Flashing lights , a good thing?

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2007-03-13 18:45:43 skrev Pete Biggs
<[email protected]>:

> If it wakes
> up more than would be woken up by steady lights then it succeeds.


At the supermarket they sell a device, worn on the ear, that detects if a
driver nods off. For Christ sake, if you're that tired, stay where you
are, don't command a one-tone lump of steel at lethal speed !!

Blinkies use less power, which is useful. But the visibility argument is
just mangled in my opinion.

Technology is not the answer to every problem.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Den 2007-03-13 18:45:43 skrev Pete Biggs
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> If it wakes
>> up more than would be woken up by steady lights then it succeeds.
>
>
> At the supermarket they sell a device, worn on the ear, that detects if a
> driver nods off. For Christ sake, if you're that tired, stay where you
> are, don't command a one-tone lump of steel at lethal speed !!

If I feel tired, I eat a couple of pieces of Kendal Mint Cake, absolutely
wonderful for waking you up!

Alan

 

[Richard Bates]

Alan Holmes wrote:
> If I feel tired, I eat a couple of pieces of Kendal Mint Cake, absolutely
> wonderful for waking you up!

.... for about 2 miles, at which point I tend to need to lie down and be
given mouth to mouth resuscitation.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Alan Holmes wrote:

> If I feel tired, I eat a couple of pieces of Kendal Mint Cake, absolutely
> wonderful for waking you up!

I'm amazed I liked the stuff as a kid. These days I suppose it would
still keep me awake as it's tricky sleeping through a major gag reflex...

Ack.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony Raven]

Peter Clinch wrote on 16/03/2007 08:49 +0100:
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>> If I feel tired, I eat a couple of pieces of Kendal Mint Cake,
>> absolutely wonderful for waking you up!
>
> I'm amazed I liked the stuff as a kid. These days I suppose it would
> still keep me awake as it's tricky sleeping through a major gag reflex...
>

Same here. It used to be the bees knees when out in the mountains as a
kid but now I can't stand the stuff.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Erik Sandblom <[email protected]> wrote:

> Den 2007-03-13 18:45:43 skrev Pete Biggs
> <[email protected]>:
>
> > If it wakes
> > up more than would be woken up by steady lights then it succeeds.
>
>
> At the supermarket they sell a device, worn on the ear, that detects if a
> driver nods off.

You forgot to mention that the device works by uncoupling the seat belt,
applying the brakes automatically and hard, and by firing nails through
the ears at the emptiness that lies between.

> For Christ sake, if you're that tired, stay where you
> are, don't command a one-tone lump of steel at lethal speed !!

Would a two-tone lump of steel be better?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush
and we may yet go back down with them.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alan Holmes wrote:
> > "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> Perhaps you should have your eyes tested, or surrender your driving
> >> licence?
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because you don't sound too safe to have around otherwise.
>
> > It would be far more sensible for the idiots to abandon fashionable flashing
> > lights and use proper lights!
>
> You mean the ones that go through a set of batteries in half the time
> and thus considerably enhance your chances of having /no light at all/
> quite by accident?

Oh, for heaven's sake, if you can't be bothered to carry a spare set of
batteries, or at least to ensure that you have enough charge in them to
get to your destination, then you shouldn't expect others to help you to
survive.

I could save fuel in my car by being similarly ridiculous with my
lighting. I have no intention of doing so.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Tony Raven]

Erik Sandblom wrote on 15/03/2007 13:54 +0100:
>
> At the supermarket they sell a device, worn on the ear, that detects if
> a driver nods off.

I could do with one of those for when I am out cycling to warn me of
dozing drivers.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Erik Sandblom wrote on 15/03/2007 13:54 +0100:
>>
>> At the supermarket they sell a device, worn on the ear, that detects
>> if a driver nods off.
>
> I could do with one of those for when I am out cycling to warn me of
> dozing drivers.
>
You'd need to be pretty careful about the range. If it was over about
1km, in most of the UK it would never stop warning you.

