Less Dorky Mirror

[S o r n i]

James Calivar wrote:
> "maxo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:03:59 -0700, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> There is never a reason for riding against traffic. You're only
>>>> confusing the motorist, egregiously breaking the law, and adding
>>>> to the potential impact speed vs. subtracting from it.
>>> Survival is a real good reason.
>>
>> Sorry man, THERE IS NEVER A REASON TO RIDE AGAINST TRAFFIC.
>>
>> Survival is not a reason, doing it increases your odds of getting
>> smooshed. If you feel that you must ride against traffic to be safe,
>> then you're being illogical and should walk, rather than both break
>> the law and risk harm to yourself and others.
>>
>
> That is one of the stupidest replies I've ever seen. Are you serious
> that you advocate someone placing themselves in a life-threatening
> situation just to avoid breaking the law?

Learn to read, James.

Bill "hint: 'risk harm to yourself and others' " S.

 

[maxo]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:36:35 +0000, S o r n i wrote:

> Are you serious
>> that you advocate someone placing themselves in a life-threatening
>> situation just to avoid breaking the law?

No, their perception of it being life threatening is delusional. There is
no ground to stand on. I suggested avoiding the activity all together if
the only apparent option is that of idiocy. Avoidance=quite safe.

 

[S o r n i]

maxo wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:36:35 +0000, S o r n i wrote:
>
>> Are you serious
>>> that you advocate someone placing themselves in a life-threatening
>>> situation just to avoid breaking the law?
>
> No, their perception of it being life threatening is delusional.
> There is no ground to stand on. I suggested avoiding the activity all
> together if the only apparent option is that of idiocy.
> Avoidance=quite safe.

Please learn how to quote/attribute. I wrote NONE of the above.

Bill "simply astounded at times" S.

 

[Bill]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:11:20 GMT, maxo <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:36:35 +0000, S o r n i wrote:
>
>> Are you serious
>>> that you advocate someone placing themselves in a life-threatening
>>> situation just to avoid breaking the law?
>
> No, their perception of it being life threatening is delusional. There is
> no ground to stand on. I suggested avoiding the activity all together if
> the only apparent option is that of idiocy. Avoidance=quite safe.

My perception of obeying the law to the point of being life threatening is
quite real, since I have been hit while obeying the law. Had I been on the
other side I could have ditched it to avoid the idiot driver. Those who
believe the driver is A. Competent. B. Gives a ****. are only fooling
themselves. Remember the well known driver who was killed while waiting on
the side of the road for some friends? He obviously was not looking at
traffic or he could have jumped out of the way, even if he already was on
the parking strip/bike lane. Overconfidence in the law can be deadly since
all the law can do is prosecute the guy who ran you down. If riding on the
wrong side is necessary because I am riding into the sun and there is no
bike lane then the law makes no sense to follow. If there is a place like
a bridge with no place to go on either side I suggest getting off the bike
and waiting for a lull in traffic rather than trying to 'take your
rightful place' in the lane. I have encountered two right side riders in
the last two days on no bike lane roads and just pull out into the traffic
lane 'wrong way' when it is clear and let them pass without interference.
If you are riding on the right side on a busy road with no bike lane and a
lot of traffic then I can only assume you have a death wish or just want
to 'DIE HEALTHY'.
My style is my own and only applies to country roads where there is no
alternative route.
I do ride about 5,000 miles a year and will get off the bike to avoid an
oncoming problem.
Bill Baka

 

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> ta beat hell. Maybe they're onto something. Fabrizio doesn't like
> 'em, 'cuz they do so well.

Doing 'so well' at what, Tom?

You North Americians always seem to mix up cyclists with riff raff.

 

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Agreed...but, better a live dork, than a dead duck!
>

You must never ride with a mirror, not just for the
Fred factor, but they are useless.

You want to look ahead always except for the times
when you need to pull out to the left, then you do
a shoulder check, or, to see if a rider is overlapping
your wheel you do a very quick under arm check.

Those are the ONLY ways to check behind, that's
how it's done and always has been done.

 

[[email protected]]

Somebody wrote:

>> Agreed... but, better a live dork, than a dead duck!

> You must never ride with a mirror, not just for the Fred factor, but
> because they are useless.

> You want to look ahead always except for the times when you need to
> pull out to the left, then you do a shoulder check, or, to see if a
> rider is overlapping your wheel you do a very quick under arm check.

> Those are the ONLY ways to check behind, that's how it's done and
> always has been done.

