F
Frank Krygowski
Guest
Neil Brooks wrote:
> 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;
Here's the rationale: First, I have easy access to an interested group
of readers. Second, these readers are more capable of judging the
typical legal requirements for bike lighting. Third, I know these
readers are less likely to include those who want cyclists off the road,
and might say anything to help accomplish that end. (This would
certainly be true of denizens of rec.autos.driving, for example.)
I don't expect perfect results. I'm just trying to get a preliminary
handle on the situation from a relatively knowledgeable pool of witnesses.
>
> 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;
I think your phrasing became garbled in the first two sentences - they
don't match. Did you mean "not flawed"?
In any case, I have no idea how to ask "Did you, as a driver, ever have
a near miss with a cyclist that you never ever detected to this day?"
If you have suggestions on that, I'll certainly entertain them! But to
me, it sounds impossibly confusing - and/or confusingly impossible.
Hence I'm not eager to take it on.
> 3) Assuming that there are "approximately zero 'total invisibility' cases"
> presupposes a conclusion that you are (should be) trying to test. Flawed.
Well, give me some suggestions on how to test for proximity of a totally
invisible cyclist. Seriously. How do we ask about that?
>
> 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?
Your statement about what "you have to" do shows little knowledge of
what can be done and what has been done. But if you want to morph this
into a helmet thread, you really need to start it afresh, and change to
an appropriate newsgroup. I plan no more responses to that in this thread.
So, to get back on topic: I think you understand that I'm trying to
evaluate typical, legal and low-cost nighttime equipment. I've already
done some tests with my local bike club members, and their opinions were
unanimous that such equipment is perfectly adequate. I was hoping to
gain preliminary information from a wider knowledgeable audience.
What's your suggestion for a better array of questions?
--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
> 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;
Here's the rationale: First, I have easy access to an interested group
of readers. Second, these readers are more capable of judging the
typical legal requirements for bike lighting. Third, I know these
readers are less likely to include those who want cyclists off the road,
and might say anything to help accomplish that end. (This would
certainly be true of denizens of rec.autos.driving, for example.)
I don't expect perfect results. I'm just trying to get a preliminary
handle on the situation from a relatively knowledgeable pool of witnesses.
>
> 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;
I think your phrasing became garbled in the first two sentences - they
don't match. Did you mean "not flawed"?
In any case, I have no idea how to ask "Did you, as a driver, ever have
a near miss with a cyclist that you never ever detected to this day?"
If you have suggestions on that, I'll certainly entertain them! But to
me, it sounds impossibly confusing - and/or confusingly impossible.
Hence I'm not eager to take it on.
> 3) Assuming that there are "approximately zero 'total invisibility' cases"
> presupposes a conclusion that you are (should be) trying to test. Flawed.
Well, give me some suggestions on how to test for proximity of a totally
invisible cyclist. Seriously. How do we ask about that?
>
> 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?
Your statement about what "you have to" do shows little knowledge of
what can be done and what has been done. But if you want to morph this
into a helmet thread, you really need to start it afresh, and change to
an appropriate newsgroup. I plan no more responses to that in this thread.
So, to get back on topic: I think you understand that I'm trying to
evaluate typical, legal and low-cost nighttime equipment. I've already
done some tests with my local bike club members, and their opinions were
unanimous that such equipment is perfectly adequate. I was hoping to
gain preliminary information from a wider knowledgeable audience.
What's your suggestion for a better array of questions?
--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]