Blinking Lights good this time of the year!

[Sir Ridesalot]

Hi there.

On Tuesday a cyclist wearing dark clothing riding on a highway near
Palmerston, Ontario, Canada was struck and seriously injured by a
transport truck that was travelling in the same direction.

Please, PLEASE people, if you are riding in an area wher you *MIGHT*
be caught out after dark consider puttind at least a flashing/blinking
light on the rear and front of your bicycle in case you do get caught
be darkness.

I can not tell you how many bicyclists I have seen riding whilst they
were wearing dark coloured or black clothing in poorly lit areas
during the dark part of the night or morning who did not at least have
a reflector on their bicycle. Most of these bicyclist are nearly
totally invisible to overtaking drivers *ESPECIALLY* if there is a
vehickle approaching from the front of them. The oncoming vehicle
often blinds the overtaking driver enough that reflectors on the
bicycle are useless. This is why I urge you to have at least a
flashing/blinking light mounted front and rear.

Cheers and safe riding.

Peter

[Zoot Katz]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:02:19 -0700, Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>I can not tell you how many bicyclists I have seen riding whilst they
>were wearing dark coloured or black clothing in poorly lit areas
>during the dark part of the night or morning who did not at least have
>a reflector on their bicycle. Most of these bicyclist are nearly
>totally invisible to overtaking drivers *ESPECIALLY* if there is a
>vehickle approaching from the front of them. The oncoming vehicle
>often blinds the overtaking driver enough that reflectors on the
>bicycle are useless. This is why I urge you to have at least a
>flashing/blinking light mounted front and rear.

I've seen lots of stealth riders and I've never hit one of them.

Maybe that's because I undertake driving as a serious matter.
--
zk

[nmp]

Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> This is why I urge you to have at least a flashing/blinking light
> mounted front and rear.

Or even better: non-blinking lights. Of sufficient intensity. And
retroreflectors.

[Roger Zoul]

"Sir Ridesalot" <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1192744939.679591.122100@i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi there.
>
> On Tuesday a cyclist wearing dark clothing riding on a highway near
> Palmerston, Ontario, Canada was struck and seriously injured by a
> transport truck that was travelling in the same direction.
>
> Please, PLEASE people, if you are riding in an area wher you *MIGHT*
> be caught out after dark consider puttind at least a flashing/blinking
> light on the rear and front of your bicycle in case you do get caught
> be darkness.
>
> I can not tell you how many bicyclists I have seen riding whilst they
> were wearing dark coloured or black clothing in poorly lit areas
> during the dark part of the night or morning who did not at least have
> a reflector on their bicycle. Most of these bicyclist are nearly
> totally invisible to overtaking drivers *ESPECIALLY* if there is a
> vehickle approaching from the front of them. The oncoming vehicle
> often blinds the overtaking driver enough that reflectors on the
> bicycle are useless. This is why I urge you to have at least a
> flashing/blinking light mounted front and rear.
> Peter

A couple of weeks ago I was heading out early to my local place where I like
to start my country rides. As is typical, it is dark when I leave my house
and the sun is just coming up when I get there. Part of the drive along is
along this narrow & curvy road with lots of houses but also with few nice
hills. So there I am driving my in the dark with my bike racked up....i see
a couple of mailboxes that belong to some houses along the road....then all
of a sudden I see something a bit different...seems like movement..my
headlights don't hit it as the road is curved...before I knew it I realized
it was a dude on a bike....wearing some kind of kit...and it was black (I
saw this only as I was passing him)!
Worse yet, he had NO rear light...though there may have been a reflector. He
was nearly invisible and I might have hit him if I had not been paying
attention. Once I got him in my rear view, I could see he had a smallish,
weakish light on the front. I don't believe it could have provided him much
in the way of visability.

Why would anyone want to wear black cycling attire...and at night? With no
real lights...even a decent blinky on bike would have made him stand out.
Reflectors are worth ****, IMO. If they light doesn't strike them just
right...they are invisible.

I really wanted to stop and hassle the guy...but I thought better of it.

[It's Chris]

I grew up in Los Angeles, and commuted from the dark mountain roads into
the city. I also used to ride double and triple centuries, often along
the unlit beach and desert highways. This taught me how important iy is
to be well lit up. Now I ride the country roads in South Carolina. When
it gets dark out here, it is BLACK out. No street lights.

My nighttime riding gear includes the Following:

NightSun headlight.
Front white or yellow blinkie.
Ultra bright CatEye red blinkie rear.

This is in addition to:

White front reflector.
Red rear reflector.
Reflective ankle bands (the 2" wide ones sold by Nashbar)
Rim reflectors (the kind that tape onto the rim between the spokes, 16
per wheel).
Large reflective patch on rear of helmet.

All refletctive surfaves are of the high intensity type.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Oct 18, 8:22 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:02:19 -0700, Sir Ridesalot
>
> <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >I can not tell you how many bicyclists I have seen riding whilst they
> >were wearing dark coloured or black clothing in poorly lit areas
> >during the dark part of the night or morning who did not at least have
> >a reflector on their bicycle. Most of these bicyclist are nearly
> >totally invisible to overtaking drivers *ESPECIALLY* if there is a
> >vehickle approaching from the front of them. The oncoming vehicle
> >often blinds the overtaking driver enough that reflectors on the
> >bicycle are useless. This is why I urge you to have at least a
> >flashing/blinking light mounted front and rear.
>
> I've seen lots of stealth riders and I've never hit one of them.
>
> Maybe that's because I undertake driving as a serious matter.
> --
> zk

I have been bicycling at night and had stealth cyclists appear out of
side-streets or off a sidewalk whom I barely missed hitting. Had I
been driving I do not think they would have been nearly so lucky. To
each there own. I suggested lights of a blinking or flashing nature
just to add a bit more safety to the roads. Some stealth cyclists do
not drive and do not seem to realize how hard it is for others to see
them at night.

Peter

[Roger Zoul]

"Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:02:19 -0700, Sir Ridesalot
> <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>I can not tell you how many bicyclists I have seen riding whilst they
>>were wearing dark coloured or black clothing in poorly lit areas
>>during the dark part of the night or morning who did not at least have
>>a reflector on their bicycle. Most of these bicyclist are nearly
>>totally invisible to overtaking drivers *ESPECIALLY* if there is a
>>vehickle approaching from the front of them. The oncoming vehicle
>>often blinds the overtaking driver enough that reflectors on the
>>bicycle are useless. This is why I urge you to have at least a
>>flashing/blinking light mounted front and rear.
>
> I've seen lots of stealth riders and I've never hit one of them.
>
> Maybe that's because I undertake driving as a serious matter.

So? You aren't the only one on the roads.

[It's Chris]

From: zootkatz@operamail.com (Zoot*Katz)

>I've seen lots of stealth riders and I've
>never hit one of them.
>Maybe that's because I undertake driving
>as a serious matter.
>--
>zk

You're also a cyclist, which means you are more likely to notice a
bicycle rider on the road quicker than the average motorist. I found
that people who have cycling family members or good friends also possess
this trait.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®]

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13hgv8eluuostb5@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Sir Ridesalot" <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1192744939.679591.122100@i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>> Hi there.
>>
>> On Tuesday a cyclist wearing dark clothing riding on a highway near
>> Palmerston, Ontario, Canada was struck and seriously injured by a
>> transport truck that was travelling in the same direction.
>>
>> Please, PLEASE people, if you are riding in an area wher you *MIGHT*
>> be caught out after dark consider puttind at least a flashing/blinking
>> light on the rear and front of your bicycle in case you do get caught
>> be darkness.
>>
>> I can not tell you how many bicyclists I have seen riding whilst they
>> were wearing dark coloured or black clothing in poorly lit areas
>> during the dark part of the night or morning who did not at least have
>> a reflector on their bicycle. Most of these bicyclist are nearly
>> totally invisible to overtaking drivers *ESPECIALLY* if there is a
>> vehickle approaching from the front of them. The oncoming vehicle
>> often blinds the overtaking driver enough that reflectors on the
>> bicycle are useless. This is why I urge you to have at least a
>> flashing/blinking light mounted front and rear.
>> Peter
>
> A couple of weeks ago I was heading out early to my local place where I
> like to start my country rides. As is typical, it is dark when I leave my
> house and the sun is just coming up when I get there. Part of the drive
> along is along this narrow & curvy road with lots of houses but also with
> few nice hills. So there I am driving my in the dark with my bike racked
> up....i see a couple of mailboxes that belong to some houses along the
> road....then all of a sudden I see something a bit different...seems like
> movement..my headlights don't hit it as the road is curved...before I knew
> it I realized it was a dude on a bike....wearing some kind of kit...and it
> was black (I saw this only as I was passing him)!
> Worse yet, he had NO rear light...though there may have been a reflector.
> He was nearly invisible and I might have hit him if I had not been paying
> attention. Once I got him in my rear view, I could see he had a
> smallish, weakish light on the front. I don't believe it could have
> provided him much in the way of visability.
>
> Why would anyone want to wear black cycling attire...and at night? With
> no real lights...even a decent blinky on bike would have made him stand
> out. Reflectors are worth ****, IMO. If they light doesn't strike them
> just right...they are invisible.
>
> I really wanted to stop and hassle the guy...but I thought better of it.
>

Sir Darwin will take care of him.

