Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Would a Blinkie Have Saved This Guy?

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Would a Blinkie Have Saved This Guy?

Old 03-04-13, 11:39 PM
  #51  
dynodonn 
Out on Parole
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,466
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked 46 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
It's worse than that. Here's my photo that I included in my letter to CalTrans in 2008. It is taken in exactly the location in which the guy was hit:



Almost a premonition of what was to come.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 03-05-13, 02:09 AM
  #52  
wsbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
The function lights & hi-viz used by vulnerable road users serve, is far greater than simply making it easier for drivers to see them...depending on many factors, which can vary widely, lights, hi-viz and reflectivity, can be the critical difference that make it possible for drivers to see vulnerable road users.
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Driving a speed that is suitable for conditions and keeping your eyes on the road is what makes it possible for drivers to see vulnerable road users...
That's not entirely true. Detection of vulnerable road users by people that drive depends in part on vulnerable road users exercising due care by evaluating conditions in which they're riding, how those conditions may affect the ability of all driver's...including both those that are driving at a speed that is suitable for conditions and keeping they're eyes on the road, and those that aren't...and then equipping themselves and their bikes as best they can to maximize opportunity for people driving to see them enough in advance to afford them safe distance in passing.

Originally Posted by smasha View Post
driving with ones eyes open is what makes it possible to see other road users

seriously, though, what you're saying is generally correct at night. what i was getting at is generally correct at other times (daylight, dusk, inclement weather).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdmB0QeL9Ck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHQHcLWQewA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oal-vBFmnRk
Sorry...videos don't really work for me. Maybe you're referring to the camouflage effect. Seems as though someone has mentioned that earlier in this thread, or maybe on the 'ninja' thread, about people riding dressed in dark clothes, equipped without lights or reflectors. As vulnerable road users traveling the road amongst motor vehicles, people have a need to evaluate whatever range of conditions exist...dark, inclement weather, cloud, dusk, sun glare, deep shadows...and be prepared to counter those conditions as best they can.

Even having done everything they can reasonably do to have people driving be able to see them, some people riding will likely still be hit. That this is so, is frustrating, but I have yet to hear practical ideas that could realistically change the situation. For now, the best opportunities to increase the chances they will be seen, lie with cyclists themselves.
wsbob is offline  
Old 03-05-13, 05:24 AM
  #53  
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 1,626 Times in 1,168 Posts
that's ridiculous. What needs to be changed, if anything, is the notion that you can drive a vehicle without looking out the front window. What we know is that if people regularly drive without looking out the front window they crash. It's criminal, and needs to stop
unterhausen is offline  
Old 03-05-13, 06:21 AM
  #54  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
wsbob suggestions for proactive cyclist safety measures are invaluable, but errs with the suggestion bicyclists are obligated under the rules of fair use of the roads to take precautions against UN-reasonable road use by others.

Originally Posted by wsbob
depends in part on vulnerable road users exercising due care by evaluating conditions in which they're riding, how those conditions may affect the ability of all driver's...including both those that are driving at a speed that is suitable for conditions and keeping they're eyes on the road, and those that aren't..
EVERY vehicle operator has the duty to operate with due care against other reasonably expected actions, not unreasonable ones. Drivers are not expected to exercise due care against racers blowing stoplights at 100 miles per hour, for example.

The duty to not run into vehicles in front of them on a road fundamentally lies with the driver doing the overtaking, not the operator of the vehicle being overtaken. Vehicle operators drive with the very well-established duties to ALWAYS

-exercise due care;
-consider other road users' reasonable expectations of fair use;
-and to unfailingly "maintain a proper lookout"

while operating a vehicle on public highways.


A shame that only in america could 'designated bike route' have a one foot usable shoulder along a curvy mountainous freight hauling highway. Reprehensible.

