Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Commuting (http://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/)
-   -   Hit & Run (http://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/917725-hit-run.html)

Leebo 10-16-13 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobrabyte (Post 16165666)
some of you safety guys with your 100,000 lumens lights, truck horns, etc...

just...lol

Come ride a mile in my shoes on some "nice" Boston, MA area roads. Do you ride a lot at night? My set up works for me, YRMV. I'm guessing FL does not get a lot of snowy nights.

cobrabyte 10-16-13 12:32 PM

Safety is cool guys, but yes, some of you take it to extremes and that amuses me. Not so much the equipment itself, but the attitude behind it. I have some safety-o-phile friends, and they are so preoccupied with this stuff that it keeps them from enjoying their ride. They're out there like those little shaking Chihuahuas, expecting death at every turn. But y'all keep on keepin' on as they say...

JohnJ80 10-16-13 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobrabyte (Post 16165666)
some of you safety guys with your 100,000 lumens lights, truck horns, etc...

just...lol


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457509000645

"This study explored the beliefs and attitudes of cyclists and drivers regarding cyclist visibility, use of visibility aids and crashes involving cyclists and motorists. Data are presented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there are high rates of cyclist–vehicle crashes, many of which were reported to be due to the driver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision. A divergence in attitudes was also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist–vehicle conflicts on the road. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers. Collectively, these results suggest that interventions should target cyclists’ use of visibility aids, which is less than optimal in this population, as well as re-educating both groups regarding visibility issues."


Still think it's funny?

J.

acidfast7 10-16-13 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 16165938)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457509000645

"This study explored the beliefs and attitudes of cyclists and drivers regarding cyclist visibility, use of visibility aids and crashes involving cyclists and motorists. Data are presented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there are high rates of cyclist–vehicle crashes, many of which were reported to be due to the driver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision. A divergence in attitudes was also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist–vehicle conflicts on the road. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers. Collectively, these results suggest that interventions should target cyclists’ use of visibility aids, which is less than optimal in this population, as well as re-educating both groups regarding visibility issues."


Still think it's funny?

J.

beliefs and attitudes

show me some real data

cobrabyte 10-16-13 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 16165938)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457509000645

"This study explored the beliefs and attitudes of cyclists and drivers regarding cyclist visibility, use of visibility aids and crashes involving cyclists and motorists. Data are presented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there are high rates of cyclist–vehicle crashes, many of which were reported to be due to the driver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision. A divergence in attitudes was also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist–vehicle conflicts on the road. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers. Collectively, these results suggest that interventions should target cyclists’ use of visibility aids, which is less than optimal in this population, as well as re-educating both groups regarding visibility issues."


Still think it's funny?

J.

Actually I find statistics even more hilarious than safety equipment.


I think you're having trouble understanding. I advocate precautionary safety procedures, but find the extreme measures some take to be silly. Yes, even safety can be taken to an irrational level. I apologize that I don't have a study to present regarding my feelings towards this matter to aid in your ability to understand my point of view.

cobrabyte 10-16-13 01:29 PM

Personally I do not fault the cyclist in the video. The driver of the vehicle is obviously a jerk. One that not only did not take the time to ensure it was safe to proceed, but one that also left the scene of an accident.

Some here feel as though a flood light is needed to be seen. Others (like myself) see the light the rider was using as adiquate. An anattentive driver can miss a brighter light, too. And I don't see that the cyclist had enough time to engage a horn had they had one, and even if they did, would the driver had had enough time to react to it? Lots of variables here, leaving the entire scenario up to speculative "solutions" to the problem presented.

Shockingly, sometimes cars even crash into other cars at night...headlights and all. Would the folks here argue that the car that was hit should have had a strip of KC lights attached to their roof in order to be seen by the unattentive driver of the other vehicle?

I don't see the logic.

Leebo 10-16-13 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobrabyte (Post 16165844)
Safety is cool guys, but yes, some of you take it to extremes and that amuses me. Not so much the equipment itself, but the attitude behind it. I have some safety-o-phile friends, and they are so preoccupied with this stuff that it keeps them from enjoying their ride. They're out there like those little shaking Chihuahuas, expecting death at every turn. But y'all keep on keepin' on as they say...

Obviously, the lights were not adequate. MA law says the front light needs to seen 500' away. Not extremes, but to help counter the selfish, self important driver attitudes I face on a daily basis. If his lights are not lighting up the side of the car from 50-100 feet away, that IMHO, is not enough. I enjoy my ride, I also enjoy not getting hit by a car, and being seen at night. I wear a vest and use side and wheel lights too. How much is too much? I do not want to outrun my lights at 25 mph in the dark. Maybe this rider will rethink his brakes and night riding style. FL is not even close to MA drivers' attitude or arrogance.

JohnJ80 10-16-13 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidfast7 (Post 16165956)
beliefs and attitudes

show me some real data

http://www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/W...sEventID=63515
http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/us...d/CD003438.pdf

Not to mention that it's obviously a big problem if a motorist cannot see a cyclist in an adequate amount of time.

But, do what you want. I want to be seen and have their be no question that I am a cyclist, where I am and to have it easy to ascertain my speed and position. While it's anecdotal, I've been riding at night for almost 20 years and have never had an accident. I'm well lit and visible.

J.

spare_wheel 10-16-13 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 16165938)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457509000645

"This study explored the beliefs and attitudes of cyclists and drivers regarding cyclist visibility, use of visibility aids and crashes involving cyclists and motorists. Data are presented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there are high rates of cyclist–vehicle crashes, many of which were reported to be due to the driver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision. A divergence in attitudes was also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist–vehicle conflicts on the road. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers. Collectively, these results suggest that interventions should target cyclists’ use of visibility aids, which is less than optimal in this population, as well as re-educating both groups regarding visibility issues."