[Patrick Lamb]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:46:45 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why would anyone want to wear black cycling attire...and at night? With no
>real lights...even a decent blinky on bike would have made him stand out.
>Reflectors are worth ****, IMO. If they light doesn't strike them just
>right...they are invisible.

Look in your cycling catalogs or web store sites, and almost all the
winter gear you see is black, gray, or some other dark or muted color.
You may find a few yellow jackets, and even fewer reflective vests or
arm/leg bands, but everything else is dark.

Agree about the lights. Even a blinky with tired batteries is quite
visible.

Pat

Email address works as is.

[Roger Zoul]

"Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®" <bjit@bellsouth.net> wrote

> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote

>> A couple of weeks ago I was heading out early to my local place where I
>> like to start my country rides. As is typical, it is dark when I leave
>> my house and the sun is just coming up when I get there. Part of the
>> drive along is along this narrow & curvy road with lots of houses but
>> also with few nice hills. So there I am driving my in the dark with my
>> bike racked up....i see a couple of mailboxes that belong to some houses
>> along the road....then all of a sudden I see something a bit
>> different...seems like movement..my headlights don't hit it as the road
>> is curved...before I knew it I realized it was a dude on a
>> bike....wearing some kind of kit...and it was black (I saw this only as I
>> was passing him)!
>> Worse yet, he had NO rear light...though there may have been a reflector.
>> He was nearly invisible and I might have hit him if I had not been paying
>> attention. Once I got him in my rear view, I could see he had a
>> smallish, weakish light on the front. I don't believe it could have
>> provided him much in the way of visability.
>>
>> Why would anyone want to wear black cycling attire...and at night? With
>> no real lights...even a decent blinky on bike would have made him stand
>> out. Reflectors are worth ****, IMO. If the light doesn't strike them
>> just right...they are invisible.
>>
>> I really wanted to stop and hassle the guy...but I thought better of it.
>>
>
> Sir Darwin will take care of him.

Probably....but I want to make sure *I'm* not involved in the transaction,
frankly.

[Dane Buson]

Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:46:45 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Why would anyone want to wear black cycling attire...and at night? With no
>>real lights...even a decent blinky on bike would have made him stand out.
>>Reflectors are worth ****, IMO. If they light doesn't strike them just
>>right...they are invisible.
>
> Look in your cycling catalogs or web store sites, and almost all the
> winter gear you see is black, gray, or some other dark or muted color.
> You may find a few yellow jackets, and even fewer reflective vests or
> arm/leg bands, but everything else is dark.

Black is very forgiving of road grime, which leg warmers and booties are
likely to be covered with. Other than that, I can't think of any *good*
reason coloured winter stuff is less common.

> Agree about the lights. Even a blinky with tired batteries is quite
> visible.

I'm sporting two rear blinkies and a blinking leg band this winter. I
need to re-attach my front blinkie to supplement my main 'seeing' light.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Neurotics build castles in the sky,
Psychotics live in them,
And psychiatrists collect the rent.

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Dane Buson writes:

>>> Why would anyone want to wear black cycling attire... and at
>>> night? With no real lights... even a decent blinky on bike would
>>> have made him stand out. Reflectors are worth ****, IMO. If they
>>> light doesn't strike them just right... they are invisible.

>> Look in your cycling catalogs or web store sites, and almost all
>> the winter gear you see is black, gray, or some other dark or muted
>> color. You may find a few yellow jackets, and even fewer
>> reflective vests or arm/leg bands, but everything else is dark.

> Black is very forgiving of road grime, which leg warmers and booties
> are likely to be covered with. Other than that, I can't think of
> any *good* reason coloured winter stuff is less common.

>> Agree about the lights. Even a blinky with tired batteries is
>> quite visible.

> I'm sporting two rear blinkies and a blinking leg band this winter.
> I need to re-attach my front blinkie to supplement my main 'seeing'
> light.

Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in an
unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth at arms length in
front of you. I think you'll notice that the light does not appear
where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object registers
slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is deceptive.

For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise using a
steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal reflectors. The
rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is unambiguous in
position and what it mean to any observer.

Jobst Brandt

[Tom Keats]

In article <6s4av4-sfr.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> writes:

> I'm sporting two rear blinkies and a blinking leg band this winter.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ooooh, is there a "hand band" version of this apparatus?

Those velcro reflective trousers-cuff bands are good for
wrapping around gloves, to render hand signals visible at
night -- if you want to be fussy: red for port, green for
starboard. But /actively lit/ ones -- I like the idea.
Especially if they could be actuated by extending the
arms, and turned off by proximity to the handlebar.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Wayne Pein]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:


> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in an
> unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth at arms length in
> front of you. I think you'll notice that the light does not appear
> where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object registers
> slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is deceptive.
>
> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise using a
> steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal reflectors. The
> rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is unambiguous in
> position and what it mean to any observer.
>

I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue that
ambiguity results in greater caution.

Wayne

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 26, 7:26 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Dane Buson writes:
> >>> Why would anyone want to wear black cycling attire... and at
> >>> night? With no real lights... even a decent blinky on bike would
> >>> have made him stand out. Reflectors are worth ****, IMO. If they
> >>> light doesn't strike them just right... they are invisible.
> >> Look in your cycling catalogs or web store sites, and almost all
> >> the winter gear you see is black, gray, or some other dark or muted
> >> color. You may find a few yellow jackets, and even fewer
> >> reflective vests or arm/leg bands, but everything else is dark.
> > Black is very forgiving of road grime, which leg warmers and booties
> > are likely to be covered with. Other than that, I can't think of
> > any *good* reason coloured winter stuff is less common.
> >> Agree about the lights. Even a blinky with tired batteries is
> >> quite visible.
> > I'm sporting two rear blinkies and a blinking leg band this winter.
> > I need to re-attach my front blinkie to supplement my main 'seeing'
> > light.
>
> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in an
> unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth at arms length in
> front of you. I think you'll notice that the light does not appear
> where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object registers
> slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is deceptive.

I don't think your test is representative of a motorist approaching a
cyclist with a typical LED blinky. Most blinkies (or at least, those
I have) flash quite quickly, so much so that "twinkling" would be a
better description than "flashing." Furthermore, the cyclist's
apparent motion within the motorist's field of vision is much slower
than your arm waving. With the combination of slower motion and
faster flashing, the uncertainty in position is negligible.

> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise using a
> steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal reflectors. The
> rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is unambiguous in
> position and what it mean to any observer.

I agree that the pedal reflectors are unambiguous. But AFAIK, people
who've studied the effects of flashing lights on conspicuity did so
before the invention of twinkling bike LED taillights. They were
probably talking about strobes or flashers with short "on" times and
relatively long "off" times.

The one study I have at home (1986 issue, by Blomberg et. al.,
"Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Conspicuity-Enhancement
Techniques for Peds. & Bicyclists", Jrnl of Safety Research, V. 17 pp.
1-12) tested the ancient Belt Beacon lights, those with a blink
frequency of about 1 Hz. Detection by motorists occurred at roughly
1/4 mile, which is plenty of distance. Yes, recognition of the light
as a cyclist was much, much less - only 24 feet. But there's no
mention of difficulty assessing position. (And as long as they don't
hit me, I don't care if they think I'm a road barrier.)

Modern blinkies are so common, I believe motorists have no problem
recognizing them. And I've never heard credible evidence that anyone
misplaces the cyclist who uses them.

- Frank Krygowski

[DougC]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in an
> unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth at arms length in
> front of you. I think you'll notice that the light does not appear
> where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object registers
> slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is deceptive.
>

Yes, but consider the distances involved: a light moving through a 30-
or 40-degree at arm's length once per second, vs. a bicycle on a road
500 feet in front of a car. With respect to the car driver's vision, the
bicycle isn't going to move through enough of any arc for that error of
vision to be significant.

> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise using a
> steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal reflectors. The
> rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is unambiguous in
> position and what it mean to any observer.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Semi-related (to pedal reflectors):

I have heard it discussed that the various reflective-sidewall tires
available are not as effective as spoke reflectors, because while they
are visible, the reflective sidewalls give no indication if the bicycle
is /rolling/ or not.

With the spoke reflectors, they are recognizable and indicate to
vehicles approaching from the sides which direction a bicycle is moving
in, which can easily be critical in such a situation.
~

[It's Chris]

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

>Visible is not the only criterion. Take that
>blinking red light in an unlighted place
>and wave it slowly back and forth at
>arms length in front of you. I think you'll
>notice that the light does not appear
>where you know your hand to be. A
>moving flashing object registers slowly
>enough in a dark environment that its
>position is deceptive.

>For this reason, people who have studied
>the phenomenon advise using a steady
>light or better yet one that moves like
>pedal reflectors. The rising and falling
>light of pedal reflectors is unambiguous
>in position and what it mean to any
>observer.

>Jobst Brandt

The better blinkies also flash in a pattern. Back and forth, in a
circle, etcetera. These add the attention getting flash to the
"tracking" ability of a steady. My rear blinkie has four patterns:

Steady.
Blink (all LED's on then off).
Back and forth (think Knight Rider).
And random.

I never use, and recommend against the blink, for the very reason you
mention.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Wayne Pein writes:

>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in
>> an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front of
>> you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does not
>> appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object
>> registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is
>> deceptive.

>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.

> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
> position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
> results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue
> that ambiguity results in greater caution.

This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take this
on faith.

Jobst Brandt

[jim beam]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Wayne Pein writes:
>
>>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in
>>> an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front of
>>> you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does not
>>> appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object
>>> registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is
>>> deceptive.
>
>>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
>>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
>>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
>>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
>
>> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
>> position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
>> results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue
>> that ambiguity results in greater caution.
>
> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take this
> on faith.

analyze jobst, analyze!!! yes, there is a displacement issue, but it's
overshadowed by the fact that the flashing light draws attention and
thus makes presence known - /far/ more important than precise position.

besides, regarding position, if a cyclist is traveling at 25mph across
the road, the maximum angular displacement relative to an oncoming
vehicle, and the blinky is operating at only 2 flashes per second
[somewhat conservative given today's multi-led, multi-flash units], then
the maximum displacement between flashes is about 5.5 meters. make that
bike travel in the same direction as the vehicle, and suddenly you have
a horizontal displacement measured in millimeters. if a vehicle is
aiming to miss your bike with only that clearance, i don't think whether
your blinky is in flash mode is going to be uppermost in your survival
agenda.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <4722949b$0$14129$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

> Wayne Pein writes:
>
> >> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in
> >> an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front of
> >> you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does not
> >> appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object
> >> registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is
> >> deceptive.
>
> >> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
> >> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
> >> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
> >> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
>
> > I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
> > position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
> > results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue
> > that ambiguity results in greater caution.
>
> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take this
> on faith.
>
> Jobst Brandt

My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"

Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist noticed
at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most drivers have a hard
time locating the rider's position relative to their car. Personally, I
have no problem figuring out where a cyclist is once I've actually
spotted them, blinky light or no (or even no light at all, though that
can be tricky as the rider slips in and out of visibility).

Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move or
appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up motion,
or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid lights,
especially in urban environments with various types of extraneous
lights, sometimes look like just another small (and irrelevant) light.

All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object in
the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a blinky
and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I get noticed
at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously, can anyone here
report an accident they've even heard of where the rider was lit, the
crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't judge your location
properly?"

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[Stephen Harding]

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> I agree that the pedal reflectors are unambiguous. But AFAIK, people
> who've studied the effects of flashing lights on conspicuity did so
> before the invention of twinkling bike LED taillights. They were
> probably talking about strobes or flashers with short "on" times and
> relatively long "off" times.
>
> The one study I have at home (1986 issue, by Blomberg et. al.,
> "Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Conspicuity-Enhancement
> Techniques for Peds. & Bicyclists", Jrnl of Safety Research, V. 17 pp.
> 1-12) tested the ancient Belt Beacon lights, those with a blink
> frequency of about 1 Hz. Detection by motorists occurred at roughly
> 1/4 mile, which is plenty of distance. Yes, recognition of the light
> as a cyclist was much, much less - only 24 feet. But there's no
> mention of difficulty assessing position. (And as long as they don't
> hit me, I don't care if they think I'm a road barrier.)
>
> Modern blinkies are so common, I believe motorists have no problem
> recognizing them. And I've never heard credible evidence that anyone
> misplaces the cyclist who uses them.

Apparently in Germany, flashing bicycle lights are illegal, I
presume due to motorist identification problems, but I'm not
certain.

I guess I'd go with what the Dutch say. If anyone should know
effectiveness of bicycle lighting styles they would. But I
don't know if they have laws against flashing bicycle lighting.

I've split the difference on my commuter bikes by having one
rear light that flashes (very irregularly and fast) and one
that is steady.


SMH

[Zoot Katz]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:54:19 -0500, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>
wrote:

>
>I have heard it discussed that the various reflective-sidewall tires
>available are not as effective as spoke reflectors, because while they
>are visible, the reflective sidewalls give no indication if the bicycle
>is /rolling/ or not.

Any use through extended periods of wet weather renders those
reflective sidewalls fairly useless. They get dirty. All tires are
black walls in winter unless you scrub them after every ride or two.

I've a friend with pieces of reflective tape placed around his rims.
They're easier to keep clean than sidewalls and the broken line
indicates movement and direction.

Tape is cheap, more aerodynamic, lighter weight, can have greater
surface area and it's less dorky looking than spoke reflectors.
--
zk

[Wolfgang Strobl]

DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com>:

>I have heard it discussed that the various reflective-sidewall tires
>available are not as effective as spoke reflectors, because while they
>are visible, the reflective sidewalls give no indication if the bicycle
>is /rolling/ or not.

So why don't cars have wheel reflectors or wheel lights giving an
indication of how fast that vehicle rolls?

One would assume that the ability to assessi the speed of a heavy and
therefore dangerous vehicle is of much more importance than assessing
the speed of a vehicle which weights a lot less than the driver, no?
And what about pedestrians? How do you assess how fast a pedestrian
moves?

Earnestly - the hypocritical seasons counsel "wear bright clothing"
which fills the motor&sport pages of our newspapers with cheap chatter
are bad enought. But this is even worse.

>
>With the spoke reflectors, they are recognizable and indicate to
>vehicles approaching from the sides which direction a bicycle is moving
>in, which can easily be critical in such a situation.

I'd suggest that he who isn't able to assess the speed of a bicycle
equipped with steaddy bright white and red lights, would be even less
able to do so, when looking at a pair of intermittant lights following
two different epicycloidal trajectories,

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Ryan Cousineau writes:

>>>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light
>>>> in an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front
>>>> of you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does
>>>> not appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing
>>>> object registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its
>>>> position is deceptive.

>>>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
>>>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
>>>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
>>>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.

>>> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any
>>> deceptive position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that
>>> such deception results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further,
>>> one could argue that ambiguity results in greater caution.

>> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take
>> this on faith.

> My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
> didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"

> Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist
> noticed at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most
> drivers have a hard time locating the rider's position relative to
> their car. Personally, I have no problem figuring out where a
> cyclist is once I've actually spotted them, blinky light or no (or
> even no light at all, though that can be tricky as the rider slips
> in and out of visibility).

Rear ending is one facet of visibility and as I said, a continuous
oscillating light as a pedal reflector is far more visible and
identifiable than a flashing light. For anything other than in-line
approach, a flashing light is disorienting and hard to place. Even
spoke reflectors are better than a flashing light for side perception.

> Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move
> or appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up
> motion, or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid
> lights, especially in urban environments with various types of
> extraneous lights, sometimes look like just another small (and
> irrelevant) light.

That may be your perception. Bicycles don't move in straight lines
and even the normal excursions give a steady light motion.

> All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object
> in the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a
> blinky and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I
> get noticed at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously,
> can anyone here report an accident they've even heard of where the
> rider was lit, the crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't
> judge your location properly?"

I think the fear of being rear-ended is like many other bicycle
hazards, not supported by the evidence but it makes a plausible story.