RIP fellow rider.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-05-13 at 08:18 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 02:01 PM
  #55  
wsbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
that's ridiculous. What needs to be changed, if anything, is the notion that you can drive a vehicle without looking out the front window. What we know is that if people regularly drive without looking out the front window they crash. It's criminal, and needs to stop
I can't be sure whether you're saying people driving have to be looking out the front window at all times. Hopefully you find it acceptable for them to look in the rear view mirror, side view mirrors, and out the side windows as well, as needed, to survey traffic around them. People aren't robots. They rarely are capable of the type of incessant concentration that robots are that would allow them to keep eyes fixated anywhere from minutes to hours in one direction unwaveringly, beyond the interior of the motor vehicle they're riding in. Which isn't to say that excessive diverting of eyes and attention to the vast range of distractions that can be present within and without motor vehicles, attention to which isn't necessary to the responsibility of actually operating a motor vehicle, is acceptable for safe operation of motor vehicles, especially where vulnerable road users may be present.

Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
wsbob suggestions for proactive cyclist safety measures are invaluable, but errs with the suggestion bicyclists are obligated under the rules of fair use of the roads to take precautions against UN-reasonable road use by others.

"...depends in part on vulnerable road users exercising due care by evaluating conditions in which they're riding, how those conditions may affect the ability of all driver's...including both those that are driving at a speed that is suitable for conditions and keeping they're eyes on the road, and those that aren't. ..." wsbob


EVERY vehicle operator has the duty to operate with due care against other reasonably expected actions, not unreasonable ones. Drivers are not expected to exercise due care against racers blowing stoplights at 100 miles per hour, for example.

The duty to not run into vehicles in front of them on a road fundamentally lies with the driver doing the overtaking, not the operator of the vehicle being overtaken. Vehicle operators drive with the very well-established duties to ALWAYS

-exercise due care;
-consider other road users' reasonable expectations of fair use;
-and to unfailingly "maintain a proper lookout"

while operating a vehicle on public highways.


A shame that only in america could 'designated bike route' have a one foot usable shoulder along a curvy mountainous freight hauling highway. Reprehensible.

RIP fellow rider.
Maybe you're thinking 'due care' strictly according to legal use in laws; for issuing citations, determining fault, and so on. It was both the legal aspect and the survival of vulnerable road users in mind that I wrote what I did. There are limits of course to what someone on foot or riding a bike can do to protect themselves against motor vehicles being driven by people badly, but to the extent that they value their own survival, I think it's fair to say that people as vulnerable road users do have to guard against both reasonable and unreasonable actions on the part of other road users, especially those driving motor vehicles.

Last edited by wsbob; 03-06-13 at 02:05 PM.
wsbob is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 02:12 PM
  #56  
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 1,626 Times in 1,168 Posts
Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
I can't be sure whether you're saying people driving have to be looking out the front window at all times. Hopefully you find it acceptable for them to look in the rear view mirror, side view mirrors, and out the side windows as well, as needed, to survey traffic around them.

I hope I'm not giving you a driving lesson to point out that looking out the front window is far more important than whatever you can see in your mirrors when you are traveling in a forward direction. I can look in my mirrors and still see out the front window, particularly since I have been scanning in front of me to know if there is anything that might become a hazard in my path. The suspected murderer in this incident clearly did not take that simple precaution. And since we have seen the scene of this crime we know that there was almost no reason for him not to be looking in front of him anyway. No cross traffic, no intersections.
unterhausen is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 03:07 PM
  #57  
ItsJustMe
Seńior Member
 
ItsJustMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 13,749

Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
I will take issue with one thing you said. You called the Planet bike SuperFlash a "bright blinkie" visible in daylight. By current standards the Superflash is really quite dim, and there's absolutely no way that it's even vaguely visible in daylight.

Daylight visible starts at perhaps the Knog Blinder series and the Cygolite Hotshot, and perhaps the PDW DangerZone. But it's not super attention grabbing until you get into Dinotte territory and it's as bright as a car brake light.

I run a MagicShine MJ818 on flash mode in the daylight. It's pretty visible. Turning on a SuperFlash in the daylight is just wasting batteries.

