Plus one on the ankle reflector. Riv is currently out of stock. Curtis
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Bill Lindsay <[email protected]> wrote: > In my opinion, I think Scott has gotten to the heart of the matter, even > though I'm not sure he knows it. Scott said: > > "Day / Night visibility is an issue for everyone, not just bicyclists. > Its because every driver is different and will key in, fixate on and notice > different things." > > and then he really cut to the chase with: > > "Sorry, but when drivers don't see other cars... we are all screwed." > > We all know and realize that "being seen" is a thing, and it's a smart > thing to do. If you are invisible, and somebody hits you, then it's your > fault. Most of us know that "target fixation" is also a thing. Some > people, like Jan, use 'target fixation' to support the hypothesis that it > is possible to be 'too visible'. Jan acknowledges his hypothesis is not > proven one way or the other, but it is an informed hypothesis. > > The thing Scott gets to is that 'target fixation' is not purely a property > of the target. 'Target fixation' is something an *impaired driver* might > do. It's always a drunk driver, a tired pilot, a distracted (texting) > driver, or an old person, who target fixates and runs over a highly visible > person. When an impaired driver target fixates and kills a cyclist, we > have no way of knowing whether that impaired driver would have not target > fixated if the cyclist had been wearing less reflective gear. I have never > read a target fixation study that concludes reflective gear and lights > CAUSE impairment in drivers. I have only seen studies that conclude that > impaired drivers tend to fixate on bright lights. So, when it comes to > impaired drivers, as Scott said "we're screwed". We all know some impaired > driver is going to run over some unlucky cyclist very soon, and there is > probably nothing we can do to prevent that from happening. > > So, if we're at the mercy of fortune that an impaired driver doesn't run > us over from behind, then that leaves us to focus on what we CAN control, > and that's our visibility to drivers that are not impaired. Again, I've > never seen a study that suggests being more visible will make an alert, > awake and focused driver run you over. Conspicuity should send the simple > message "I am a person on a bicycle and I'm right here". An alert, > non-impaired driver can deal with that message. You send the message that > you are a person on a bicycle with reflectors and/or lights on both feet. > Nothing else on the road moves like your feet on a bicycle. A red-light, > required by law, might establish that you are a vehicle, and that's fine. > A bright triangle says "caution" to every good driver out there. > > In my opinion, the smartest set up is two of these ankle reflectors, one > on each ankle: http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/re1.htm > Plus this small triangle hanging from your seat rails: > http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/re6.htm > Add to that your favorite red solid taillight so you don't get in trouble > with Johnny-Law. > > Just my opinion on the matter > > Bill Lindsay > El Cerrito, CA > >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