Jobst Brandt

[jim beam]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <4722949b$0$14129$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein writes:
>>
>>>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in
>>>> an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front of
>>>> you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does not
>>>> appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object
>>>> registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is
>>>> deceptive.
>>>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
>>>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
>>>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
>>>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
>>> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
>>> position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
>>> results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue
>>> that ambiguity results in greater caution.
>> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take this
>> on faith.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
> didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"
>
> Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist noticed
> at night.

indeed. youdathunk jobst would recognize that blinking lights are so
effective as warnings, it's why turn signals blink, warning lights on
high towers blink, light houses blink, aircraft nav lights blink,
instrument alert lights blink, etc.

as for bikes, i've experimented with a number of different blinkies, and
one i have currently is by far the most effective i've ever used. on
average, passing cars give at least 3' extra clearance when it's
working. [i know this because i have two, one "standard" and the new
"special" one. if just the standard cateye is on, normal clearance. if
the http://ecom1.planetbike.com/3034.html is on, 3' extra. it's
awesome.] it's /extremely/ bright.


> Having noticed a rider, I don't think most drivers have a hard
> time locating the rider's position relative to their car. Personally, I
> have no problem figuring out where a cyclist is once I've actually
> spotted them, blinky light or no (or even no light at all, though that
> can be tricky as the rider slips in and out of visibility).
>
> Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move or
> appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up motion,
> or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid lights,
> especially in urban environments with various types of extraneous
> lights, sometimes look like just another small (and irrelevant) light.
>
> All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object in
> the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a blinky
> and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I get noticed
> at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously, can anyone here
> report an accident they've even heard of where the rider was lit, the
> crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't judge your location
> properly?"
>

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Oct 27, 2:24 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau writes:
> >>>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light
> >>>> in an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front
> >>>> of you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does
> >>>> not appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing
> >>>> object registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its
> >>>> position is deceptive.
> >>>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
> >>>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
> >>>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
> >>>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
> >>> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any
> >>> deceptive position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that
> >>> such deception results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further,
> >>> one could argue that ambiguity results in greater caution.
> >> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take
> >> this on faith.
> > My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
> > didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"
> > Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist
> > noticed at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most
> > drivers have a hard time locating the rider's position relative to
> > their car. Personally, I have no problem figuring out where a
> > cyclist is once I've actually spotted them, blinky light or no (or
> > even no light at all, though that can be tricky as the rider slips
> > in and out of visibility).
>
> Rear ending is one facet of visibility and as I said, a continuous
> oscillating light as a pedal reflector is far more visible and
> identifiable than a flashing light. For anything other than in-line
> approach, a flashing light is disorienting and hard to place. Even
> spoke reflectors are better than a flashing light for side perception.
>
> > Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move
> > or appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up
> > motion, or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid
> > lights, especially in urban environments with various types of
> > extraneous lights, sometimes look like just another small (and
> > irrelevant) light.
>
> That may be your perception. Bicycles don't move in straight lines
> and even the normal excursions give a steady light motion.
>
> > All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object
> > in the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a
> > blinky and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I
> > get noticed at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously,
> > can anyone here report an accident they've even heard of where the
> > rider was lit, the crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't
> > judge your location properly?"
>
> I think the fear of being rear-ended is like many other bicycle
> hazards, not supported by the evidence but it makes a plausible story.
>
> Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Hi there Jobst.

I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.

BTW I prefer an amber blinky on the rear as well as the front since a
flashing amber light is a recognized caution device. Besides amber is
more visible than red.

I recently went for a drive in the country with my niece. We saw many
areas where an unlit cyclist would not be seen by an overtaking driver
due to the dips and rises in the roadway if the driver was travelling
at the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.

The suggestion to use at least a blinky was done, based on
observations of their effectivemess ( I talked with motorists who had
seen my bicycle with them) in an effort to make night riding safer
than it is when bicyclists ride at night with out lights or
reflectors. BTW reflectors are mandatory on bicycles here in Ontario,
Canad. However very, very few people want them on their bikes.

I guess it is like the H***** debate - those who will use them do and
those who do not will not.

May you never be rear-ended by a motor vehicle.

Peter

[jim beam]

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau writes:
>
>>>>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light
>>>>> in an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front
>>>>> of you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does
>>>>> not appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing
>>>>> object registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its
>>>>> position is deceptive.
>
>>>>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
>>>>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
>>>>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
>>>>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
>
>>>> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any
>>>> deceptive position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that
>>>> such deception results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further,
>>>> one could argue that ambiguity results in greater caution.
>
>>> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take
>>> this on faith.
>
>> My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
>> didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"
>
>> Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist
>> noticed at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most
>> drivers have a hard time locating the rider's position relative to
>> their car. Personally, I have no problem figuring out where a
>> cyclist is once I've actually spotted them, blinky light or no (or
>> even no light at all, though that can be tricky as the rider slips
>> in and out of visibility).
>
> Rear ending is one facet of visibility and as I said, a continuous
> oscillating light as a pedal reflector is far more visible and
> identifiable than a flashing light.

except at dusk, and for drivers with no lights [remarkably common] and
of course, from a distance. blinkies are visible from 1km or more.
reflectors aren't.


> For anything other than in-line
> approach, a flashing light is disorienting and hard to place.

no, it attracts the eye and alerts to danger.

> Even
> spoke reflectors are better than a flashing light for side perception.

no, they attract the eye and alert to danger.


>
>> Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move
>> or appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up
>> motion, or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid
>> lights, especially in urban environments with various types of
>> extraneous lights, sometimes look like just another small (and
>> irrelevant) light.
>
> That may be your perception. Bicycles don't move in straight lines

eh?


> and even the normal excursions give a steady light motion.
>
>> All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object
>> in the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a
>> blinky and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I
>> get noticed at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously,
>> can anyone here report an accident they've even heard of where the
>> rider was lit, the crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't
>> judge your location properly?"
>
> I think the fear of being rear-ended is like many other bicycle
> hazards, not supported by the evidence but it makes a plausible story.

you don't ride at night or in the rain then.

[unforgiven99@juno.com]

On Oct 27, 2:24 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau writes:
> >>>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light
> >>>> in an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front
> >>>> of you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does
> >>>> not appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing
> >>>> object registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its
> >>>> position is deceptive.
> >>>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
> >>>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
> >>>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
> >>>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
> >>> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any
> >>> deceptive position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that
> >>> such deception results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further,
> >>> one could argue that ambiguity results in greater caution.
> >> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take
> >> this on faith.
> > My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
> > didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"
> > Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist
> > noticed at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most
> > drivers have a hard time locating the rider's position relative to
> > their car. Personally, I have no problem figuring out where a
> > cyclist is once I've actually spotted them, blinky light or no (or
> > even no light at all, though that can be tricky as the rider slips
> > in and out of visibility).
>
> Rear ending is one facet of visibility and as I said, a continuous
> oscillating light as a pedal reflector is far more visible and
> identifiable than a flashing light. For anything other than in-line
> approach, a flashing light is disorienting and hard to place. Even
> spoke reflectors are better than a flashing light for side perception.
>
> > Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move
> > or appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up
> > motion, or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid
> > lights, especially in urban environments with various types of
> > extraneous lights, sometimes look like just another small (and
> > irrelevant) light.
>
> That may be your perception. Bicycles don't move in straight lines
> and even the normal excursions give a steady light motion.
>
> > All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object
> > in the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a
> > blinky and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I
> > get noticed at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously,
> > can anyone here report an accident they've even heard of where the
> > rider was lit, the crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't
> > judge your location properly?"
>
> I think the fear of being rear-ended is like many other bicycle
> hazards, not supported by the evidence but it makes a plausible story.
>
> Jobst Brandt

That's an interesting point, but my experience is that most drivers
can't judge the speed of a bicycle in broad daylight. If someone gets
confused about how far my bike has moved in the third of a second or
so that my Knog Frogs take to blink at least they perceive that
there's a moving object that they need to proceed around with
caution. It doesn't matter whether the car is coming from the side or
behind. Well before the driver's brain can make a decision about
whether there is enough room to cut you off, it needs to perceive that
you're there to cut off in the first place.

[DougC]

Tom Keats wrote:
>
> ... But /actively lit/ ones -- I like the idea.
> Especially if they could be actuated by extending the
> arms, and turned off by proximity to the handlebar.
>


There is a company somewhere that makes such an item. I don't recall the
name, but it's out there.

I contend it's still un-ideal in that to signal, you must remove at
least one of your hands from the brake levers--and the times when it's
most important to signal is when you're riding in heavy traffic, when
you most need to be prepared to make emergency stops.
~

[Dane Buson]

Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <6s4av4-sfr.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> writes:
>
>> I'm sporting two rear blinkies and a blinking leg band this winter.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Ooooh, is there a "hand band" version of this apparatus?

Well, this one has a flexible adjustable band. It comfortably sits
about midarm without any overshirt on.