Here's some video.
https://youtu.be/pANmnBsHTP0

In daylight, I think an ANSI vest is as good as anything else.
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
ItsJustMe is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 05:37 PM
  #58  
Dunbar
Senior Member
 
Dunbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,079

Bikes: Roubaix SL4 Expert , Cervelo S2

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I agree, a PBSF is not bright enough to be seen in direct sunlight unless the conditions are ideal.
Dunbar is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 10:06 PM
  #59  
dynodonn 
Out on Parole
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,466
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked 46 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post

........No cross traffic, no intersections.
.......and a "Begin Freeway" sign just a quarter mile back. Might as well be a "smash your throttle to the floor" sign for many motorists.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 01:23 AM
  #60  
wsbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]I hope I'm not giving you a driving lesson to point out that looking out the front window is far more important than whatever you can see in your mirrors when you are traveling in a forward direction. I can look in my mirrors and still see out the front window, particularly since I have been scanning in front of me to know if there is anything that might become a hazard in my path. The suspected murderer in this incident clearly did not take that simple precaution. And since we have seen the scene of this crime we know that there was almost no reason for him not to be looking in front of him anyway. No cross traffic, no intersections.

When a person driving looks in their side mirrors, they are not looking out the front window per se. Assuming the driver's head is still generally facing straight ahead when looking in side mirrors, their peripheral vision can allow awareness of the view of the road beyond the front window, but I would say that even in that state, most people's concentration shifts from one point to another across points in their field of view that include the side view mirrors and the rear view mirror. It's not directed exclusively to the road straight ahead out the front window.

And of course, most people driving, at various points for a wide range of reasons, likely are inclined to turn their head a range of degrees to either side from straight ahead, even on long stretches of roads without cross traffic or intersections. Maybe in this respect, you're driving style is different than that of most other people, with you unfailingly keeping your head and eyes directed straight ahead down the road at all times.


I just re-checked the OP's initial post: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...Saved-This-Guy. A statement he makes in that post is "...According to the news, the driver veered off the road. The driver was not impaired, and it was not intentional. ...".
Nobody seems to have posted links to news stories about this collision. It's sparse on info, but here's one: https://www.times-standard.com/ci_226...ce=most_viewed

Another in The Journal, of Humboldt County: https://www.northcoastjournal.com/blo...-brother-says/ Again, very few details about the collision.

And here's a link to the memorial written for the McKinleyville Press: https://mckinleyvillepress.com/john-mello-lived-to-ride/

I believe one of the above articles mentions briefly that an investigation of the collision was ongoing at the time the article was posted. It would seem that very little actual information about exactly why this collision occurred is yet known. The person driving reportedly wasn't drunk. There apparently has been no indication of intent on the part of the driver, to kill the cyclist. Nevertheless, to this thread, in describing this person, various people have used such phrases as 'suspected murderer', as you yourself have done, lacking any indication whatsoever that the person driving is suspected of intending to harm the person riding. I suppose, since nobody seems to be taking steps to stop them, it's effectively the right of people to make these types of statements in posting to this thread, but it's doubtful doing so will help to understand why these types of collisions occur, or to help arrive upon realistic measures that might be taken to reduce their occurrence in future.
wsbob is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 01:40 PM
  #61  
TromboneAl
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Far, Far Northern California
Posts: 2,873

Bikes: 1997 Specialized M2Pro

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe View Post
I will take issue with one thing you said. You called the Planet bike SuperFlash a "bright blinkie" visible in daylight. By current standards the Superflash is really quite dim, and there's absolutely no way that it's even vaguely visible in daylight.
You've opened my eyes on this, and I'm going to get cygolite as soon as I'm sure I can mount it in an effective way.

But remember that "daylight" can refer to anything from full equator sun to clouds to shade. My wife and I both have PBSFs, and around here it's usually quite attention-getting. I definitely see it even in direct sunlight, but when it's cloudy or foresty, it does a good job.

TromboneAl is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 01:55 PM
  #62  
Booger1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gaseous Cloud around Uranus
Posts: 3,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 3 Posts
This is sad....

If it's your day,nothing you or your bike wears will prevent bad things......It up to the drivers of the 4000 lbs gasoline powered battering rams to pay attention to the road.....When your in public,walking,jogging,driving,riding,people need to pay attention......not listen to the radio,talk on the phone,read a book,look at the newspaper,put on makeup,slap their kids,stare at the nav map,check email...ect.ect.

