I made a similar point about 12 years ago to the PBMVC when they were discussing having some of the SW path be dedicated for cross country skiing during the winter. I brought both a very good light with a nice broad beam spread, and a cheap light that met the legal definition for a bike light with less than 2 feet of spread in front of the bike.
But even my "very good" light isn't going to reveal the presence of a potential mugger standing off the side of the path. If what you want is to create a feeling of safety, only bike path lighting can provide it. If you can't guarantee that feeling of safety, then it means fewer people are going to find it desirable to use that path, and that probably means we will have to spend more money expanding roads for automobiles instead, and live with the additional safety threat that having one more car on the road poses. And since money it tight it ultimately means less money for biking in the future. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Rewey Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:06 PM To: 'Bikies' Subject: Re: [Bikies] Sly Delivers Fact-Lite Screed on Bike Path Lighting Thanks Eric. That was my point. My legal light only allows me to see 75 to 100 feet in front of me at best. -------------------------------------------------- On 12 Jul 2012 at 12:56, Eric Sundquist wrote: Beingvisible from 500 feet doesn't mean that you can see for 500 feet. From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: Michael Rewey <[email protected]> Cc: 'Bikies' <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] Sly Delivers Fact-Lite Screed on Bike Path Lighting A speed of 17mph =~ 25 feet/sec. 500 feet of visibility gives you a limit 20 seconds of reaction time for a stationary object. An object coming toward you, of course, would further reduce reaction time. And if you don't react promptly, you'll be seeing start of a different type. Quoting Michael Rewey <[email protected]>: > A thought on legal bicycle headlights - the only requirement is that > they must be visible from > 500 feet. That does not guaranty that they are strong enough to > illuminate a path or see a dark object. I bike quite often at night > and I always rely on street lights to supplement my legal headlight. > > Mike Rewey > > -------------------------------------------------- > On 12 Jul 2012 at 10:30, George Perkins wrote: > > Agree. I bike 7 ½ miles one-way twice a day. I average around 15mph to > get to work in 35 minutes. It is totally reasonable to expect I go at > this moderate speed on bike paths and bike lanes. I use a bell to signal when passing. > > Bus takes 55 minutes. By car 20 minutes without traffic, 30 minutes if traffic is heavy. > Maybe more people would be biking if they know how easy and quick it > is - add some non intrusive appropriate path lighting and more would > be biking on the SW Commuter Bike Path after 5:00pm in the winter when it is already dark. > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grant Foster > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Bikies > Subject: Re: [Bikies] Sly Delivers Fact-Lite Screed on Bike Path > Lighting > > > I agr > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
