I am not trying to minimize the risk of cycling, both on and off road, but, the reality is that no matter what one is doing, whether doing it 100% right or not, there is risk of being badly injured or killed. We can only control what is in our control, and I have come to believe that is not a whole lot. It's dangerous getting out of bed in the morning. I love riding bikes, particularly road cycling. I accept the risk because of that. Not doing it is not a good option for me. I do what I can to minimize the risk. What's worse, getting killed doing something you love to do, or getting killed doing something you dislike doing? I guess it really does not matter, but I think given an option, I prefer going out with a smile on my face. At the end of a ride, cycling ALWAYS makes me smile.
|
You can buy all the right gadgets and gizmos and still lose your life.
|
Originally Posted by Wildwood
(Post 22155839)
You can buy all the right gadgets and gizmos and still lose your life.
|
just a play on the title of thread.
life has few guarantees (death&taxes). For the rest you are at the roulette wheel of living. Right clothing, flashing lights, cameras, collision electronics, auto text after crash, etc. The distracted driver sees nothing outside their vehicle. "You can do everything right and still lose your life" |
Originally Posted by Wildwood
(Post 22155899)
Right clothing, flashing lights, cameras, collision electronics, auto text after crash, etc.
The distracted driver sees nothing outside their vehicle. Life may be a lottery, but you can weight the dice in your favour if you so choose. |
Originally Posted by Wildwood
(Post 22155899)
just a play on the title of thread.
You can everything right, and still lose your life |
I thought home caning went out a century ago. Except in Indonesia and Malaysia.
|
Counting on weighting the dice in a game of random chance sounds a fool's wish. Or a technology addiction of faith.
But having worked at Intel Corp in the 70's, I'm a believer in technology. Buy on! |
Originally Posted by PeteHski
(Post 22155505)
It does actually give you a good clue. It alerts you more aggressively if the approaching vehicle doesn’t slow down or is closing very fast. Whenever I get that alert I immediately look over my shoulder and prepare to pull off the road if necessary. There is enough time as the warning is early. Usually you can see by the changing speed of the approaching “dot” whether or not the driver has at least seen you in the road.
It gives you a LOT more awareness of what is travelling approx 10 seconds behind you and how fast it is approaching. |
Originally Posted by Wildwood
(Post 22156109)
Counting on weighting the dice in a game of random chance sounds a fool's wish. Or a technology addiction of faith.
But having worked at Intel Corp in the 70's, I'm a believer in technology. Buy on! |
Originally Posted by SoSmellyAir
(Post 22156193)
In my area most of the main roads have a 50 mph speed limit. Taking smaller roads means not having a bike lane and/or crossing more intersections. If someone was driving at about that speed would the Varia detect that as a high speed approach? I ask because if almost every car triggers a warning, my brain would most likely learn to ignore that. Also, I don't think speeding is the issue; the issue is distracted driving.
It’s value is when you are riding in very light rural traffic. Typically I’m being passed maybe only once or twice in a 5 min period so I’m fully aware of any vehicle approaching and it’s relative speed. The radar bleeps when it first picks up a vehicle and then I can monitor its “dot” on approach and confirm it is actually slowing down for me. But if the dot is racing toward me I will get the red alert warning and that’s when I really do pay serious attention to what is bearing down on me! If it looks like an idiot and not moving over I will unclip and pull off the road until it passes, but that’s thankfully a very rare situation. Usually it’s more a case of just adjusting my line and making sure I don’t swerve outward just as a vehicle is about to pass. I also never try to reach for my bottle or snacks when there is a vehicle on approach. Simple stuff like that which can make all the difference. |
Originally Posted by PeteHski
(Post 22156235)
That’s a good point. Most roads I ride on have a 60 mph limit, but are quite narrow with lots of bends. So normally a vehicle approaching from behind would need to slow down before pulling out to pass me. If they don’t slow down then I normally get the more aggressive warning. But I’m not sure what the speed criteria actually is for the higher warning level. If you are riding on busy roads with a lot of constant traffic then it would probably not be worth having a Varia. Even if they don’t trigger the full warning, every single vehicle that passes you will still make it beep. So if it’s just a constant stream of traffic then there isn’t much point.