Just to point out what traffic research has found in that respect,
you'll fail the California driver's test if you do not look back and
relying a your mirror when changing lanes or pulling out into traffic.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[GaryG]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Somebody wrote:
>
> >> Agreed... but, better a live dork, than a dead duck!
>
> > You must never ride with a mirror, not just for the Fred factor, but
> > because they are useless.
>
> > You want to look ahead always except for the times when you need to
> > pull out to the left, then you do a shoulder check, or, to see if a
> > rider is overlapping your wheel you do a very quick under arm check.
>
> > Those are the ONLY ways to check behind, that's how it's done and
> > always has been done.
>
> Just to point out what traffic research has found in that respect,
> you'll fail the California driver's test if you do not look back and
> relying a your mirror when changing lanes or pulling out into traffic.

For the record, I do look back before changing lanes, etc...same as in my
car where I use the mirror for general situational awareness, but still turn
and look for lane changes.

GG

> Jobst Brandt
> [email protected]

 

[Alan Hoyle]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 04:19:42 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

> Just to point out what traffic research has found in that respect,
> you'll fail the California driver's test if you do not look back and
> relying a your mirror when changing lanes or pulling out into
> traffic.

This is because mirrors give false negatives. It can look clear in a
mirror when there's actually something there. However, they don't
tend to give false positives: i.e. it looks like something is there
when there actually isn't. If you get a "there's a car there" from a
mirror, you don't need to bother checking by turning your head. If
you get a "way is clear" from the mirror, you still need to check by
looking.

Also, it's not a symmetric problem.

true positive: keeps you out of danger.
false positive: doesn't affect your safety.
true negative: doesn't affect your safety.
false negative: puts you in danger.

So, the false negative is dangerous, double checking is a good idea.
The mirror advocates' claim isn't that they replace looking over your
shoulder. The claims are that mirrors give an efficient method for
finding out when you should even bother looking back and glancing into
a mirror is safer than turning your head away from the road ahead.

This is true for cars and bikes.

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - [email protected] - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

 

[Jeff Starr]

"Fred Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I tried a Bell handlebar mirror on my straight bar hybrid and it was a real
> POS. Vibrated like crazy and was hard to keep in adjustment. Now that I
> have a real road bike I use a Third Eye mirror that clips onto my glasses
> and wouldn't go out without it...most of my normal ride is quiet country
> road, but there's a section of 2-lane 55MPH busy road that I just can't keep
> swiveling my neck around on...that and the fact of an old high school high
> jump injury (30 years ago) cut down my neck mobility. The Third Eye isn't
> real obtrusive on the road, but I wouldn't be trying to pick up chicks in a
> bar with it clipped on.

Hi, the first mirror that I bought, was a Bell. I bought it with some
other items, mail order, that's my excuse;-) The mirror it self is
plastic, distorted, and not all that reflective. I removed the plastic
lense and for $5 I had a glass co. cut me a real glass mirror. I glued
it in and then it was fine in that respect. The trouble was, that
flimsy neck, wouldn't stay adjusted, and then the neck broke. The Bell
mirror is a total piece of ****.

I now use a handlebar mounted mirror. It is a Blackburn, designed to
be strapped to the left side brake hood. I don't use it on the brake
hood as it interferes with riding comfortably on the hoods. I found
that it can be strapped to the bar
on the lowest curve of the drop. I would try a helmet mirror, but I
keep my helmet in a pod, when not in use, and I wouldn't want to keep
taking it off and reinstalling.

It is really no different than mirrors on motorcycles or a side view
mirror
on a car, we all have them.

Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[Jeff Starr]

"Fred Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I tried a Bell handlebar mirror on my straight bar hybrid and it was a real
> POS. Vibrated like crazy and was hard to keep in adjustment. Now that I
> have a real road bike I use a Third Eye mirror that clips onto my glasses
> and wouldn't go out without it...most of my normal ride is quiet country
> road, but there's a section of 2-lane 55MPH busy road that I just can't keep
> swiveling my neck around on...that and the fact of an old high school high
> jump injury (30 years ago) cut down my neck mobility. The Third Eye isn't
> real obtrusive on the road, but I wouldn't be trying to pick up chicks in a
> bar with it clipped on.

Hi, the first mirror that I bought, was a Bell. I bought it with some
other items, mail order, that's my excuse;-) The mirror it self is
plastic, distorted, and not all that reflective. I removed the plastic
lense and for $5 I had a glass co. cut me a real glass mirror. I glued
it in and then it was fine in that respect. The trouble was, that
flimsy neck, wouldn't stay adjusted, and then the neck broke. The Bell
mirror is a total piece of ****.

I now use a handlebar mounted mirror. It is a Blackburn, designed to
be strapped to the left side brake hood. I don't use it on the brake
hood as it interferes with riding comfortably on the hoods. I found
that it can be strapped to the bar
on the lowest curve of the drop. I would try a helmet mirror, but I
keep my helmet in a pod, when not in use, and I wouldn't want to keep
taking it off and reinstalling.