Traveling around in public is not a good place to practice your multi-tasking skills.Takes both sides of your brain to drive and ride,if one side is busy,bad things happen.

Humans think they can multitask....Most can't.The day you can paint a portrait with one hand and put a puzzle together with the other,at the same time...your ready.

Just being in public can be a dangerous thing,lots of things can hurt ya,we're soft and gooey.....

I'm sure the first thing out of the drivers mouth was,I didn't see um.If that isn't a GIANT red flag,I don't know what is.How can you NOT see a human and bicycle in front of your car if your paying attention.You can see that little stop sign can't you? You can see that little tiny email on your phone?

Bottom line,if your not paying attention or distracted,there are alot of things you won't see.

Last edited by Booger1; 03-07-13 at 02:32 PM.
Booger1 is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 03:04 PM
  #63  
smasha
Vegan on a bicycle
 
smasha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: wellington NZ (via NJ & NC)
Posts: 1,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
You've opened my eyes on this, and I'm going to get cygolite as soon as I'm sure I can mount it in an effective way.
Putting a PBSF clip on a Cygolite Hotshot
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...shot+pbsf+clip

Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
But remember that "daylight" can refer to anything from full equator sun to clouds to shade. My wife and I both have PBSFs, and around here it's usually quite attention-getting. I definitely see it even in direct sunlight, but when it's cloudy or foresty, it does a good job.
being able to see a light is meaningless. a light should draw attention from those that are not looking for it, or it's kind of pointless.

this is part of the difference between being "visible" and being "conspicuous".
smasha is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 04:42 PM
  #64  
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 1,626 Times in 1,168 Posts
Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
I believe one of the above articles mentions briefly that an investigation of the collision was ongoing at the time the article was posted. It would seem that very little actual information about exactly why this collision occurred is yet known. The person driving reportedly wasn't drunk. There apparently has been no indication of intent on the part of the driver, to kill the cyclist. Nevertheless, to this thread, in describing this person, various people have used such phrases as 'suspected murderer', as you yourself have done, lacking any indication whatsoever that the person driving is suspected of intending to harm the person riding. I suppose, since nobody seems to be taking steps to stop them, it's effectively the right of people to make these types of statements in posting to this thread, but it's doubtful doing so will help to understand why these types of collisions occur, or to help arrive upon realistic measures that might be taken to reduce their occurrence in future.
you are awfully concerned about the feelings of this driver, or is it everyone that drives irresponsibly? "Suspected murderer" is a little extreme, but they found out he wasn't drunk or on drugs and, oh, well, another dead person, family torn apart, no big deal. However, let's be careful not hurt anyone's feelings with a little hyperbole.
I think a little extremism and advocacy is all that is going to reverse the spreading notion that drivers are barely in control of their cars, are not aware of their surroundings, and it's too difficult to ask them to do this. I am in favor of a strict liability approach to accidents like this. Run over someone and it's lights out, you're charged. Similar to DUI. You can still defend yourself, but the charges are automatic. That's the only thing that has any chance of convincing people to take their responsibilities seriously. The sociopathic impulse to excuse such carelessness is too widespread.
unterhausen is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 07:55 PM
  #65  
wsbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Comment below, excerpted:

Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
...


I believe one of the above articles mentions briefly that an investigation of the collision was ongoing at the time the article was posted. It would seem that very little actual information about exactly why this collision occurred is yet known. The person driving reportedly wasn't drunk. There apparently has been no indication of intent on the part of the driver, to kill the cyclist. Nevertheless, to this thread, in describing this person, various people have used such phrases as 'suspected murderer', as you yourself have done, lacking any indication whatsoever that the person driving is suspected of intending to harm the person riding. I suppose, since nobody seems to be taking steps to stop them, it's effectively the right of people to make these types of statements in posting to this thread, but it's doubtful doing so will help to understand why these types of collisions occur, or to help arrive upon realistic measures that might be taken to reduce their occurrence in future.
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
you are awfully concerned about the feelings of this driver, or is it everyone that drives irresponsibly? "Suspected murderer" is a little extreme, but they found out he wasn't drunk or on drugs and, oh, well, another dead person, family torn apart, no big deal. However, let's be careful not hurt anyone's feelings with a little hyperbole.
I think a little extremism and advocacy is all that is going to reverse the spreading notion that drivers are barely in control of their cars, are not aware of their surroundings, and it's too difficult to ask them to do this. I am in favor of a strict liability approach to accidents like this. Run over someone and it's lights out, you're charged. Similar to DUI. You can still defend yourself, but the charges are automatic. That's the only thing that has any chance of convincing people to take their responsibilities seriously. The sociopathic impulse to excuse such carelessness is too widespread.