It’s value is when you are riding in very light rural traffic. Typically I’m being passed maybe only once or twice in a 5 min period so I’m fully aware of any vehicle approaching and it’s relative speed. The radar bleeps when it first picks up a vehicle and then I can monitor its “dot” on approach and confirm it is actually slowing down for me. But if the dot is racing toward me I will get the red alert warning and that’s when I really do pay serious attention to what is bearing down on me! If it looks like an idiot and not moving over I will unclip and pull off the road until it passes, but that’s thankfully a very rare situation. Usually it’s more a case of just adjusting my line and making sure I don’t swerve outward just as a vehicle is about to pass. I also never try to reach for my bottle or snacks when there is a vehicle on approach. Simple stuff like that which can make all the difference. |
I’ve had my Varia for almost a year now and it is an awesome situational awareness tool. It’s not perfect, there are circumstances when it won’t alert when a car is behind me specifically when it’s matching my speed. If it tells me a car is behind me than a car is behind me. If it doesn’t show a car I instinctively know to check when necessary, sometimes I see a car slowly waiting for the moment to pass and undetected by my Varia.
|
The other big advantage of the radar unit on busy roads is it shows not only if the lane is clear to take (to execute left hand turns) but how far apart the vehicles are spaced. I've learned what spacing is sufficient to move into the row of cars and signal an upcoming turn.
|
Originally Posted by Charliekeet
(Post 22154337)
Very sad, and enraging, actually.
The displayed link https://youtu.be/XrTbAPq2Xu8 you have there is for the story on YouTube - but the URL when you click it you have going to a FoxNews story about it, and brother, let me just say that the comments below that story are reprehensible. :mad: I do occasionally see similarly hostile and threatening comments under local news on social media. It may be only 1% of drivers who come across as borderline psychopaths just itching for an excuse to use their vehicles to murder cyclists and pedestrians. But that's still thousands of ticking time bombs behind the wheels throughout our city. If people posted similar threats and schadenfreude in other contexts -- crime news, any other local issues -- they'd be warned, suspended or banned from the Facebook groups or FB altogether. But FB mods and admins have no problems with anti-social people posting threats against cyclists and pedestrians. The worst part is that some of them are also cyclists. Riding a bike doesn't exempt people from anti-social psychopathy. This week Phil Gaimon posted a rant on FB about recent truck and SUV designs with huge, blocky, squared off hoods and fenders that block the view of people and objects below the driver's sightlines. He was just echoing warnings from automotive and safety industry pundits. Some pundits are calling for a return to sloping hoods on big trucks, vans and SUVs, to improve sightlines. Some guy posted multiple trolling responses to other commenters -- calling them cowards, or unAmerican for complaining about negligent drivers, or... it wasn't really clear what his point was. Between the odd phrasing and misspellings it seemed like drunk posting, or worse. Curious, I glanced at his FB page. He's a serious cyclist, and promoting his new business as an insurance broker. But the guy seems to have a serious disconnect not only about empathy for other cyclists, but a total lack of regard for his personal and business reputation. Again, that's a minority of the self-identifying cyclist population. But, still, if only 1% of cyclists share his irreconcilable views, that's a heckuva lotta utterly clueless cyclists who think they're immune to negligent drivers. |
Originally Posted by Wildwood
(Post 22155839)
You can buy all the right gadgets and gizmos and still lose your life.
|
I got a Varia a few months back, and I really like it. The times when it's most useful:
|
|
Originally Posted by canklecat
(Post 22156456)
I don't read comments under stories/videos about cyclists and pedestrians being killed by negligent drivers. It would kill my last shred of hope for humanity.
I do occasionally see similarly hostile and threatening comments under local news on social media. It may be only 1% of drivers who come across as borderline psychopaths just itching for an excuse to use their vehicles to murder cyclists and pedestrians. But that's still thousands of ticking time bombs behind the wheels throughout our city. If people posted similar threats and schadenfreude in other contexts -- crime news, any other local issues -- they'd be warned, suspended or banned from the Facebook groups or FB altogether. But FB mods and admins have no problems with anti-social people posting threats against cyclists and pedestrians. The worst part is that some of them are also cyclists. Riding a bike doesn't exempt people from anti-social psychopathy. This week Phil Gaimon posted a rant on FB about recent truck and SUV designs with huge, blocky, squared off hoods and fenders that block the view of people and objects below the driver's sightlines. He was just echoing warnings from automotive and safety industry pundits. Some pundits are calling for a return to sloping hoods on big trucks, vans and SUVs, to improve sightlines. Some guy posted multiple trolling responses to other commenters -- calling them cowards, or unAmerican for complaining about negligent drivers, or... it wasn't really clear what his point was. Between the odd phrasing and misspellings it seemed like drunk posting, or worse. Curious, I glanced at his FB page. He's a serious cyclist, and promoting his new business as an insurance broker. But the guy seems to have a serious disconnect not only about empathy for other cyclists, but a total lack of regard for his personal and business reputation. Again, that's a minority of the self-identifying cyclist population. But, still, if only 1% of cyclists share his irreconcilable views, that's a heckuva lotta utterly clueless cyclists who think they're immune to negligent drivers. Ironically, the higher hood and cowl lines on even normal-sized cars (not just trucks) is partly due to pedestrian safety standards! It was determined that having additional empty space for deflection between the metal in the hood/front edge of the car and the harder engine block is helpful if a ped. is hit and rolls or flies up and lands down on the hood. Hence no low, aero wedge-shaped front ends on regular cars for like the last 15 years. |
I know several local county commissioners and elected state officials that view road-biking as a public nuisance at least in several areas.