Planet Bike BRT Strap Multi-Use LED Bicycle Safety Light

http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Bike-Multi-Use-Bicycle-Safety/dp/B000AO7JP0

> Those velcro reflective trousers-cuff bands are good for
> wrapping around gloves, to render hand signals visible at
> night -- if you want to be fussy: red for port, green for
> starboard. But /actively lit/ ones -- I like the idea.
> Especially if they could be actuated by extending the
> arms, and turned off by proximity to the handlebar.

Sounds complicated. It would probably be better to leave them on to
give you sideways visibility.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Murray's Rule:
Any country with "democratic" in the title isn't.

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

> Hi there Jobst.
>
> I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
> light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
> being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
> about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
> morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
> if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
> unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.
>
> BTW I prefer an amber blinky on the rear as well as the front since a
> flashing amber light is a recognized caution device. Besides amber is
> more visible than red.
>
> I recently went for a drive in the country with my niece. We saw many
> areas where an unlit cyclist would not be seen by an overtaking driver
> due to the dips and rises in the roadway if the driver was travelling
> at the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.
>
> The suggestion to use at least a blinky was done, based on
> observations of their effectivemess ( I talked with motorists who had
> seen my bicycle with them) in an effort to make night riding safer
> than it is when bicyclists ride at night with out lights or
> reflectors. BTW reflectors are mandatory on bicycles here in Ontario,
> Canad. However very, very few people want them on their bikes.
>
> I guess it is like the H***** debate - those who will use them do and
> those who do not will not.
>
> May you never be rear-ended by a motor vehicle.
>
> Peter
----------------
I ride about 4000 miles in the dark a
year, so I have a lot of experience in
this area. The most effective tool, is
to use reflective ankle stuff, and
reflective strips on your bike. You can
have two lights on the back, one
blinking, and one steady, but the
blinking light is for alerting drivers
from a distance that there is a hazard
ahead. Wearing white, and the reflecto
is the best when they are trying to
locate you when they get close. The
only bad thing about blinking lights is
with some drunk drivers. They seem to
fixate on the light, and drive towards
it, like a bug is attracted to a
bug-light. Not many times, but I've had
to do some evasive moves, as the drunk
drives into the shoulder and then
corrects. That's why you have to wear
white, and have the reflecto stuff, for
them to put 2 and 2 together. On the
open road, where speeds are higher, you
should get a powerful blinkie on the
back, because you want them to see you
as far away as possible, because of the
speed they are going >60 mph.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 27, 4:44 am, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> I recently went for a drive in the country with my niece. We saw many
> areas where an unlit cyclist would not be seen by an overtaking driver
> due to the dips and rises in the roadway if the driver was travelling
> at the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.

I wonder about your drive in the country. There are roads where a
person in the passenger seat told me "You wouldn't see a bicyclist
riding here" (due to either curves or hill crests), but I felt there
would be no problem. Why? Because, regarding bends to the right, my
passenger was further to the right than I was. I could see further
around the curve. Regarding hill crests, she was worried that she
couldn't see the pavement over the hill - but a cyclist is about five
feet taller than the pavement and is seen even when the pavement
isn't. (Well, unless he's on a low-racer recumbent.)

BTW #1: If one rode on choppy steep hills at night, I suppose a light
up high would be more beneficial than one down low. Maybe clip a
blinkie to a hat or helmet.

BTW #2: Faster cyclists have less problem with those situations (and
many others) than slower cyclists, because closing speed is lower.

> The suggestion to use at least a blinky was done, based on
> observations of their effectivemess ( I talked with motorists who had
> seen my bicycle with them) ...

And as I keep saying, this is how to test your lights. Have a friend
evaluate them. Or trade places, and you drive by and evaluate them.
It's not hard to do, and you'll learn a lot.

- Frank Krygowski

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <1193474697.153694.16760@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> On Oct 27, 2:24 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > Ryan Cousineau writes:
> > >>>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light
> > >>>> in an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front
> > >>>> of you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does
> > >>>> not appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing
> > >>>> object registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its
> > >>>> position is deceptive.
> > >>>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
> > >>>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
> > >>>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
> > >>>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
> > >>> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any
> > >>> deceptive position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that
> > >>> such deception results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further,
> > >>> one could argue that ambiguity results in greater caution.
> > >> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take
> > >> this on faith.
> > > My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
> > > didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"
> > > Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist
> > > noticed at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most
> > > drivers have a hard time locating the rider's position relative to
> > > their car. Personally, I have no problem figuring out where a
> > > cyclist is once I've actually spotted them, blinky light or no (or
> > > even no light at all, though that can be tricky as the rider slips
> > > in and out of visibility).
> >
> > Rear ending is one facet of visibility and as I said, a continuous
> > oscillating light as a pedal reflector is far more visible and
> > identifiable than a flashing light. For anything other than in-line
> > approach, a flashing light is disorienting and hard to place. Even
> > spoke reflectors are better than a flashing light for side perception.
> >
> > > Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move
> > > or appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up
> > > motion, or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid
> > > lights, especially in urban environments with various types of
> > > extraneous lights, sometimes look like just another small (and
> > > irrelevant) light.
> >
> > That may be your perception. Bicycles don't move in straight lines
> > and even the normal excursions give a steady light motion.
> >
> > > All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object
> > > in the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a
> > > blinky and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I
> > > get noticed at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously,
> > > can anyone here report an accident they've even heard of where the
> > > rider was lit, the crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't
> > > judge your location properly?"
> >
> > I think the fear of being rear-ended is like many other bicycle
> > hazards, not supported by the evidence but it makes a plausible story.
> >
> > Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Hi there Jobst.
>
> I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
> light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
> being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
> about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
> morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
> if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
> unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.

Jobst is talking about the question of a blinking rear light versus a
solid (continuously-on) light. We're in certain agreement that some sort
of lighting (front and rear) is generally necessary for safe
night-riding.

Any light is better than no light at night,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 27, 6:35 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Apparently in Germany, flashing bicycle lights are illegal, I
> presume due to motorist identification problems, but I'm not
> certain.

I don't know the current law. Andreas could tell us, if he'd drop in
for a second. But I know that there have been such laws on the books
only because legislators didn't keep up with technology.

IIRC, British law forbad any bike taillight that wasn't based on
incandescent bulbs, but only due to the fact that LEDs bike lights
didn't exist when the law was written.

In general, laws should specify performance criteria, not
technology.

- Frank Krygowski

[Udo Steinbach]

> Apparently in Germany, flashing bicycle lights are illegal

Indeed, on bike mounted lights are. At helmet or clothes they are legal.

> I presume due to motorist identification problems

Only certified light components are legal. Better then "emergency lights" (>3 Watt) does not become certified. This regulation originates from the year 1934.
In order not to dazzle car drivers and to make cycling more difficult, I assume. "The promotion of the motor vehicle is the goal pointed by the Reich Chancellor and leader, which also this order is to serve."

http://radwege.udoline.de/frueher/index.html, scans on
http://bernd.sluka.de/scans/100dpi/RGBl/1934/872.gif bottom right, http://bernd.sluka.de/scans/100dpi/RGBl/1934/873.gif continued.
--
Die fahrradfreundliche Stadt Oldenburg: http://radwege.udoline.de/
PGP: A245 F153 0636 6E34 E2F3 E1EB 817A B14D 3E7E 482E

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Oct 27, 3:53 am, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > Hi there Jobst.
>
> > I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
> > light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
> > being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
> > about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
> > morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
> > if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
> > unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.
>
> > BTW I prefer an amber blinky on the rear as well as the front since a
> > flashing amber light is a recognized caution device. Besides amber is
> > more visible than red.
>
> > I recently went for a drive in the country with my niece. We saw many
> > areas where an unlit cyclist would not be seen by an overtaking driver
> > due to the dips and rises in the roadway if the driver was travelling
> > at the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.
>
> > The suggestion to use at least a blinky was done, based on
> > observations of their effectivemess ( I talked with motorists who had
> > seen my bicycle with them) in an effort to make night riding safer
> > than it is when bicyclists ride at night with out lights or
> > reflectors. BTW reflectors are mandatory on bicycles here in Ontario,
> > Canad. However very, very few people want them on their bikes.
>
> > I guess it is like the H***** debate - those who will use them do and
> > those who do not will not.
>
> > May you never be rear-ended by a motor vehicle.
>
> > Peter
>
> ----------------
> I ride about 4000 miles in the dark a
> year, so I have a lot of experience in
> this area. The most effective tool, is
> to use reflective ankle stuff, and
> reflective strips on your bike. You can
> have two lights on the back, one
> blinking, and one steady, but the
> blinking light is for alerting drivers
> from a distance that there is a hazard
> ahead. Wearing white, and the reflecto
> is the best when they are trying to
> locate you when they get close. The
> only bad thing about blinking lights is
> with some drunk drivers. They seem to
> fixate on the light, and drive towards
> it, like a bug is attracted to a
> bug-light. Not many times, but I've had
> to do some evasive moves, as the drunk
> drives into the shoulder and then
> corrects. That's why you have to wear
> white, and have the reflecto stuff, for
> them to put 2 and 2 together. On the
> open road, where speeds are higher, you
> should get a powerful blinkie on the
> back, because you want them to see you
> as far away as possible, because of the
> speed they are going >60 mph.