A

 

[Stevie D]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Roger Burton West wrote:
>
>> I don't have an explanation for it but it's certainly my experience;
>> many times when I've been driving, I've seen a bicycle light, thought
>> "right, he's safely over there", and then been surprised when he entered
>> a more brightly-lit area much closer to me than I'd expected.
>
> Perhaps you should have your eyes tested, or surrender your driving
> licence?

Not at all. I have had the same experience as Roger, and my eyesight
is as near to perfect as makes no odds.

If I was to stare continuously at the flashing light, I would after a
few seconds get a better idea of how far away it was - but in the
meantime, would very likely have driven off the road or hit something
much closer to hand.

It takes a moment for your eyes to focus on anything and get a fix on
the distance. When that something is appearing and disappearing at a
moderate frequency, it isn't visible for long enough continuously to
do that in any one illumination cycle, and it will move (not
necessarily in a perfectly straight or smooth path) between
illuminations, and the discontinuity means that it takes much, much
longer to get a fix on the distance than if it were a steady light.
Combine that with a driver's need to continually scan across his full
field of vision, meaning he is unable to focus on any one object for a
long time, and it's easy to see why drivers find it difficult to gauge
the distance of a solitary and moving flashing light.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> You mean the ones that go through a set of batteries in half the time
> and thus considerably enhance your chances of having /no light at all/
> quite by accident?

LED lights do not suddenly fail, but give a very long tail of
decreasing brightness. In normal cycling (ie, not doing an all-night
ride) even in winter, you'll have days if not weeks of notice that
your lights are waning, and plenty of time to replace the batteries
before they are reduced to dangerously low illumination.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Al C-F]

Stevie D wrote:

>
> If I was to stare continuously at the flashing light, I would after a
> few seconds get a better idea of how far away it was - but in the
> meantime, would very likely have driven off the road or hit something
> much closer to hand.
>
> It takes a moment for your eyes to focus on anything and get a fix on
> the distance. When that something is appearing and disappearing at a
> moderate frequency, it isn't visible for long enough continuously to
> do that in any one illumination cycle, and it will move (not
> necessarily in a perfectly straight or smooth path) between
> illuminations, and the discontinuity means that it takes much, much
> longer to get a fix on the distance than if it were a steady light.
> Combine that with a driver's need to continually scan across his full
> field of vision, meaning he is unable to focus on any one object for a
> long time, and it's easy to see why drivers find it difficult to gauge
> the distance of a solitary and moving flashing light.
>

Am I missing something here? You seem to be discussing flashing lights
as though they are the only illumination that allows you to see and
place a cyclist.

My car is equipped with lights, which are quite bright. When I am
driving towards a cyclist, these lights illuminate the reflectors on the
bike (including those amber ones on the pedals) and also any reflective
clothing that he might be wearing.

I find that the flashing LED ceases to be the sole source of light
returning from the target long before I am close enough to the cyclist
to present a danger. I can therefore work out position / speed / size
in plenty of time to react.

Perhaps some of you chaps should try turning your lights on.

 

[Stevie D]

Al C-F wrote:

> My car is equipped with lights, which are quite bright. When I am
> driving towards a cyclist, these lights illuminate the reflectors on the
> bike (including those amber ones on the pedals) and also any reflective
> clothing that he might be wearing.

That's a good point - assuming that the cyclist does have a rear
reflector and pedal reflectors, and that they are correctly
positioned, and clean ... which is all too often not the case.

