. I've got
> astigmatism, too, so I'm not sure contacts are really
> an option.

You can get contacts which are designed to correct
astigmatism, though they're rather expensive. However I've
found that if you get contacts which are slightly thicker
than the thinnest ones available, they do a pretty decent
job of correcting my astigmatism. Mine isn't real bad,
though, so YMMV. I'm *really* near-sighted, though (about
6.5 diopters). Good wrap-around sunglasses with large lenses
(top to bottom) really help with the drying.

> I'm lazy and unfussy; contacts always struck me as a much
> higher-maintenance regime than eyeglasses. The drying
> would be an

Disposables take care of this issue very well.

> issue as well. Not to mention my almost pathological fear
> of putting stuff into my eye.

This might be a tough hurdle, though.

....

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return
address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:42:03 -0800, Ryan Cousineau
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >Are contacts out of the question, too? They are my almost-
> > >universal choice for riding. Ironically, on long rides
> > >I get some drying, so the solution to that is to wear
> > >clear shields or sunglasses, which sounds silly even as
> > >I type it, but I get better peripheral vision that way,
> > >and I have contacts anyways....
> >
> > I never really thought about contacts. I've got
> > astigmatism, too, so I'm not sure contacts are really an
> > option.
>
> Contacts may simply not correct your astigmatism. My wife
> is in the same boat, but does have contacts.

Then again, they may. I've got 1.75 diopters of astigmatism
and soft contacts take it up quite well, although due to the
angle of the astigmatism the contacts aren't as stable as
they might be. More convenient than glasses, though.

> > I'm lazy and unfussy; contacts always struck me as a
> > much higher-maintenance regime than eyeglasses.

Once you get the hang of it, two or three minutes in the
morning and two or three in the evening (including thorough
hand-washing), unless you get the kind you leave in for a
week or two.

> > The drying would be an issue as well. Not to mention my
> > almost pathological fear of putting stuff into my eye.

That can be overcome. A friend's kid (similar fear) needed
(keratoconus) to get hard contacts (RGPs) and got used to
them quite easily. Soft lenses, for me at least, are pretty
much forgettable once they're in.

> Well, the new disposables are pretty much "pull them out
> at night, put them in before breakfast". I know people who
> tried and abandoned contacts because of the fussiness, but
> for me the difference in vision (perfect peripheral
> vision, perfect vision period, no grease spots on your
> lenses) made them ideal.
>
> If you're into sports, no contest for me: contacts don't
> fall off,

UNLESS for some reason they don't fit exactly right AND they
dry out enough to fall out. That happened to me while I was
sitting at the computer. Properly fitting soft lenses
shouldn't do that, though. And a proper fitter will keep
trying until he gets it right or you have to settle for
something less than you hoped for or you decide that
contacts just won't work for you. No, you don't just get a
paper prescription and then order from 800-Contacts, there
is REAL fitting required.

> don't fog up, and don't break when you take a ball in the
> face or fall off your bicycle.

I can't imagine riding a bicycle without some kind of eye
protection to keep bugs, stones, birds, etc. out of my eyes.
If you fall on your face, even cheap sunglasses can break or
scrape skin off.

> Contacts don't work for everyone: Mine give me virtually
> no trouble 99% of the time, while my wife (who also really
> likes her contacts) has some problems with them (drying,
> coming out, etc.) Your experience may vary.
>
> > (although I went to high school with a girl who had
> > perfect vision and could touch her eye easy as you like.
> > it was gross. she was cute though)
>
> If you like contacts, you'll be able to get over the eye-
> touching thing. There's a technique I use for insertion
> where you're really not touching the eye directly: I pull
> down my lower lid and slide the contact in.
>
> If you haven't tried contacts, you owe it to yourself to
> give them a shot. If they work for you, you'll love them.

Ditto.

--
Cheers, Bev
----------------------------------------------
"Tough? We drink our urine and eat our dead!"

-- N. Heilweil
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

...

> > > I never really thought about contacts. I've got
> > > astigmatism, too, so I'm not sure contacts are really
> > > an option.
> >
> > Contacts may simply not correct your astigmatism. My
> > wife is in the same boat, but does have contacts.
>
> Then again, they may. I've got 1.75 diopters of
> astigmatism and soft contacts take it up quite well,
> although due to the angle of the

That's my experience, too, with about the same
astigmatism as you.