That is similar to the approach I use. Red reflective tape on the
seatpost and rear stays, white on the headtube and forks. A white
reflective ankle band, a white reflective arm-band near the shoulder.
As for lights a red blinking rear, and a white blinking front.

I have a neon-yellow vest with wide white reflective bands that I use
too if I'm going to ride in a dusk type light, but as I have a
reasonably aggresive position on the bike, I don't think this is very
effective. If I sat more upright it would be.

Joseph

[mike.a.schwab@gmail.com]

On Oct 27, 7:08 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 3:53 am, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Hi there Jobst.
>
> > > I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
> > > light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
> > > being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
> > > about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
> > > morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
> > > if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
> > > unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.
>
> > > BTW I prefer an amber blinky on the rear as well as the front since a
> > > flashing amber light is a recognized caution device. Besides amber is
> > > more visible than red.
>
> > > I recently went for a drive in the country with my niece. We saw many
> > > areas where an unlit cyclist would not be seen by an overtaking driver
> > > due to the dips and rises in the roadway if the driver was travelling
> > > at the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.
>
> > > The suggestion to use at least a blinky was done, based on
> > > observations of their effectivemess ( I talked with motorists who had
> > > seen my bicycle with them) in an effort to make night riding safer
> > > than it is when bicyclists ride at night with out lights or
> > > reflectors. BTW reflectors are mandatory on bicycles here in Ontario,
> > > Canad. However very, very few people want them on their bikes.
>
> > > I guess it is like the H***** debate - those who will use them do and
> > > those who do not will not.
>
> > > May you never be rear-ended by a motor vehicle.
>
> > > Peter
>
> > ----------------
> > I ride about 4000 miles in the dark a
> > year, so I have a lot of experience in
> > this area. The most effective tool, is
> > to use reflective ankle stuff, and
> > reflective strips on your bike. You can
> > have two lights on the back, one
> > blinking, and one steady, but the
> > blinking light is for alerting drivers
> > from a distance that there is a hazard
> > ahead. Wearing white, and the reflecto
> > is the best when they are trying to
> > locate you when they get close. The
> > only bad thing about blinking lights is
> > with some drunk drivers. They seem to
> > fixate on the light, and drive towards
> > it, like a bug is attracted to a
> > bug-light. Not many times, but I've had
> > to do some evasive moves, as the drunk
> > drives into the shoulder and then
> > corrects. That's why you have to wear
> > white, and have the reflecto stuff, for
> > them to put 2 and 2 together. On the
> > open road, where speeds are higher, you
> > should get a powerful blinkie on the
> > back, because you want them to see you
> > as far away as possible, because of the
> > speed they are going >60 mph.
>
> That is similar to the approach I use. Red reflective tape on the
> seatpost and rear stays, white on the headtube and forks. A white
> reflective ankle band, a white reflective arm-band near the shoulder.
> As for lights a red blinking rear, and a white blinking front.
>
> I have a neon-yellow vest with wide white reflective bands that I use
> too if I'm going to ride in a dusk type light, but as I have a
> reasonably aggresive position on the bike, I don't think this is very
> effective. If I sat more upright it would be.
>
> Joseph

I like a mix of blinking and steady lights.
http://picasaweb.google.com/mike.a.schwab/NewBike

[nmp]

mike.a.schwab@gmail.com wrote:

> I like a mix of blinking and steady lights.
> http://picasaweb.google.com/mike.a.schwab/NewBike

Fantastic bicycle you have!

[DennisTheBald]

I'm a big fan of the single D-cell rescue strobe, mixed in with other
stuff. These little zenon bulbs have caused motorists to lean out
their windows and yell at me that my light was too bright. I figure
it has to be as they ain't.

I also like Christmas lights, festive and functional.

[Aeek]

On 27 Oct 2007 12:55:20 GMT, nmp <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>mike.a.schwab@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I like a mix of blinking and steady lights.
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/mike.a.schwab/NewBike
>
>Fantastic bicycle you have!

A bent Xtracycle? What's weird is I can't see the pedals!

[Mike A Schwab]

On Oct 27, 8:14 am, Aeek <aeeee...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2007 12:55:20 GMT, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >mike.a.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> I like a mix of blinking and steady lights.
> >>http://picasaweb.google.com/mike.a.schwab/NewBike
>
> >Fantastic bicycle you have!
>
> A bent Xtracycle? What's weird is I can't see the pedals!

It is a Rans V2 Formulae 26 HD with xtracycle.
Someone posted a link to http://www.angletechcycles.com/bikes/freighter/index.htm
on http://www.bikejournal.com , I printed out the page and had my LBS
order the bike, http://www.xtracycles.com , and build it for me. Only
a few Recumbents will work with an xtracycle due to the change in
chainline.

The pedals are just back of the head tube, and hard to see.

[Jay Beattie]

On Oct 27, 6:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <4722949b$0$14129$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> >> Wayne Pein writes:
>
> >>>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in
> >>>> an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front of
> >>>> you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does not
> >>>> appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object
> >>>> registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is
> >>>> deceptive.
> >>>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
> >>>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
> >>>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
> >>>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
> >>> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
> >>> position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
> >>> results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue
> >>> that ambiguity results in greater caution.
> >> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take this
> >> on faith.
>
> >> Jobst Brandt
>
> > My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
> > didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"
>
> > Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist noticed
> > at night.
>
> indeed. youdathunk jobst would recognize that blinking lights are so
> effective as warnings, it's why turn signals blink, warning lights on
> high towers blink, light houses blink, aircraft nav lights blink,
> instrument alert lights blink, etc.
>
> as for bikes, i've experimented with a number of different blinkies, and
> one i have currently is by far the most effective i've ever used. on
> average, passing cars give at least 3' extra clearance when it's
> working. [i know this because i have two, one "standard" and the new
> "special" one. if just the standard cateye is on, normal clearance. if
> thehttp://ecom1.planetbike.com/3034.htmlis on, 3' extra. it's
> awesome.] it's /extremely/ bright.
>
>
>
> > Having noticed a rider, I don't think most drivers have a hard
> > time locating the rider's position relative to their car. Personally, I
> > have no problem figuring out where a cyclist is once I've actually
> > spotted them, blinky light or no (or even no light at all, though that
> > can be tricky as the rider slips in and out of visibility).
>
> > Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move or
> > appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up motion,
> > or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid lights,
> > especially in urban environments with various types of extraneous
> > lights, sometimes look like just another small (and irrelevant) light.
>
> > All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object in
> > the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a blinky
> > and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I get noticed
> > at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously, can anyone here
> > report an accident they've even heard of where the rider was lit, the
> > crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't judge your location
> > properly?"- Hide quoted text -

Also, the disorientation caused by a blinking light only occurs, in my
experience, in a pitch black environment -- like a fun house. That is
not a road. There is usually enough ambient light from houses,
buildings, street lights, the moon, reflectors, to locate a bicycle on
a road once it is noticed. Also, I agree that a blinker
differentiates a bicycle from other red light sources like car tail
lights. This is an issue for me because I am often passed by cars in
the rain at night, and a fixed red light might get swamped in all of
the other fixed red lights. I think a blinker with reflectors that
move (on shoe heels, legs, etc) works well.

I have never been rear ended on a bike. My mishaps at night have
involved hitting obstacles -- pot holes, debris, etc. -- or having a
car pull out or pull-in in front of me. Basically, these are the same
problems I have during the day, but the drivers have more of an excuse
at night. -- Jay Beattie.

[Hank Wirtz]

On Oct 27, 6:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:

> as for bikes, i've experimented with a number of different blinkies, and
> one i have currently is by far the most effective i've ever used. on
> average, passing cars give at least 3' extra clearance when it's
> working. [i know this because i have two, one "standard" and the new
> "special" one. if just the standard cateye is on, normal clearance. if
> thehttp://ecom1.planetbike.com/3034.htmlis on, 3' extra. it's
> awesome.] it's /extremely/ bright.
>

I've got those on a couple of my bikes, and they are indeed awesome.
That top one with the big reflector is _astonishingly_ bright. "You
could take an eye out with that thing!" I've never forgotten to turn
it off when I get to work, because it so completely illuminates a wall
in the parking garage. That wall is at least 40 feet away from the
bike racks.