I find pedal reflectors really useful on unlit roads. Under street
lighting, the all pervading yellow haze seems to obscure them
considerably.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:34:34 +0000,
Al C-F <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stevie D wrote:
>
>>
>> If I was to stare continuously at the flashing light, I would after a
>> few seconds get a better idea of how far away it was - but in the
>> meantime, would very likely have driven off the road or hit something
>> much closer to hand.
>>
>> It takes a moment for your eyes to focus on anything and get a fix on
>> the distance. When that something is appearing and disappearing at a
>> moderate frequency, it isn't visible for long enough continuously to
>> do that in any one illumination cycle, and it will move (not
>> necessarily in a perfectly straight or smooth path) between
>> illuminations, and the discontinuity means that it takes much, much
>> longer to get a fix on the distance than if it were a steady light.
>> Combine that with a driver's need to continually scan across his full
>> field of vision, meaning he is unable to focus on any one object for a
>> long time, and it's easy to see why drivers find it difficult to gauge
>> the distance of a solitary and moving flashing light.
>>
>
> Am I missing something here? You seem to be discussing flashing lights
> as though they are the only illumination that allows you to see and
> place a cyclist.
>
> My car is equipped with lights, which are quite bright. When I am
> driving towards a cyclist, these lights illuminate the reflectors on the
> bike (including those amber ones on the pedals) and also any reflective
> clothing that he might be wearing.
>
> I find that the flashing LED ceases to be the sole source of light
> returning from the target long before I am close enough to the cyclist
> to present a danger. I can therefore work out position / speed / size
> in plenty of time to react.
>
> Perhaps some of you chaps should try turning your lights on.

Actually, I think it's people not looking far enough ahead that's the
main problem.

If you are scanning the road ahead as far as you can see your eyes will
already be focussed for infinity. If you are only looking a short
distance ahead things in the distance will always be out of focus.

A steady red cycling light probably isn't enough to attract attention if
it's out of focus. If it's flashing then it tends to attract attention
even out of focus. Drivers then get a surprise because they notice the
cyclist much further away than they usually look.

I failed my IAM test the first time (only exam I've ever failed) and I
remember the debriefing. My drive started in the town centre and then
moved out onto the open road. At the end the examiner said that when I
started he thought I was going to waltz it but when I got out onto the
open road he felt I wasn't reading the road far enough ahead - nothing
dangerous but I would change lanes (pulling in) when I would have to
pull out again and my pulling in didn't benefit anyone at all.

Second time I took it a few years later I got a "that was excellent,
especially the commentary on the open road" - although I thought I was
going to fail because I completely ballsed up the reverse parking
- probably good enough to pass an L test but nothing like what I would
expect to achieve.

I only drive a few hundred to maybe a thousand miles a year now and I'm
pretty sure my standards have slipped - I probably ought to do a
refresher drive with an IAM observer but I've gone off the IAM a bit
because a lot of the vocal members seem to me to be of the "I'm a better
driver so I ought to be allowed to drive faster" school of thought
whereas I hope I'm a better driver so I'm less likely to have an
accident - and on the couple of occasions where I've had to take
emergency action to avoid an accident it's been because of someone else
doing something utterly stupid. One of them I like to think I only
avoided the collision because of my IAM training[1] - I'd have hit them
otherwise, the other one I think I should have anticipated earlier even
though the other drivers actions were "unbelievable".

[1] I actually did my "training" with a paid teacher. You can do it for
free with an IAM "observer".

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:14:56 +0000,
Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> You mean the ones that go through a set of batteries in half the time
>> and thus considerably enhance your chances of having /no light at all/
>> quite by accident?
>
> LED lights do not suddenly fail, but give a very long tail of
> decreasing brightness. In normal cycling (ie, not doing an all-night
> ride) even in winter, you'll have days if not weeks of notice that
> your lights are waning, and plenty of time to replace the batteries
> before they are reduced to dangerously low illumination.
>
The problem is that (assuming you are using non-rechargable batteries)
the light level decreases so gradually that you don't realize how dim
it has got until you put new batteries in and then are shocked at how
dazzling the light is supposed to be when viewed close up.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tim Woodall
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:34:34 +0000,
> Al C-F <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Stevie D wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If I was to stare continuously at the flashing light, I would after a
>>> few seconds get a better idea of how far away it was - but in the
>>> meantime, would very likely have driven off the road or hit something
>>> much closer to hand.
>>>
>>> It takes a moment for your eyes to focus on anything and get a fix on
>>> the distance. When that something is appearing and disappearing at a
>>> moderate frequency, it isn't visible for long enough continuously to
>>> do that in any one illumination cycle, and it will move (not
>>> necessarily in a perfectly straight or smooth path) between
>>> illuminations, and the discontinuity means that it takes much, much
>>> longer to get a fix on the distance than if it were a steady light.
>>> Combine that with a driver's need to continually scan across his full
>>> field of vision, meaning he is unable to focus on any one object for a
>>> long time, and it's easy to see why drivers find it difficult to gauge
>>> the distance of a solitary and moving flashing light.
>>>
>>
>> Am I missing something here? You seem to be discussing flashing lights
>> as though they are the only illumination that allows you to see and
>> place a cyclist.
>>
>> My car is equipped with lights, which are quite bright. When I am
>> driving towards a cyclist, these lights illuminate the reflectors on the
>> bike (including those amber ones on the pedals) and also any reflective
>> clothing that he might be wearing.
>>
>> I find that the flashing LED ceases to be the sole source of light
>> returning from the target long before I am close enough to the cyclist
>> to present a danger. I can therefore work out position / speed / size
>> in plenty of time to react.
>>
>> Perhaps some of you chaps should try turning your lights on.
>
> Actually, I think it's people not looking far enough ahead that's the
> main problem.
>
> If you are scanning the road ahead as far as you can see your eyes will
> already be focussed for infinity. If you are only looking a short
> distance ahead things in the distance will always be out of focus.