Their argument is that (X) number of cyclists have been involved in accidents with vehicles, and it would be in the public's best interest to limit and prohibit bicycle traffic on those roads. Their argument is that Mopeds are prohibited from travelling on those roads, and the typical cyclist cannot maintain the 30mph pace of a Moped, and that bicycle riders have no business riding roads with such a high posted speed limit, and even faster average actual vehicle traffic flow speed rate. They contend that you cannot expect "perfect" attention and "perfect" driving and accidents will happen and while such an accident between motor vehicles likely results in 73% + of simply minor accidents where all passengers survive and without very serious injuries, but they are also quick to point out that a 175 pound human on a 30 pound bicycle is no match for a 3000 pound automobile and carnage results as there is a 90% + chance that the cyclist will be fatally injured or be critically injured and perhaps survive with a life-changing serious disabilty. Their assertion is not wrong. They have years of traffic accident data on those roads as well as the frequency of time of day, time of year, etc. They also cite the fact that thousands of motor vehicles on average travel those roadways over any eight hour period, yet typically you never have as much as fifty cyclists during any eight hour stretch, unless its a group ride pack, out for a ride on that particular day. Still, they cite the number of cyclists and motor vehicle accidents and further state that those people did not need to be riding on that road, as they should know better than that, those people aren't commuters that are relying on the bicycle as their sole means of transportation, they are just hobby enthusiasts without common sense to know any better, although they the cyclists tend to be on average, educated with adequate disposable income to own such road bikes, they display a thorough lack of common sense in choosing to ride on these particular highly traveled high speed roadways. I am simply saying that is the prevailing attitude towards mixing cycling with automobile traffic on certain specific roadways. Realistically, I do not believe that you can change that prevailing attitude. The general prevailing attitude is something like, well motor-cycle riders assume a greater risk of death by choosing to drive a 2 wheel or 3 wheeled motorcycle which offers the rider essentially zero crash protection in the event of an accident, and bicycle riders have absolutely no business mixing with motor vehicle traffic on those particular roadways. They cannot keep pace with traffic flow. They do not have uniform side marker, and lighting requirements, or uniform rear view mirror requirements, or uniform height and reflective material, visibilty requirements and uniform requirements of light placement, etc. That is simply what you will encounter from many state and local lawmakers that do not share the passion and enthusiasm for cycling on busy roadways. Overwhelmingly, the majority of the general public that possesses a valid drivers license probably feels the same way with the attitude that those biking people need to get the hell off of certain roadways. This is why that such tragedies are always simply routinely referred to as accidents. There is it seems an implied aspect of assumed risk and contributory negligence for choosing to ride said roadway and battle the cars. I know that is beyond callous and brutally harsh but it seems to reflect the current prevailing attitude. That is not likely to change, as folks largely view it as certain roadways are for getting motor vehicles speedily from point A to point B and all points in between, and mopeds and bicycles do not belong there and anyone choosing to pilot said bicycle or moped there assumes the risk that no normal sane person would. Perhaps, the best way is to totally segregate automobile and bicycle traffic with cyclists far from the roadways on specific bike paths for certain about town, through the city connectors etc, but this poses other problems such as taxpayer cost, engineering-planning and decades from conception to actually becoming a reality. In most places this is not realistic and just totally impossible. Often, many smaller communities just don't have the funds & budget to prioritize anything bicycle related. I don't have any new answers on what to do or how to change public perception. My own opinion is that there are certain areas among high traffic roadways and intersections that just isn't worth the risk. The general public basically shares that view. |
Originally Posted by Ghazmh
(Post 22156315)
I’ve had my Varia for almost a year now and it is an awesome situational awareness tool. It’s not perfect, there are circumstances when it won’t alert when a car is behind me specifically when it’s matching my speed. If it tells me a car is behind me than a car is behind me. If it doesn’t show a car I instinctively know to check when necessary, sometimes I see a car slowly waiting for the moment to pass and undetected by my Varia.
|
Originally Posted by drlogik
(Post 22155097)
The Garmin Varia radar unit, how well does it recognize cars behind and either to the right or left of you?
