BarracksSi

Oh, so that's why people don't want to use mirrors -- they don't want to appear "uncool" or "childish".

Right; whatever.

Bingo. I use my mirror wherever I have to share space with cars, and I can ignore it -- or even tuck it away under the visor -- wherever cars aren't a problem (or if I want to see if someone's drafting me, in which case I know to ride smoother and clearly signal my intentions & road hazards).

Halloween

I'm pretty sure these mirrors would restrict one's field of view somewhat...




These mirrors, not so much...



That's the Zefal 'SPY'... I use one. It obstructs about 4 square inches of the pavement about 5 feet in front and slightly to the right of where I'm riding. That little spot on the street isn't so interesting to me as the big chunk of steel that's coming up from behind.


One of these SUV backup camera systems mounted mid-handlebar would be just right, once I get my 12v setup going.

makeinu

I understand perfectly well. You're the one that doesn't understand. Here is an exercise for you:
Take a piece of card board, put it on your windshield, and cut out a peephole the size of your mirror. Now remove the mirror, sit on hood of your car with your head about six inches from the peephole, and look through the peephole. If you don't see the same thing through the peephole that you saw when looking through your mirror then you must be smoking PCP.

I wholeheartedly agree that a helmet mirror is like a car mirror. A car mirror is also like a peephole. The difference is that, in a car, you're looking through a peephole whether you use a mirror or not because the windows themselves have a limited field of view. On a bicycle you're only looking through a peephole if you use a mirror.

I'm glad you're at least willing to admit that using a mirror is a tradeoff. The fact that some people around here won't admit it is baffling. However, I, for one, am keenly interested in those 4 square inches of pavement 5 feet in front of me because I'd like to see that open manhole waiting to devour me, or that little girl darting out in front of me, etc.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

daredevil

As the train wreck continues, at least it's nice for the rest of us to know that makeinu is in the minority.

Halloween

I don't think you understand.

Look at this picture again:



See the mirror on the barend? That's the kind of mirror I have, and that's where it's mounted.

It's a 53mmx42mm oblong.

It's on the extreme end of my handlebar.

I'm positioned over the toptube of my bicycle when riding, not sitting behind that little mirror.


It doesn't obstruct my view of anything that I need to see any more than my handlebar does.

My fist around the handgrip obstructs my view of the road more than this little mirror does.

'Trade-off' don't enter into it.

If you ride with your face so close to the barends that they're preventing you from seeing manholes and little girls (personally, I depend on those open manholes to protect me from path-darting little girls), then you'd better start cutting some peepholes in your handlebars. Or get a unicycle.




E.T.A. I voted Yep, I use a bike-mounted mirror - it's VERY useful. in the poll.

Charlie Quatro

rsd212

Not jumping into the mirror vs non debate, just pointing out that the poll is incredibly biased, people who use mirrors are 1) more likely to see the thread (posted in advocacy), 2) more likely to respond, given that for the most part this is pro-vs-apathetic instead of pro-vs-con issue...non-mirror people for the most part dont care enough to reply

Sorry, carry on

Halloween

So, howcome the two extreme opposite answer choices nearly mirror each other, number-wise?

makeinu

As nice as following the majority off the edge of a cliff I guess. Train wreck indeed. I swear I've never seen so many people derive so much confidence from merely being in the majority as I do on bikeforums. I wonder if that says something about cyclists in general.

Do you understand the meaning of the words "view", "obstruction", and "tradeoff"? Your other comments and all your reasoning seem to indicate that you agree with me, but then, out of nowhere, you make contradictory statements using these words. It's as if you thought these words meant something other than what they really mean. Please clarify.

Obviously, because apathetic respondents are less likely to make a distinction between mirror types. So although the poll is biased such that nonmirror users less likely to respond, it's also biased such that those that do respond apathetically are more likely to agree with each other.

BarracksSi

You forgot that mirrors reflect, and peepholes don't.

Halloween

First, I made a joke with the photo of the mod scooter with 20 mirrors "restricting one's field of view somewhat".

It were a joke.

Then, below that, was a photo of a bicycle with the type of bicycle mirror that I use on it.

One little side point: That photo is from Zefal's website... it's intended to show the variety of mirror positionings possible with the 'SPY'. Multiple mirrors on one bike is only coincidental to the mod scooter's multiple mirrors. One instance was fashion, the other was product illustration. I'm sure Zefal would love everyone to buy five of their mirrors, but I only use one.

Below the bicycle with mirrors photo, there's another joke photo, of an SUV backup camera and dashboard monitor.

Then, you said:

I have no friggin' idea how you came to interpret my post as saying there was some kind of 'tradeoff' (your word) where bike mirrors are concerned. I don't know why you thought that I was agreeing with you... I wasn't.

Here's a little visual experiment that doesn't require cardboard peepholes or cars...