> astigmatism the contacts aren't as stable as they might
> be. More convenient than glasses, though.

>
> > > I'm lazy and unfussy; contacts always struck me as a
> > > much higher-maintenance regime than eyeglasses.
>
> Once you get the hang of it, two or three minutes in the
> morning and two or three in the evening (including
> thorough hand-washing), unless you get the kind you leave
> in for a week or two.

Some of them are approved for 30 days at a time.

....

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return
address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
David Kerber wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says... ...
> > > > I never really thought about contacts. I've got
> > > > astigmatism, too, so I'm not sure contacts are
> > > > really an option.
> > >
> > > Contacts may simply not correct your astigmatism. My
> > > wife is in the same boat, but does have contacts.
> >
> > Then again, they may. I've got 1.75 diopters of
> > astigmatism and soft contacts take it up quite well,
> > although due to the angle of the
>
> That's my experience, too, with about the same
> astigmatism as you.

With the axes almost straight up and down. Why ME, lord?

> > astigmatism the contacts aren't as stable as they might
> > be. More convenient than glasses, though.
>
> > > > I'm lazy and unfussy; contacts always struck me as a
> > > > much higher-maintenance regime than eyeglasses.
> >
> > Once you get the hang of it, two or three minutes in the
> > morning and two or three in the evening (including
> > thorough hand-washing), unless you get the kind you
> > leave in for a week or two.
>
> Some of them are approved for 30 days at a time.

Sounds good, but I think I'd end up worrying about
them anyway.

> REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Genie to Aladdin: "You want AUTORUB?"

--
Cheers, Bev
===========================================================
An organizer for the "Million Agoraphobics March" expressed
disappointment in the turnout for last weekend's event.
 
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:48:20 -0800, The Real Bev
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> That's my experience, too, with about the same
>> astigmatism as you.
>
>With the axes almost straight up and down. Why ME, lord?

As the sergeant said to the panicking soldier in "Zulu":

"Because we're 'ere, lad. Because we're 'ere"

-Luigi

USUTHUUUUUUU!
 
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 12:39:14 -0800, The Real Bev
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I can't imagine riding a bicycle without some kind of eye
>protection to keep bugs, stones, birds, etc. out of my
>eyes. If you fall on your face, even cheap sunglasses can
>break or scrape skin off.

Birds ?!? Oh my....:)

If you hit a seagull face on at 40mph downhill I don't think
glasses will help very much:)

Seriously, I ride 2500-3000 miles a year and never use any
eye protection. It hasn't been a problem yet.
 
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:36:03 +0100, Jens Kr. Kirkebø wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 12:39:14 -0800, The Real Bev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I can't imagine riding a bicycle without some kind of eye
>>protection to keep bugs, stones, birds, etc. out of my
>>eyes. If you fall on your face, even cheap sunglasses can
>>break or scrape skin off.
>
> Birds ?!? Oh my....:)
>
> If you hit a seagull face on at 40mph downhill I don't
> think glasses will help very much:)
>
> Seriously, I ride 2500-3000 miles a year and never use any
> eye protection. It hasn't been a problem yet.

That is a bit like the argument which says that you have to
ride for 30,000 years before being killed by a head injury,
on average, so why wear a helmet -- Hey! Perhaps that is a
good argument after all! Peter

--
This transmission is certified free of viruses as no
Microsoft products were used in its preparation or
propagation.
 
"Jens Kr. Kirkebø" wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I can't imagine riding a bicycle without some kind of eye
> >protection to keep bugs, stones, birds, etc. out of my
> >eyes. If you fall on your face, even cheap sunglasses can
> >break or scrape skin off.
>
> Birds ?!? Oh my....:)

Holdover from descriptions of really poor motorcycle air
cleaners...

> If you hit a seagull face on at 40mph downhill I don't
> think glasses will help very much:)

Couldn't hurt if the bird lands beak-first.

> Seriously, I ride 2500-3000 miles a year and never use any
> eye protection. It hasn't been a problem yet.

I've worn glasses for 25 years and non-prescription
sunglasses before that, and I just don't feel right without
something in front of my eyes. Another motorcycle
holdover...

Theory has it that UV encourages the formation of cataracts
and perhaps macular degeneration. The first is fixable, the
second may not be.

--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus
handicapped."
-- Elbert Hubbard, American author