Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 23027874)
Again, no. The first diagram shows they don’t understand how they are supposed to work. The “not a substitute for a headlight” equally shows they don’t understand how they are supposed to work.
A similar scenario of a car at a stop sign with the cyclist a little further down the road still depending on reflectors but the cyclist passes in front of the car as it pulls out would still result in a collision since the car wouldn’t see the cyclist until the last moment. Similar scenarios with the same result. Side reflectors aren’t effective for collision avoidance because the detection angle is too narrow. All the more reason to reject incorrect explanations. One’s credibility is weakened by using an incorrect explanation. One person said he found them useful. Using an example that shows “you” don’t have any idea about them isn’t going to sway hem at all. This is a “it’s not perfect” argument. Nothing is perfect. The CSPC link is more convincing. |
Originally Posted by RCMoeur
(Post 23028059)
As I did note earlier, the side retroreflection on my bicycles is primarily for looks and not in any expectation of improved safety. The greater concern are the riders who think side reflectors are effective and in doing so choose not to use headlamps - which are required across the US by state statutes.
|
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 23028110)
This cite does not indicate what Forestor's objection to the CPSC's regulation on reflectors was, nor the outcome of the case.
Can you provide a summary? Lots of people instigate lawsuits for lots of reasons, some of them have a case, others are frivolous and just blowing smoke. Edited to add: Does this CPSC press release provide the outcome of Forestor's lawsuit on the subject of reflectors?"Office of Information and Public Affairs Washington, DC 20207 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 3, 1977 Release # 77-057 CPSC Announces Court Decision On Bike Regulation WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 3) -- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) today expressed satisfaction at a court decision which affirmed its authority to regulate bicycles under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). In a decision handed down June 1, 1977, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Commission's authority to issue design and performance standards that ban those products which do not meet the specifications was upheld, as was the Commission's action to regulate full-size bicycles as "articles intended for use by children." The Court also upheld specific provisions of the bicycle regulation which took effect last year. These include provisions on reflectors, stopping distance brake requirements, wheels and tires. Finding insufficient justification in the record, the Court order remanded several provisions of the bicycle regulation to the Commission for further consideration. These include brake pad material, handle bar width, pedal construction and protusions. The Commission's staff is currently studying the remanded sections and will make their recommendations to the Commission as soon as possible. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission protects the public from unreasonable risk of injury or death from 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury and for information on CPSC's fax-on-demand service, call CPSC's hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC's teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270. To order a press release through fax-on-demand, call (301) 504-0051 from the handset of your fax machine and enter the release number. Consumers can obtain this release and recall information or report product hazards to info cpsc.gov." |
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 23028276)
The diagram is perfectly understandable.
|
I like retroreflective tape. I put pieces in different places on the bike, shoes, and helmet to augment my lights.
I saw a neat trick for people who don't like to stick it to the tubes of the bike. First put a piece of electrical tape on, then stick the retroreflective tape to that. It removes easily and leaves no damage to the paint. |
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 23028288)
On of the results of the above court finding is the CSPC reflector study I linked to.
The new study was initiated after the CPSC published a report in June 1994, Bicycle Use and Hazard Patterns in the United States. This report was based on 1991 nationwide surveys that collected information on bicycle-related injuries and characteristics and use patterns of the general population of bicyclists. That study indicated the disproportionate number of night time bicycle accidents. The new study looked into potential improvements in reflectors and the current standard as far as nighttime detection and recognition of bicyclists and found that none of the tested reflector or light treatments significantly improved performance in cross traffic detection or recognition over the current CPSC standard and noted the difficulty in improving counter measures for the hazard of cross traffic collisions. It did not state that the CPSC spoke reflectors were "ineffective" or "useless" for detecting or recognizing cross traffic bicyclists and recommended no changes in the standard for side reflectors. Note that there was no discussion of an alleged cyclists' belief that side reflectors were a suitable replacement for front lights. |
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 23028283)
Noted (as is the spelling of your name…sorry:rolleyes:).
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 23028325)
You are working way too hard to call two things that are obviously different "the same thing". [name-calling redacted]
|
After much discussion I've come to conclusion that, since I don't ride unless the sun's out, they're not being replaced on the two bikes that don't have them. :)
|
And with that, this thread is closed.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.