Got a penlight, a micro MiniMag, an LED blinkie? Sit on your bike, and turn on your flashlight, and hold in on your barend, and look at the flashlight. Aim the flashlight so that it points to the spot on the ground that you would see were your barend not blocking your view. That spot of light does not fall in the path of your front tire at all, nor anywhere near it, does it? It's over in the other lane... at your 2 o'clock.

The point is: I said that my little mirror doesn't block my view of anything that I need to see, and it enables me to see motorized vehicles that are approaching me from behind.



That last little bit was a crack suggesting that you perhaps find mirrors 'distracting' because you're vain. That was a joke, too. I don't know if you're actually vain. Maybe you hate mirrors because you're a vampire, and you can't see yourself in mirrors at all.


I actually do know what the words "view", "obstruction", and "tradeoff" mean. I find it interesting that you've accused others of poor reading comprehension skills several times in this thread... maybe you should look in the mirror.





One more thing.

I object to the term 'trainwreck' in a bicycling forum thread. It should be 'peloton pileup', or some such term relative to 2-wheeled conveyances that don't run on rails.


(edited to fix split infinitive)

makeinu

I didn't forget. The fact that mirrors change the direction in which the light is propagating has absolutely nothing to do with the size of their field of view. That's precisely why they are equivalent to looking through a peephole from a different perspective.

makeinu

I think the point is that anything whose supposed benefit requires you to assume that you don't need to see is obviously inferior in terms of situational awareness.

You should never assume that you don't need to see anything. On the road, you need to do all in your power to see everything.

Ha, I can certainly agree with that.

Halloween

That's why I wear prescription eyeglasses, and use a mirror on my bike at all times.

BarracksSi

You're just trolling.

You came up with your little demonstration with cardboard cutouts and said that looking into a bike mirror is like looking through a hole in some cardboard.

What you should have done was look though that cutout "peephole" at the car mirror and noticed that it didn't reduce your rearward field of vision at all.

You flunked geometry class, didn't you? You couldn't figure out the prepackaged optics activities in middle school science class, could you?

"The fact that mirrors change the direction in which the light is propagating has absolutely nothing to do with the size of their field of view."... that's either a bald-faced lie or an incredible display of ignorance.

Do we have to hold your hand and illustrate your ineptitude with some pictures? Do we have to add Dick & Jane like they had in kindergarten reading books?

BarracksSi

It only took me about ten minutes to whip this up --

All the angles match appropriately; you can check them with a protractor if you want.

The small bike mirror does not block any more than the larger car mirror, yet its view to the rear is just about as big.

I still don't understand that "peephole" bull****.

BarracksSi

You amaze me. Halloween had the best response:

daredevil

The problem is that is not nearly discriptive enough for his drivel.

wheel

Brian Ratliff

Not taking sides here (for the record, I do not use a mirror), but a helmet mirror is situated at or above eye level and the car mirror is situated at shoulder or chest level; hence one blocks a fair amount of the useful field of vision, and the other does not - it merely blocks your view of the ground next to your car.

A side note: My car is a Japanese car and has a center rearview mirror that is more suitable for people who are shorter in stature than myself (I'm 5' 11", which, I think, is quite a bit taller than your average Japanese person). This is problematic (though I've learned to work around it), because around curves to the right, the mirror is perfectly positioned to block the view I have of the road around the bend. I have to move my head to see around it and has contributed to some slight scares as cars suddenly appear from behind the mirror that I didn't know were there.

makeinu

Obviously, you're the one that flunked optics and geometry.

Get any optics textbook (because I know you don't have one) and I guarantee that the first chapter will show you that the equations for a lens are the same as those for a mirror. In the absence of geometrical distortion, these correspond to a peephole and a straight mirror.

You don't need childish diagrams to prove this. It's a mathematical fact. Of course, with your knowledge of geometry you probably don't know the difference, but I assure you that you can draw all the diagrams you like and it will never change the fact that an undistorted mirror is equivalent to a peephole.

How many times do I have to say, "The small bike mirror does not block any more than the large car mirror"? I am not, nor was I ever, arguing that the small bike mirror blocks more than the larger car mirror. You don't need a diagram to see that.

The point is that they are both equal to an equivalent peephole with the viewer standing on the other side. You want to understand the peephole bull****? Then get a book on optics instead of projecting your ignorance onto me.

By the way, your diagram illustrates rather nicely the portion of your field of view that is lost by using a bike mirror. Simply replace the words "car mirror" with "little girl" and the danger is obvious.

BarracksSi

Jeezus.

I'm done. There's no use arguing anything with an idiot.

I-Like-To-Bike

Very nice, but mine is bigger and longer than yours. Size does count!

wheel

I just saw that at the library. Yea but that is concave Ha! Plus it is bigger. want the original photo

Chris516

I haven't found a mirror that would fit on my 'roadie', without problems. Additionally, I don't use them because, they are too distracting for me. Instead, I just turn my head a little so, I can look with my peripheral vision.

Christopher