It is really no different than mirrors on motorcycles or a side view
mirror
on a car, we all have them.

Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[JRKRideau]

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<81sCc.864841$oR5.820290@pd7tw3no>...
> "GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Agreed...but, better a live dork, than a dead duck!
> >
>
> You must never ride with a mirror, not just for the
> Fred factor, but they are useless.

Srange. I have been using mirrors for the last 10 years and find them
very useful. Of course, I supose they arn't any more useful than
those mirrors on a car and we all "know" they're useless I have a
bad neck and a full shoulder checks to allow me to check behind me
for 30 or 40 metres is very difficult. So just as I use a rear view
mirror and then do a check of the 'blind spot' while driving a car I
use a mirror and check my bllind spot while cycling. Personally I
find that it makes merging across multi-lane streets much easier and
safer.

> You want to look ahead always except for the times
> when you need to pull out to the left, then you do
> a shoulder check, or, to see if a rider is overlapping
> your wheel you do a very quick under arm check.

Or when riding in heavy traffic and you need to judge when to merge
left into the next lane in preparation for a left turn. This is when a
mirror can help. Just how far back is that charging mob of cars that
is roaring away from the last traffic light? I need to know what
motor vehicles are 50m back and gaining, not when a rider is
overlapping.

> Those are the ONLY ways to check behind, that's
> how it's done and always has been done.

And they said the same thing when Henry Ford (or whoever) first put
that mirror on the Model T

John
Perth ON

 

[JRKRideau]

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<81sCc.864841$oR5.820290@pd7tw3no>...
> "GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Agreed...but, better a live dork, than a dead duck!
> >
>
> You must never ride with a mirror, not just for the
> Fred factor, but they are useless.

Srange. I have been using mirrors for the last 10 years and find them
very useful. Of course, I supose they arn't any more useful than
those mirrors on a car and we all "know" they're useless I have a
bad neck and a full shoulder checks to allow me to check behind me
for 30 or 40 metres is very difficult. So just as I use a rear view
mirror and then do a check of the 'blind spot' while driving a car I
use a mirror and check my bllind spot while cycling. Personally I
find that it makes merging across multi-lane streets much easier and
safer.

> You want to look ahead always except for the times
> when you need to pull out to the left, then you do
> a shoulder check, or, to see if a rider is overlapping
> your wheel you do a very quick under arm check.

Or when riding in heavy traffic and you need to judge when to merge
left into the next lane in preparation for a left turn. This is when a
mirror can help. Just how far back is that charging mob of cars that
is roaring away from the last traffic light? I need to know what
motor vehicles are 50m back and gaining, not when a rider is
overlapping.

> Those are the ONLY ways to check behind, that's
> how it's done and always has been done.

And they said the same thing when Henry Ford (or whoever) first put
that mirror on the Model T

John
Perth ON

 

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"JRKRideau" <[email protected]> wrote in message ..

>> Or when riding in heavy traffic and you need to judge when to merge
> left into the next lane in preparation for a left turn.

I find that statement rather disturbing, you shouldn't be getting
yourself out in heavy traffic situations when out on the bike.

You really need to find some good roads to train on, ones
that don't require you to be thinking about auto traffic.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <5VrCc.830070$Pk3.771814@pd7tw1no>,
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> ta beat hell. Maybe they're onto something. Fabrizio doesn't like
>> 'em, 'cuz they do so well.
>
> Doing 'so well' at what, Tom?

1) merrily getting to where they're going without spending
a ton of gas money and other car-related expenses

2) becoming healthier & happier

3) demonstrating to other people that freedom from cars
is not only possible but also often preferable

4) reminding drivers that the streets aren't exclusive
to motor vehicles

5) getting your goat

> You North Americians always seem to mix up cyclists with riff raff.

White jelly beans have a right to exist, too. They're the same
size, shape & texture as the yellow ones.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[PCB]

In article <[email protected]>, Michael
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Which is less dorky: a mirror on the helmet or a mirror
> on the handlebars?
>
> I've resisted mirrors all my life, but I must ride a two lane
> road with a 55 mile an hour speed limit with absolutely no
> paved shoulder. I hug the white line right now, looking back
> sometimes but with the chance of going into the road or into
> the gravel.

Black cycling clothing is the new 'image for a dork' - Right up there
with riding on the wrong side of the road.

ThirdEye mirror that clips onto your eye-shield - Works great, and
available at mass-market bike shops. I have several ones for
redundancy.

--
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ O ALERT: Please help a friend find
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ / / his abducted son by visiting:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ // http://www.haveyouseenskye.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯ ©"""""""""""© Thanks.