Why not generator lights?

[Joshua Putnam]

Come to think of it, many years ago, a co-worker who liked me and
actually liked the idea that I bicycled to work told me that she had
almost hit me one morning, despite a xenon strobe. It was a very foggy
morning, and I told her, in all honesty, that she was lucky she'd missed
a bicycle with a bright strobe light instead of running over an unlit
pedestrian or totalling her car on a deer.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html>

 

[David Damerell]

begin quoting Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]>:
>I have a lot of experience with the left-turning drivers, and at night a
>good headlight makes a huge difference.

Weren't you just saying anecdotes don't count as data? I guess it's
different when it's _your_ anecdotes.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

(Pete Cresswell) wrote:

> Couple months ago, my dentist told me he almost got nailed in his car by some
> guy that appeared to be doing email on a BlackBerry.

How can anyone do e-mail while driving? I'm busy enough shaving,
drinking coffee, reading the newspaper, eating a bagel, and vacuuming
the car; who has time for e-mail?

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Joshua Putnam wrote:

> I have not seen a cyclist with the minimally-required rear reflector,
> since the reflector was covered with mud after a rainy day. It didn't
> help matters that it was one of those three-faced reflectors so only a
> third of it faced my headlight. Luckily I was driving slowly, looking
> for an address, and didn't run into him. But it did confirm my belief
> that the single CPSC-style rear reflector is pathetic.


OK, good one. And there is a good lesson there, that reflectors do need
cleaned on occasion.

Do you remember if the guy had pedal reflectors and/or spoke reflectors?
Would they have made a difference? Also, where was that dirty
reflector mounted on the bike?



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
> In my experience 2W is insufficient to prevent drivers from doing the
> left turn in front of you; and two 2W lights are not as good as one 4W
> light.
>
> I have empirically determined this to be true.


Well, there you have it folks! No need to discuss this any
further!


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Joshua Putnam wrote:

> Come to think of it, many years ago, a co-worker who liked me and
> actually liked the idea that I bicycled to work told me that she had
> almost hit me one morning, despite a xenon strobe. It was a very foggy
> morning, and I told her, in all honesty, that she was lucky she'd missed
> a bicycle with a bright strobe light instead of running over an unlit
> pedestrian or totalling her car on a deer.
>

Hmm. Yes, fog would be a problem. OK, we'll add that one to the
count, although I'm _still_ trying for cyclists-as-drivers stories.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>> Couple months ago, my dentist told me he almost got nailed in his car by some
>> guy that appeared to be doing email on a BlackBerry.
>
>How can anyone do e-mail while driving? I'm busy enough shaving,
>drinking coffee, reading the newspaper, eating a bagel, and vacuuming
>the car; who has time for e-mail?

When I was vanpooling, got a chance to study drivers at length.

Some people were reading the newspaper while driving. Not just furtive
glances, I mean *reading* that sucker.

My conclusion: some people have multiprocessing abilities that go way, way
beyond anything I can imagine.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>How can anyone do e-mail while driving? I'm busy enough shaving,
>drinking coffee, reading the newspaper, eating a bagel, and vacuuming
>the car; who has time for e-mail?

BTW: Humor acknowledged.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Kenneth]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:12:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So my question is, has anyone experienced an exception? That is, have
>you, when driving at night, been surprised by a legally lit cyclist you
>didn't see when you should have? If so, what equipment did he use, and
>what were the circumstances?

Hi Frank,

I think that your question has an assumption that is very
significant.

Indeed, a driver might become aware of a cyclist, or as you
say it be "surprised."

I suspect however, that many drivers would answer "no" to
your questions because they did not experience the
"surprise" but drove right by with no awareness whatever
that they had passed a cyclist (legally lit, or otherwise.)

Those folks (and for all I know I am one of 'em) would, of
course, answer "No" to your questions.

I am reminded of a similar issue from another arena:

Appraisers of works of art and such are often asked "Have
you ever been fooled by a fake...?"

I don't recall any responding with some version of "How in
the world would I know?"

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

 

[Joshua Putnam]

> Do you remember if the guy had pedal reflectors and/or spoke reflectors?
> Would they have made a difference? Also, where was that dirty
> reflector mounted on the bike?

I don't remember pedal reflectors, though they could easily have been
there and been just as dirty as the red one. The red reflector was
seatpost mounted, one of those silver-dollar-sized ones.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Kenneth wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:12:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So my question is, has anyone experienced an exception? That is, have
>>you, when driving at night, been surprised by a legally lit cyclist you
>>didn't see when you should have? If so, what equipment did he use, and
>>what were the circumstances?
>
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> I think that your question has an assumption that is very
> significant.
>
> Indeed, a driver might become aware of a cyclist, or as you
> say it be "surprised."
>
> I suspect however, that many drivers would answer "no" to
> your questions because they did not experience the
> "surprise" but drove right by with no awareness whatever
> that they had passed a cyclist (legally lit, or otherwise.)

I understand your point, of course, but I think you're worrying
unnecessarily. I think it's _extremely_ unlikely that a motorist would
have a near miss (or collision) with a legally lit cyclist and never
notice them at _all_ - either before, during or after the event.

Despite occasional claims to the contrary, we're really not _totally_
invisible, especially if we've got a legal complement of lights and
reflectors.



--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
> No doubt this thread will soon lead to one of Frank's famous UAECs
> (Usenet Anectodal Evidence Conclusions), which will claim that the
> minimum legal lighting is adequate.

I wasn't aware I was famous!