About the driver in this collision...I don't have any particular feelings or thoughts about him personally or his driving that may have factored into this collision having occurred. It's hard to know very well what to think about those things when very little has been reported about them. That he was a young forest service worker, and wasn't intoxicated, is about all that's been reported about him. The fact is, except for the actual moment in which he reportedly allowed the motor vehicle he was driving to collide with the person on the bike, virtually nothing has been reported about how this person was driving.

That very limited amount of information about a person driving a motor vehicle and involved in a collision with a fatality as a result, certainly isn't enough to charge a person with murder, though there may be lesser crimes that may apply. Rash, emotion charged conclusions drawn about collisions involving motor vehicles and vulnerable road users do not help towards understanding better, why these types of collisions happen, and what can realistically be done to reduce the rate at which they occur.

From an article which I'll provide a link to, as I understand it, Strict Liability, is a responsibility approach to covering victims expenses and injuries sustained during collisions, rather than a fault approach. For individuals involved in a collision, it does not sound as though being charged with a crime or even cited for a violation is a condition of 'strict liability' being brought into effect. Strict Liability simply assigns proportionate responsibility for the consequences of collision to the person whose vehicle is capable of causing the greater damage. You've probably read this article, others reading may not have: https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com...afety-not.html
wsbob is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 08:06 PM
  #66  
wsbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
You've opened my eyes on this, and I'm going to get cygolite as soon as I'm sure I can mount it in an effective way.

But remember that "daylight" can refer to anything from full equator sun to clouds to shade. My wife and I both have PBSFs, and around here it's usually quite attention-getting. I definitely see it even in direct sunlight, but when it's cloudy or foresty, it does a good job.


Interesting picture...Humboldt County redwoods...deep shade with dappled sunlight. I was curious whether the picture was taken from within a motor vehicle or bike with the headlights on, because it looks like something is making reflectors on the pedals, and the turtle on the road, light up.
wsbob is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 09:17 PM
  #67  
KD5NRH
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris516 View Post
I had on my bright yellow biking jacket, with a PB Super Flash on my back. While I was stopped in the 'suicide lane'(lane between two lanes going each direction), waiting to merge into the southbound traffic to make a right turn, I was rear-ended. The guy said he didn't see me. I didn't entirely believe that, but the police bought it.
I've heard that excuse used by people who ran into trains, police cars and fire trucks before. If you can get your bike to be more obvious than a Fort Worth FD truck parked with full lights running in daylight, I want to know how.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 11:33 PM
  #68  
dynodonn 
Out on Parole
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,466
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked 46 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by KD5NRH View Post
I've heard that excuse used by people who ran into trains, police cars and fire trucks before. If you can get your bike to be more obvious than a Fort Worth FD truck parked with full lights running in daylight, I want to know how.
I can understand why a cyclist wearing a bright yellow jacket with a PBSF on their back being rear ended, at night the yellow jacket turns brown under sodium vapor lights, the PBSF has a highly focused beam, and placed on someone's back, it's generally pointed at anything but rear approaching motorists.

When I ran PBSFs, I took the time to solidly mount it somewhere on the rear portion of the bike's frame, and align the beam in order to maximize it's ability to be seen by rear approaching motorists.
dynodonn is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Akth8r
Commuting
55
11-14-16 12:22 PM
Matariki
Advocacy & Safety
5
09-26-13 10:00 PM
jaredcasper
Northern California
5
09-01-11 09:56 AM
UptownJoe60640
Advocacy & Safety
255
05-18-11 08:20 PM
kimber_94806
Commuting
105
12-04-10 10:13 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.