Still think it's funny?

J.

Cycling injury and death rates in North America are pathetically high in comparison to Northern Eruope because:

1. We tolerate sociopathic behavior by people who operate lethal heavy machinery.
2. Sport cycling injuries/deaths are combined with commuting injuries/deaths.

acidfast7 10-16-13 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 16166071)
http://www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/W...sEventID=63515
http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/us...d/CD003438.pdf

Not to mention that it's obviously a big problem if a motorist cannot see a cyclist in an adequate amount of time.

But, do what you want. I want to be seen and have their be no question that I am a cyclist, where I am and to have it easy to ascertain my speed and position. While it's anecdotal, I've been riding at night for almost 20 years and have never had an accident. I'm well lit and visible.

J.

Neither of the two studies you provided demonstrate that enhanced visibility correlates with a reduction in accident rate.

The first analyses beliefs and attitudes, while second is an Intervention.

I'd like to see some real analysis.

Here are a few summarised links to actual infrastructure studies.

http://ianbrettcooper.blogspot.co.uk...e-studies.html

acidfast7 10-16-13 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spare_wheel (Post 16166084)
Cycling injury and death rates in North America are pathetically high in comparison to Northern Eruope because:

1. We tolerate sociopathic behavior by people who operate lethal heavy machinery.
2. Sport cycling injuries/deaths are combined with commuting injuries/deaths.

3. Getting a driving license in America is way too easy and requires almost no training/expense.

cobrabyte 10-16-13 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidfast7 (Post 16166098)
3. Getting a driving license in America is way too easy and requires almost no training/expense.

It is mind blowing how many people behnid the wheel are completely unaware of the right of way laws, cycling laws, proper lane change procedures, etc... and how little the infractions are actually enforced.

acidfast7 10-16-13 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobrabyte (Post 16166133)
It is mind blowing how many people behnid the wheel are completely unaware of the right of way laws, cycling laws, proper lane change procedures, etc... and how little the infractions are actually enforced.

I'm still shocked with how cheap it is in the US compared to most other places.

http://duisburgbunny.blogspot.co.uk/...s-license.html

the sci guy 10-16-13 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobrabyte (Post 16166133)
It is mind blowing how many people behnid the wheel are completely unaware of the right of way laws, cycling laws, proper lane change procedures, etc... and how little the infractions are actually enforced.

i agree with unaware, but i'd also toss out there "don't care"

i've lived in houston for just over a month, and i can easily say, even after living in DC for 3 years, people here are by far the absolute worst drivers. unsafe, fast, rude, and oblivious to whats going on around them.

alan s 10-16-13 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the sci guy (Post 16166210)
i agree with unaware, but i'd also toss out there "don't care"

i've lived in houston for just over a month, and i can easily say, even after living in DC for 3 years, people here are by far the absolute worst drivers. unsafe, fast, rude, and oblivious to whats going on around them.

Whoa there, cowboy. DC is ranked worst.

JohnJ80 10-16-13 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidfast7 (Post 16166096)
Neither of the two studies you provided demonstrate that enhanced visibility correlates with a reduction in accident rate.

The first analyses beliefs and attitudes, while second is an Intervention.

I'd like to see some real analysis.

Here are a few summarised links to actual infrastructure studies.

http://ianbrettcooper.blogspot.co.uk...e-studies.html


Got it. So we don't need lights and to be visible then?

J.

acidfast7 10-16-13 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 16166249)
Got it. So we don't need lights and to be visible then?

J.

No. Once again, you're spouting bollocks. I assume that you don't do that well on Verbal Reasoning examinations.

The evidence you provided doesn't support what you conclude ... did you just discover PubMed?

JohnJ80 10-16-13 03:31 PM

Well then what's the argument? Or is this just because you want to argue?

So cyclists needs lights at night and to be visible. We agree.

Are we done now? Or is there something else you want to beat into pulp just because?

J.

acidfast7 10-16-13 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 16166325)
Well then what's the argument? Or is this just because you want to argue?

So cyclists needs lights at night and to be visible. We agree.

Are we done now? Or is there something else you want to beat into pulp just because?

J.

What you posted as evidence undermines your credibility. If you said that at a university, I would leave the room under the premise that my time is being wasted.

Just save us all some time, OK?

JohnJ80 10-16-13 03:42 PM

Well then, what are you doing here - this whole social internet thing probably drives you nuts. I wasn't aware we were under university debate rules for forum posting. But it is pompous, I'll give you that. You must be the life of the party.

All that over no argument? And you're worried about time wasted? Wow.

J.

acidfast7 10-16-13 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 16166365)
Well then, what are you doing here - this whole social internet thing probably drives you nuts. I wasn't aware we were under university debate rules for forum posting. But it is pompous, I'll give you that. You must be the life of the party.

All that over no argument? And you're worried about time wasted? Wow.

J.

I'm always the life of the party. I'm taking my colleagues on a bike ride from Krakow to Budapest over 10 days with ample beer stops and camping.

I just don't like you, which means that you're ignored and I usually scroll over you ... but when I have a slight bit of time like now ... I click and try to determine if you're worth reading again.

dynaryder 10-16-13 03:49 PM

All this talk about lights and horns...

I have a different take. I think he should've mounted his brake lever up on the horn where he seems to spend most of his time. I don't know if he would've been able to stop,but I'm certain he would've slowed down more,which would have reduced the severity of the impact.

spare_wheel 10-16-13 05:04 PM

Quote:

but I'm certain he would've slowed down more,which would have reduced the severity of the impact.
definitely a good point.
i also think that occupying the middle or left side of the lane would have made him more visible and would have given him more time to react to the pull out.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:49 PM.