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a05e95706a.jpg |
Originally Posted by Vintage Schwinn
(Post 22156572)
I know several local county commissioners and elected state officials that view road-biking as a public nuisance at least in several areas.
Their argument is that (X) number of cyclists have been involved in accidents with vehicles, and it would be in the public's best interest to limit and prohibit bicycle traffic on those roads. Their argument is that Mopeds are prohibited from travelling on those roads, and the typical cyclist cannot maintain the 30mph pace of a Moped, and that bicycle riders have no business riding roads with such a high posted speed limit, and even faster average actual vehicle traffic flow speed rate. They contend that you cannot expect "perfect" attention and "perfect" driving and accidents will happen and while such an accident between motor vehicles likely results in 73% + of simply minor accidents where all passengers survive and without very serious injuries, but they are also quick to point out that a 175 pound human on a 30 pound bicycle is no match for a 3000 pound automobile and carnage results as there is a 90% + chance that the cyclist will be fatally injured or be critically injured and perhaps survive with a life-changing serious disabilty. Their assertion is not wrong. They have years of traffic accident data on those roads as well as the frequency of time of day, time of year, etc. They also cite the fact that thousands of motor vehicles on average travel those roadways over any eight hour period, yet typically you never have as much as fifty cyclists during any eight hour stretch, unless its a group ride pack, out for a ride on that particular day. Still, they cite the number of cyclists and motor vehicle accidents and further state that those people did not need to be riding on that road, as they should know better than that, those people aren't commuters that are relying on the bicycle as their sole means of transportation, they are just hobby enthusiasts without common sense to know any better, although they the cyclists tend to be on average, educated with adequate disposable income to own such road bikes, they display a thorough lack of common sense in choosing to ride on these particular highly traveled high speed roadways. I am simply saying that is the prevailing attitude towards mixing cycling with automobile traffic on certain specific roadways. Realistically, I do not believe that you can change that prevailing attitude. The general prevailing attitude is something like, well motor-cycle riders assume a greater risk of death by choosing to drive a 2 wheel or 3 wheeled motorcycle which offers the rider essentially zero crash protection in the event of an accident, and bicycle riders have absolutely no business mixing with motor vehicle traffic on those particular roadways. They cannot keep pace with traffic flow. They do not have uniform side marker, and lighting requirements, or uniform rear view mirror requirements, or uniform height and reflective material, visibilty requirements and uniform requirements of light placement, etc. That is simply what you will encounter from many state and local lawmakers that do not share the passion and enthusiasm for cycling on busy roadways. Overwhelmingly, the majority of the general public that possesses a valid drivers license probably feels the same way with the attitude that those biking people need to get the hell off of certain roadways. This is why that such tragedies are always simply routinely referred to as accidents. There is it seems an implied aspect of assumed risk and contributory negligence for choosing to ride said roadway and battle the cars. I know that is beyond callous and brutally harsh but it seems to reflect the current prevailing attitude. That is not likely to change, as folks largely view it as certain roadways are for getting motor vehicles speedily from point A to point B and all points in between, and mopeds and bicycles do not belong there and anyone choosing to pilot said bicycle or moped there assumes the risk that no normal sane person would. Perhaps, the best way is to totally segregate automobile and bicycle traffic with cyclists far from the roadways on specific bike paths for certain about town, through the city connectors etc, but this poses other problems such as taxpayer cost, engineering-planning and decades from conception to actually becoming a reality. In most places this is not realistic and just totally impossible. Often, many smaller communities just don't have the funds & budget to prioritize anything bicycle related. I don't have any new answers on what to do or how to change public perception. My own opinion is that there are certain areas among high traffic roadways and intersections that just isn't worth the risk. The general public basically shares that view. |
Originally Posted by kahn
(Post 22156768)
I can sum it up quickly. I was hit from the rear by a pickup truck and nicely bruised and battered with a crushed sitting bone. Went to arbitration. Arbitrator: "You were bicycle riding on a 50mph roadway**********?" Results: Driver not at fault.
|
Originally Posted by PeteHski
(Post 22156629)
Interesting that you don’t get alerts when a car is matching your speed. Mine definitely does alert as vehicles often have to follow me on narrow roads while waiting for a passing opportunity. Have you checked for firmware updates? Mine is the 515 model and I’m using a Garmin Edge 530 head unit. I wonder if your unit is set to “peloton” mode as I think that might stop it from alerting you to riders following along in your group - or in your case a car matching your speed
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 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.