water bottles,helmets

Quoted message said:

"Paranoia stikes deep." Crosby, Stills & Nash.

- Frank Krygowski

I think you mean Buffalo Springfield.
Easy mistake to make.

R

Quoted message said:

"Paranoia stikes deep." Crosby, Stills & Nash.

- Frank Krygowski

I think you mean Buffalo Springfield.
Easy mistake to make.

R

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Paranoia stikes deep." Crosby, Stills & Nash.

- Frank Krygowski

I think you mean Buffalo Springfield.
Easy mistake to make.

Yep, and I bet these memory lapses are hitting a lot of Buffalo
Springfield fans. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

The Wogster said:

Peter Cole said:

But all this advanced math doesn't really address the reason that
wrong-way cyclists ride the way they do. They don't trust motorists
not to hit them from behind, they'd rather take evasion themselves and
they can't do that if they're facing the wrong way. I don't know if
they've performed the sophisticated calculations you have, but
assuming they're that gifted, they must feel that the advantage of
facing traffic is worth the 0.29 sec. disadvantage in driver reaction
time.

Let's see, you don't want to get hit from behind, how about a bike
mounted or helmet mounted mirror. This would allow you the ability to
keep half an eye on the vehicles behind you, just as easily as riding
against traffic.

If you've ever ridden with one (I use one always, and have for years),
you'll appreciate that they're really not good for keeping an eye on
every passing car. It's no protection from being hit from behind except
when you have to move left, either to merge or avoid something, you
can quickly check what's behind you before you move. In other words, it
may protect you from making a mistake, but not from the mistakes of others.

Peter Cole said:

I don't know if they've
performed the sophisticated calculations you have,

They don't have to have performed the calculations to get the benifit,
they just need to ride on the correct side of the road.

And the calculations aren't sophisticated.

Rich

Rich said:

Peter Cole said:

I don't know if they've performed the sophisticated calculations you
have,

They don't have to have performed the calculations to get the benifit,
they just need to ride on the correct side of the road.

And the calculations aren't sophisticated.

What's the emoticon for sarcasm?

What's the benefit though? Preventing death from a head-on with a MV?

The national database shows 14 cyclists killed in 2003 (2.25%) where
riding wrong-way was a contributing factor. "Inattentive (Talking,
Eating, etc.)" killed 26, or 4.18%. It makes more sense to get excited
about energy bars.

A couple of studies I've seen show wrong-way cyclists involved in 20-25%
of crashes. This doesn't mean that wrong-way riding caused the crash,
and whether the injuries were more severe is anyone's guess. It probably
just reflects that inexperienced cyclists have more crashes because they
make a variety of common mistakes, one of which is wrong-way riding.

Since it's mostly young and/or unsophisticated riders who ride
wrong-way, it seems the solution is education, and that doesn't require
a background in physics. The "closing speed" argument isn't the main one
for riding with traffic anyway, when you ride with traffic you approach
from the expected direction.

Peter Cole said:

Rich said:

They don't have to have performed the calculations to get the benifit,
they just need to ride on the correct side of the road.

Quoted message said:

What's the benefit though? Preventing death from a head-on with a MV?

The national database shows 14 cyclists killed in 2003 (2.25%) where
riding wrong-way was a contributing factor.

The benifit, I believe, is that it gives the inattentive drivers a
little more time to see the cyclist.

Another possible benifit includes keeping them from running into (or at
least making an awkard situation) for cyclists that are going the
correct way.

Quoted message said:

Since it's mostly young and/or unsophisticated riders who ride
wrong-way, it seems the solution is education, and that doesn't require
a background in physics. The "closing speed" argument isn't the main one
for riding with traffic anyway, when you ride with traffic you approach
from the expected direction.

Agreed. I offered the numbers as a reply to someone who stated you'd
only get 1 ms more time, when in fact it's considerably more than that.

Rich