I think this may be a point. I mostly ride and drive on rural roads which
are very low traffic. When driving at night I first take notice of a
cyclist anything between a three hundred metres and a kilometer away; I'm
able to do that because there typically aren't half a dozen cars between
me and the cyclist. This means the driver has quite a long period -
several seconds - to integrate the cyclist into their mental map of the
road ahead. Under these conditions I much prefer flashers because they are
highly diagnostic (pedal reflectors are good for the same reason). In
dense urban traffic you may not see a cyclist until you are within fifty
metres, which means there's much less time to react. This may be - I don't
know because I'm not familiar with the situation - why some people here
are hostile to flashers.


--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Tim Woodall said the following on 17/03/2007 22:04:

> I only drive a few hundred to maybe a thousand miles a year now and I'm
> pretty sure my standards have slipped - I probably ought to do a
> refresher drive with an IAM observer but I've gone off the IAM a bit
> because a lot of the vocal members seem to me to be of the "I'm a better
> driver so I ought to be allowed to drive faster" school of thought

I've gone off the IAM idea for a different reason. About five or six
years ago, a woman drove into the side of my car on a roundabout.
Without going into detail, the case went to court, and despite it
basically being my word against hers with no recorded witnesses, I won
100%. Some of the things she came out with were classics ("It's not a
roundabout, it's a motorway junction" (describing a roundabout). "I
wasn't indicating right because I was going straight on, and if I
indicated right people would have thought I was going right." (She was
going right, in the left hand lane, across a dual carriageway exit).

Anyway, towards the end of the sitting, she muttered something to her
solicitor, who shook his head. The magistrate asked what this was
about. She proudly announced that she was a member of the IAM. Her
solicitor metaphorically buried his head in his hands, my mouth dropped
open, as did my solicitor's, and the magistrate, rather caustically,
said "Yes, I did notice that."

Suddenly the IAM had less appeal for me if that standard of driving was
enough to get through.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Ziggy]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:09:05 +0000, Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:

>Tim Woodall said the following on 17/03/2007 22:04:
>
>> I only drive a few hundred to maybe a thousand miles a year now and I'm
>> pretty sure my standards have slipped - I probably ought to do a
>> refresher drive with an IAM observer but I've gone off the IAM a bit
>> because a lot of the vocal members seem to me to be of the "I'm a better
>> driver so I ought to be allowed to drive faster" school of thought
>
>I've gone off the IAM idea for a different reason. About five or six
>years ago, a woman drove into the side of my car on a roundabout.
>Without going into detail, the case went to court, and despite it
>basically being my word against hers with no recorded witnesses, I won
>100%. Some of the things she came out with were classics ("It's not a
>roundabout, it's a motorway junction" (describing a roundabout). "I
>wasn't indicating right because I was going straight on, and if I
>indicated right people would have thought I was going right." (She was
>going right, in the left hand lane, across a dual carriageway exit).
>
>Anyway, towards the end of the sitting, she muttered something to her
>solicitor, who shook his head. The magistrate asked what this was
>about. She proudly announced that she was a member of the IAM. Her
>solicitor metaphorically buried his head in his hands, my mouth dropped
>open, as did my solicitor's, and the magistrate, rather caustically,
>said "Yes, I did notice that."
>
>Suddenly the IAM had less appeal for me if that standard of driving was
>enough to get through.