And if I'm not mistaken, its flashing pattern is such that it's never
completely off. The two smaller LEDs alternate so that one is always
on, while the big one flashes every second or so, so drivers' eyes
should be able to track your location accurately.

[Tom Sherman]

Mike A Schwab wrote:
> On Oct 27, 8:14 am, Aeek <aeeee...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>> On 27 Oct 2007 12:55:20 GMT, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> mike.a.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I like a mix of blinking and steady lights.
>>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/mike.a.schwab/NewBike
>>> Fantastic bicycle you have!
>> A bent Xtracycle? What's weird is I can't see the pedals!
>
> It is a Rans V2 Formulae 26 HD with xtracycle....

Mike should know better.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

[Wolfgang Strobl]

frkrygow@gmail.com:

>On Oct 27, 6:35 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Apparently in Germany, flashing bicycle lights are illegal, I
>> presume due to motorist identification problems, but I'm not
>> certain.
>
>I don't know the current law.

I do. flashing bicycle taillights are illegal here in Germany, and
rightly so. It's one of the few areas where our law got it right.

Stroboscopic lights hamper fast recognition of distance and speed vector
of a moving object. In addition, the purported distinctiveness is
grossly overhyped. Personally, I consider it harmfull, just like almost
every feature which discriminates - and stigmatizes - bicyclists.

A bright, steady red taillight with reasonable optics, similar to a
standard taillight used on a small motorcycle is best. I'm using this
one: http://www.bumm.de/docu/grafiken/328al.jpg (a bumm d- toplight) on
my winter bike, and this one
http://images.google.de/images?q=%22Cateye%22+%22LD+300%22 (cateye
LD300) on my summer bike (both are about ten years old), but most
actual, certified taillights are sufficient or better, because LED
technology made quite some progress in the .last few years.


> Andreas could tell us, if he'd drop in
>for a second. But I know that there have been such laws on the books
>only because legislators didn't keep up with technology.
>
>IIRC, British law forbad any bike taillight that wasn't based on
>incandescent bulbs, but only due to the fact that LEDs bike lights
>didn't exist when the law was written.
>
>In general, laws should specify performance criteria, not
>technology.

Of course. Steadiness *is* a performance criterium.

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Oct 27, 5:47 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> In article <1193474697.153694.16...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 2:24 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > Ryan Cousineau writes:
> > > >>>> Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light
> > > >>>> in an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front
> > > >>>> of you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does
> > > >>>> not appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing
> > > >>>> object registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its
> > > >>>> position is deceptive.
> > > >>>> For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
> > > >>>> using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
> > > >>>> reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
> > > >>>> unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
> > > >>> I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any
> > > >>> deceptive position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that
> > > >>> such deception results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further,
> > > >>> one could argue that ambiguity results in greater caution.
> > > >> This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take
> > > >> this on faith.
> > > > My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
> > > > didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"
> > > > Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist
> > > > noticed at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most
> > > > drivers have a hard time locating the rider's position relative to
> > > > their car. Personally, I have no problem figuring out where a
> > > > cyclist is once I've actually spotted them, blinky light or no (or
> > > > even no light at all, though that can be tricky as the rider slips
> > > > in and out of visibility).
>
> > > Rear ending is one facet of visibility and as I said, a continuous
> > > oscillating light as a pedal reflector is far more visible and
> > > identifiable than a flashing light. For anything other than in-line
> > > approach, a flashing light is disorienting and hard to place. Even
> > > spoke reflectors are better than a flashing light for side perception.
>
> > > > Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move
> > > > or appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up
> > > > motion, or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid
> > > > lights, especially in urban environments with various types of
> > > > extraneous lights, sometimes look like just another small (and
> > > > irrelevant) light.
>
> > > That may be your perception. Bicycles don't move in straight lines
> > > and even the normal excursions give a steady light motion.
>
> > > > All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object
> > > > in the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a
> > > > blinky and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I
> > > > get noticed at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously,
> > > > can anyone here report an accident they've even heard of where the
> > > > rider was lit, the crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't
> > > > judge your location properly?"
>
> > > I think the fear of being rear-ended is like many other bicycle
> > > hazards, not supported by the evidence but it makes a plausible story.
>
> > > Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi there Jobst.
>
> > I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
> > light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
> > being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
> > about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
> > morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
> > if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
> > unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.
>
> Jobst is talking about the question of a blinking rear light versus a
> solid (continuously-on) light. We're in certain agreement that some sort
> of lighting (front and rear) is generally necessary for safe
> night-riding.
>
> Any light is better than no light at night,
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Thanks for clarifying that Ryan.

>From my observations I feel that for the rear a blinking light is
better than a solid one as the blinking does catch the eye better than
a solid light does. I have both an amber blinky (for better visibilty
and it's recognized warning as a warning device by all) and a red
blinky for legal puposes on the rear. On the front of my Mtb/Cyclo-
cross/Touring bike I have an amber blinky mounted on each of the front
rigid fork legs just below the cantilever mounting studs.

Peter

[Mike]

In article <1193559308.677961.300990@k35g2000prh.googlegroups. com>, hank@wirtznet.net says...
> On Oct 27, 6:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > as for bikes, i've experimented with a number of different blinkies, and
> > one i have currently is by far the most effective i've ever used. on
> > average, passing cars give at least 3' extra clearance when it's
> > working. [i know this because i have two, one "standard" and the new
> > "special" one. if just the standard cateye is on, normal clearance. if
> > thehttp://ecom1.planetbike.com/3034.htmlis on, 3' extra. it's
> > awesome.] it's /extremely/ bright.
> >
>
> I've got those on a couple of my bikes, and they are indeed awesome.
> That top one with the big reflector is _astonishingly_ bright. "You
> could take an eye out with that thing!" I've never forgotten to turn
> it off when I get to work, because it so completely illuminates a wall
> in the parking garage. That wall is at least 40 feet away from the
> bike racks.
>
> And if I'm not mistaken, its flashing pattern is such that it's never
> completely off. The two smaller LEDs alternate so that one is always
> on, while the big one flashes every second or so, so drivers' eyes
> should be able to track your location accurately.
>
Further support for this light. The first night I used it I was followed home by a motorcyclist who wanted to know what
it was - she was most impressed by the brightness. In addition, at the rear of my bike AI have two smaller frame-
mounted blinkys, a helmet-mounted blinky and a glowing ankle-band. The combination makes me look a bit like a Christmas
tree but at least it gets the attention of any driver who is actually conscious. At the front I have two small frame-
mounted white/amber blinkys, a 6 Watt halogen rechargable and a home-made white flasher with 22 LEDs generating a total
of around 1 W. The combination is similarly attention-seeking. I still get cut-off occasionally at intersections, but
no driver has the excuse that they couldn't see me if they actually looked up from their cell-phone, stereo-control, or
whatever.

Mike

[jim beam]

Mike wrote:
> In article <1193559308.677961.300990@k35g2000prh.googlegroups. com>, hank@wirtznet.net says...
>> On Oct 27, 6:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> as for bikes, i've experimented with a number of different blinkies, and
>>> one i have currently is by far the most effective i've ever used. on
>>> average, passing cars give at least 3' extra clearance when it's
>>> working. [i know this because i have two, one "standard" and the new
>>> "special" one. if just the standard cateye is on, normal clearance. if
>>> thehttp://ecom1.planetbike.com/3034.htmlis on, 3' extra. it's
>>> awesome.] it's /extremely/ bright.
>>>
>> I've got those on a couple of my bikes, and they are indeed awesome.
>> That top one with the big reflector is _astonishingly_ bright. "You
>> could take an eye out with that thing!" I've never forgotten to turn
>> it off when I get to work, because it so completely illuminates a wall
>> in the parking garage. That wall is at least 40 feet away from the
>> bike racks.
>>
>> And if I'm not mistaken, its flashing pattern is such that it's never
>> completely off. The two smaller LEDs alternate so that one is always
>> on, while the big one flashes every second or so, so drivers' eyes
>> should be able to track your location accurately.
>>
> Further support for this light. The first night I used it I was followed home by a motorcyclist who wanted to know what
> it was - she was most impressed by the brightness.

that was how i discovered it too. /intensely/ irritating to follow,
even in daylight.

i'm surprised the brightness is legal frankly. but hey, all i selfishly
care about is that motorists stay the heck away. and they sure do!