But I can see how such a conclusion would disappoint you. ;-)


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

David Damerell wrote:

> begin quoting Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]>:
>
>>I have a lot of experience with the left-turning drivers, and at night a
>>good headlight makes a huge difference.
>
>
> Weren't you just saying anecdotes don't count as data? I guess it's
> different when it's _your_ anecdotes.

Yes, it must be different! Just a short while ago, he claimed about
supposed "UAECs (Usenet Anectodal Evidence Conclusions)." Apparently
that applies to me, but not to himself.

At least I'm trying to ask _other_ people! But perhaps that's not
necessary when you're the World's Greatest Authority. ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Kenneth]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:09:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I understand your point, of course, but I think you're worrying
>unnecessarily.

Hi Frank,

You posted the question, not I...

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

>When I was vanpooling, got a chance to study drivers at length.
>Some people were reading the newspaper while driving. Not just furtive
>glances, I mean *reading* that sucker.
>My conclusion: some people have multiprocessing abilities that go way, way
>beyond anything I can imagine.

I think you meant to say 'some people THINK they have multiprocessing abilities
that go way, way beyond anything I can imagine.' They are just an accident
waiting to happen.
--------------
Alex

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Kenneth wrote:

>
> Hi Frank,
>
> You posted the question, not I...
>

Of course. And I also posted:

"Wow. I hoped I wouldn't have to explain this in excruciating detail!

What I'm talking about is cyclists who had the sort of headlights,
reflectors, etc. that are sold in the greatest volumes. That would
include lights less than six watts, more or less standard reflectors,
and perhaps ordinary LED blinkies.

And I'm not talking just about "Gee, I personally don't think that guy's
sufficiently visible." I'm talking about "Damn! I almost hit him
because I didn't see his headlight, even though it's on!" Has that ever
happened to you while you were driving? "


So yes, I guess you could say I was excluding those situations where
someone nearly hit a legally-lit cyclist and are _still_ completely
unaware of it; that is, those situations where the cyclist was
literally, totally and permanently invisible to the motorist.

So I'm going to concentrate on those situations where the cyclist
eventually became visible to some degree. I'm going to assume that
there are approximately zero "total invisibility" cases. Anyone who
wants to explore those cases further should start another thread.



--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Neil Brooks]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> What I'm talking about is cyclists who had the sort of headlights,
> reflectors, etc. that are sold in the greatest volumes. That would
> include lights less than six watts, more or less standard reflectors,
> and perhaps ordinary LED blinkies.
>
> And I'm not talking just about "Gee, I personally don't think that
> guy's sufficiently visible." I'm talking about "Damn! I almost hit
> him because I didn't see his headlight, even though it's on!" Has
> that ever happened to you while you were driving? "
>
>
> So yes, I guess you could say I was excluding those situations where
> someone nearly hit a legally-lit cyclist and are _still_ completely
> unaware of it; that is, those situations where the cyclist was
> literally, totally and permanently invisible to the motorist.
>
> So I'm going to concentrate on those situations where the cyclist
> eventually became visible to some degree. I'm going to assume that
> there are approximately zero "total invisibility" cases. Anyone who
> wants to explore those cases further should start another thread.

I'm going to just jump in and take issue with your methodology:

1) Sampling a group of /bicyclists/ to find out if/how often they see/don't
see "legally illuminated" cyclists is flawed. We're not representative;
we're more conscious of cyclists than the average motorist;

2) Asking how often somebody /didn't/ see something is flawed. That answer
is hugely important. Passing it off to the next guy to inquire about it
seems to ignore a material factor in this equation;

3) Assuming that there are "approximately zero 'total invisibility' cases"
presupposes a conclusion that you are (should be) trying to test. Flawed.

Sort of reminds me of a guy who used to justify his position about h*lmets
by studying people who showed up at the emergency room. Basic flaw there:
you have to study the entire population of bicyclists involved in accidents,
and the outcome of those who wore vs. those who didn't wear.

Wait a minute, Frank . . . wasn't that you, too?

I have a significant amount of respect for your knowledge, enthusiasm, and
contributions to these forums, Frank, but your approach to these sorts of
"tests" is /bound/ to lead you toward faulty conclusions. The problem there
is that you are anything but reluctant to put those conclusions forth as
Gospel.

Best,

Neil

 

[Neil Brooks]

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>> When I was vanpooling, got a chance to study drivers at length.
>> Some people were reading the newspaper while driving. Not just
>> furtive glances, I mean *reading* that sucker.
>> My conclusion: some people have multiprocessing abilities that go
>> way, way beyond anything I can imagine.
>
> I think you meant to say 'some people THINK they have multiprocessing
> abilities that go way, way beyond anything I can imagine.' They are
> just an accident waiting to happen.
> --------------
> Alex

I took it as sarcasm. Methinks he was saying the same thing you are.

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
> Methinks he was saying the same thing you are.

Nope, no sarcasam intended.

These guys were surviving day-to-day. If they weren't, I'd think there would
be numerous crashes on the stretch of road where I'd see them....and that wasn't
the case.

I can't even look at the radio dial without feeling at risk...and these guys
were reading newspapers.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Neil Brooks]

(Pete Cresswell) wrote:
> RE/
>> Methinks he was saying the same thing you are.
>
> Nope, no sarcasam intended.
>
> These guys were surviving day-to-day. If they weren't, I'd think
> there would be numerous crashes on the stretch of road where I'd see
> them....and that wasn't the case.
>
> I can't even look at the radio dial without feeling at risk...and
> these guys were reading newspapers.

In a word, yikes.