It almost certainly wasn't. People's driving may deteriorate no matter what
tests they may have passed.

The good thing about the IAM test is that to take it you have to learn to 'read
the road' to a much higher standard than is required for the basic test. One
would hope that that knowledge would last a lifetime. In the case of this woman,
who apparantly couldn't even remember basic roundabout signalling, that would
appear to be a vain hope.

The IAM test should be something you use to increase you knowledge and ability
before taking, not something to brag about afterwards.

'Vocal' IAM members of the type mentioned above are a PITA but there are many
others who never mention the fact of their membership.

 

[Roger Merriman]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Tim Woodall
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:34:34 +0000,
> > Al C-F <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Stevie D wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If I was to stare continuously at the flashing light, I would after a
> >>> few seconds get a better idea of how far away it was - but in the
> >>> meantime, would very likely have driven off the road or hit something
> >>> much closer to hand.
> >>>
> >>> It takes a moment for your eyes to focus on anything and get a fix on
> >>> the distance. When that something is appearing and disappearing at a
> >>> moderate frequency, it isn't visible for long enough continuously to
> >>> do that in any one illumination cycle, and it will move (not
> >>> necessarily in a perfectly straight or smooth path) between
> >>> illuminations, and the discontinuity means that it takes much, much
> >>> longer to get a fix on the distance than if it were a steady light.
> >>> Combine that with a driver's need to continually scan across his full
> >>> field of vision, meaning he is unable to focus on any one object for a
> >>> long time, and it's easy to see why drivers find it difficult to gauge
> >>> the distance of a solitary and moving flashing light.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Am I missing something here? You seem to be discussing flashing lights
> >> as though they are the only illumination that allows you to see and
> >> place a cyclist.
> >>
> >> My car is equipped with lights, which are quite bright. When I am
> >> driving towards a cyclist, these lights illuminate the reflectors on the
> >> bike (including those amber ones on the pedals) and also any reflective
> >> clothing that he might be wearing.
> >>
> >> I find that the flashing LED ceases to be the sole source of light
> >> returning from the target long before I am close enough to the cyclist
> >> to present a danger. I can therefore work out position / speed / size
> >> in plenty of time to react.
> >>
> >> Perhaps some of you chaps should try turning your lights on.
> >
> > Actually, I think it's people not looking far enough ahead that's the
> > main problem.
> >
> > If you are scanning the road ahead as far as you can see your eyes will
> > already be focussed for infinity. If you are only looking a short
> > distance ahead things in the distance will always be out of focus.
>
> I think this may be a point. I mostly ride and drive on rural roads which
> are very low traffic. When driving at night I first take notice of a
> cyclist anything between a three hundred metres and a kilometer away; I'm
> able to do that because there typically aren't half a dozen cars between
> me and the cyclist. This means the driver has quite a long period -
> several seconds - to integrate the cyclist into their mental map of the
> road ahead. Under these conditions I much prefer flashers because they are
> highly diagnostic (pedal reflectors are good for the same reason). In
> dense urban traffic you may not see a cyclist until you are within fifty
> metres, which means there's much less time to react. This may be - I don't
> know because I'm not familiar with the situation - why some people here
> are hostile to flashers.

thats a good distance to see traffic, even in less dence traffic turns
and courners will probably reduce the distance a fair amount.

where i used to live which was rual you get fairly narrow twisting lanes
so a bike or most taffic will not be seen until quite close.

the argument against flashing i guess is that it makes a distraction,
and adds to the road clutter. for is that bikes are much harder to see,
more so if kurb hugging as well i suspect.

roger