> In addition, at the rear of my bike AI have two smaller frame-
> mounted blinkys, a helmet-mounted blinky and a glowing ankle-band. The combination makes me look a bit like a Christmas
> tree but at least it gets the attention of any driver who is actually conscious. At the front I have two small frame-
> mounted white/amber blinkys, a 6 Watt halogen rechargable and a home-made white flasher with 22 LEDs generating a total
> of around 1 W. The combination is similarly attention-seeking. I still get cut-off occasionally at intersections, but
> no driver has the excuse that they couldn't see me if they actually looked up from their cell-phone, stereo-control, or
> whatever.
>
> Mike

[Hank Wirtz]

On Oct 28, 6:23 pm, Mike <m.fee@iirrll..ccrrii..nnzz> wrote:
> In article <1193559308.677961.300...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups. com>, h...@wirtznet.net says...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 6:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > > as for bikes, i've experimented with a number of different blinkies, and
> > > one i have currently is by far the most effective i've ever used. on
> > > average, passing cars give at least 3' extra clearance when it's
> > > working. [i know this because i have two, one "standard" and the new
> > > "special" one. if just the standard cateye is on, normal clearance. if
> > > thehttp://ecom1.planetbike.com/3034.htmlison, 3' extra. it's
> > > awesome.] it's /extremely/ bright.
>
> > I've got those on a couple of my bikes, and they are indeed awesome.
> > That top one with the big reflector is _astonishingly_ bright. "You
> > could take an eye out with that thing!" I've never forgotten to turn
> > it off when I get to work, because it so completely illuminates a wall
> > in the parking garage. That wall is at least 40 feet away from the
> > bike racks.
>
> > And if I'm not mistaken, its flashing pattern is such that it's never
> > completely off. The two smaller LEDs alternate so that one is always
> > on, while the big one flashes every second or so, so drivers' eyes
> > should be able to track your location accurately.
>
> Further support for this light. The first night I used it I was followed home by a motorcyclist who wanted to know what
> it was - she was most impressed by the brightness. In addition, at the rear of my bike AI have two smaller frame-
> mounted blinkys, a helmet-mounted blinky and a glowing ankle-band. The combination makes me look a bit like a Christmas
> tree but at least it gets the attention of any driver who is actually conscious. At the front I have two small frame-
> mounted white/amber blinkys, a 6 Watt halogen rechargable and a home-made white flasher with 22 LEDs generating a total
> of around 1 W. The combination is similarly attention-seeking. I still get cut-off occasionally at intersections, but
> no driver has the excuse that they couldn't see me if they actually looked up from their cell-phone, stereo-control, or
> whatever.
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh, I also use bar-end mounted blinkies. Like you seem to have
discovered, multiple redundancies are good!

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 30, 2:18 pm, Wolfgang Strobl <ne...@mystrobl.de> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com:
>
> >On Oct 27, 6:35 am, Stephen Harding <smhardin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> Apparently in Germany, flashing bicycle lights are illegal, I
> >> presume due to motorist identification problems, but I'm not
> >> certain.
>
> >I don't know the current law.
>
> I do.

Ah! I should have thought of you first, Wolfgang. Of course you'd
know!

Thanks.

- Frank Krygowski

[Wayne Pein]

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> I do. flashing bicycle taillights are illegal here in Germany, and
> rightly so. It's one of the few areas where our law got it right.
>
> Stroboscopic lights hamper fast recognition of distance and speed vector
> of a moving object. In addition, the purported distinctiveness is
> grossly overhyped. Personally, I consider it harmfull, just like almost
> every feature which discriminates - and stigmatizes - bicyclists.
>

Given that blinking lights are viewed from a far distance, fast
recognition of that distance or speed is not necessary. I'm pretty
certain that the incidence of hit-from-behind for bicyclists using
blinkys properly (i.e. not pointed into outer space, for example) is
vanishingly low.

I believe that distinctiveness is overhyped, but so is the purported
downside of recognition difficulty. I believe that it is probably a
wash. Both blinking or solid lights are adequate, particularly in
combination with static and moving reflective material of high quality.

To my knowledge, bicyclists aren't stigmatized by reflective material
(trucks use it, but most vehicles don't), so I don't see how blinking
lights would cause any discrimination.


Wayne

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com>:

>Given that blinking lights are viewed from a far distance, fast
>recognition of that distance or speed is not necessary.

Lights are viewed from a short distance too, for example shortly before
a bicyclists is overtaken. Fast recognition of distance and direction is
necessary for getting the safety margin right during the overtaking
maneuver. A bicyclists look from far away is of almost no importance
for that, with one exception: it's better not to look like a slow
obstacle on the curbside, which gives the impression of being out of the
way, anyway.

>I'm pretty
>certain that the incidence of hit-from-behind for bicyclists using
>blinkys properly (i.e. not pointed into outer space, for example) is
>vanishingly low.

So is the incidence of hit-from behind for bicyclists using proper
lights (that is, steady ones) or no lights at all. Contrary to a popular
belief, getting hit from behind is a rather rare event, for all kinds of
cyclists.

In addition, I see a contradiction here. If we talk about getting hit
from behind, we are talking about short distances, aren't we?


>I believe that distinctiveness is overhyped, but so is the purported
>downside of recognition difficulty.

Perhaps. That still leaves us with the problem of stigmatizing the
bicyclist as a slow obstacle.

>I believe that it is probably a
>wash. Both blinking or solid lights are adequate, particularly in
>combination with static and moving reflective material of high quality.

Reflective material is overhyped, too. A single, steady light and a
high quality reflector of moderate size fits the bill. More is neither
necessary nor that good an idea.
>
>To my knowledge, bicyclists aren't stigmatized by reflective material
>(trucks use it, but most vehicles don't), so I don't see how blinking
>lights would cause any discrimination.

I do, for most stuff which makes a bicyclist recognizeable as a
bicyclist from far behind. We have a mandatory bikepath law here in
Germany, which selectively applies to bicyclists but not, for example,
to slow throttled motorcycles, which often are even slower than a
modestly trained cyclist. I more than once observed a motorist first
overtaking such a slow motorcycle, taking no offense and giving a large
margin and than in the next second bullying a faster cyclist during the
next overtaking maneuvre. It's this kind of stomping ground protection I
prefer not to trigger by giving signals which allow a fast and easy
discrimination between motorized and non motorized two-wheelers. Bright
red tailreflectors and bright steady lights are ok, blinking lights and
those yellow 360-degree tinsel are not.


--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

[Wayne Pein]

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

>> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com>:
>
>
>>Given that blinking lights are viewed from a far distance, fast
>>recognition of that distance or speed is not necessary.
>
>
> Lights are viewed from a short distance too, for example shortly before
> a bicyclists is overtaken. Fast recognition of distance and direction is
> necessary for getting the safety margin right during the overtaking
> maneuver.



>>I'm pretty
>>certain that the incidence of hit-from-behind for bicyclists using
>>blinkys properly (i.e. not pointed into outer space, for example) is
>>vanishingly low.
>
>
> So is the incidence of hit-from behind for bicyclists using proper
> lights (that is, steady ones) or no lights at all. Contrary to a popular
> belief, getting hit from behind is a rather rare event, for all kinds of
> cyclists.

If riding at night with no lights and getting hit from behind is
vanishingly rare, then why use lights at all?



>
> In addition, I see a contradiction here. If we talk about getting hit
> from behind, we are talking about short distances, aren't we?

There is no contradiction. A rapidly flashing blinky (the argument for
stroboscopic effect really pertains to slow blinking) is visible from
both far away and close. There is no evidence that motorists are more
likely to strike a blinky cyclist than a steady light cyclist.


>>To my knowledge, bicyclists aren't stigmatized by reflective material
>>(trucks use it, but most vehicles don't), so I don't see how blinking
>>lights would cause any discrimination.
>
>
> I do, for most stuff which makes a bicyclist recognizeable as a
> bicyclist from far behind. We have a mandatory bikepath law here in
> Germany, which selectively applies to bicyclists but not, for example,
> to slow throttled motorcycles, which often are even slower than a
> modestly trained cyclist. I more than once observed a motorist first
> overtaking such a slow motorcycle, taking no offense and giving a large
> margin and than in the next second bullying a faster cyclist during the
> next overtaking maneuvre.

Was the bicyclist using a blinky?

It's this kind of stomping ground protection I
> prefer not to trigger by giving signals which allow a fast and easy
> discrimination between motorized and non motorized two-wheelers. Bright
> red tailreflectors and bright steady lights are ok, blinking lights and
> those yellow 360-degree tinsel are not.
>

I see your point, but highly doubt that bullying will be more apt with a
blinking light due to motorists more easily associating it with
bicyclists than if the bicyclist had a steady light.

Wayne

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Oct 30, 7:25 pm, DennisTheBald <DennisTheB...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a big fan of the single D-cell rescue strobe, mixed in with other
> stuff. T