I hadn't heard of this brand of headlamp,

https://www.outboundlighting.com/products/detour

but their explanation of the benefits of proper optics with a cutoff
(like car headlights) is good and concise.

https://youtu.be/zWIsQe8zEPI

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I hadn't heard of this brand of headlamp,
>
> https://www.outboundlighting.com/products/detour
>
> but their explanation of the benefits of proper optics with a cutoff
> (like car headlights) is good and concise.
>
> https://youtu.be/zWIsQe8zEPI
>
>
>
That’s not like car headlights which have a dipped beam, which is more than
just a cut off. And a high beam for seeing further.

Nor are folks likely to angle even spot type lights that low, as generally
with such lights there is high spot in the centre and it becomes less so
surrounding said spot.

Unless it’s fairly tame riding that light would feel fairly poor on a
gravel bike, even with a road bike a cut off beam shape isn’t wildly great
if you’re relying on the light to see, off road be totally the wrong shape.

Some questionable claims with there MTB lights that it can outperform any
other single high power light! it only kicks out 3k lumens with a bar and
helmet light combo which on road yes that’s overkill.

but off road and in particular enduro or DH, which it’s claimed to be even
my wee Gravel/MTB light is in that ball park on its own let alone MTB
lights intended for that use which will kick out 5/6k, just on their own.

Some of the better made helmets lights will kick out what their handlebar
light produces ie 2.2k.

Let alone having a default mode of Adaptive which is misleading its self my
light is Adaptive in that it will ramp up or down depending on how much,
and how the bike moves, ie it drop to low if you stop brighten if I start
riding and really brighten if I start swooping under the trees.

Whereas their light just reduced from high to medium to maintain night
vision? Certainly for MTB almost anything out there would do a better job!

Roger Merriman

On 3/29/2024 2:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> Unless it’s fairly tame riding that light would feel fairly poor on a
> gravel bike, even with a road bike a cut off beam shape isn’t wildly great
> if you’re relying on the light to see, off road be totally the wrong shape.

It's the same issue on unlit MUPs which are quite common in my area
because they are usually along creeks and rivers and the water district
usually doesn't allow lighting.

You _really_ want a beam that illuminates to the sides and a little
upward. Many of these paths have no fence or railing to prevent a
cyclist that can't see the sides from veering off the embankment.

For roads, there are often trees with low-hanging branches that will
whack you in the head (except where Frank lives because he claimed that
delivery trucks driving close to the curb, or on the shoulder, will
knock down any low-hanging branches).

It must be miserable living in a place where the streets are only swept
twice a year and where you have to depend on UPS, FedEx, etc., to clear
low-hanging branches.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 2024-03-28, Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I hadn't heard of this brand of headlamp,
>
> https://www.outboundlighting.com/products/detour
>
> but their explanation of the benefits of proper optics with a cutoff
> (like car headlights) is good and concise.
>
> https://youtu.be/zWIsQe8zEPI
>
>
Peter White has articles about it on his website as well. In the "articles"
tab, strangely enough...

https://www.peterwhitecycles.com/

pH in Aptos

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 2:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Unless it’s fairly tame riding that light would feel fairly poor on a
>> gravel bike, even with a road bike a cut off beam shape isn’t wildly great
>> if you’re relying on the light to see, off road be totally the wrong shape.
>
> It's the same issue on unlit MUPs which are quite common in my area
> because they are usually along creeks and rivers and the water district
> usually doesn't allow lighting.

I find it less so, I have dark parks and tracks next to rivers including
boardwalks depending on route.

My commute light is quite a few years old now and by today’s standards
fairly modest at 600 lumens and a road specific beam shape plus a remote so
you can toggle from high to low, which also turns off one of the LED so
quite apart from lower power it’s lost the higher spot.

But while it struggles properly off road it’s fine for that sort of stuff,
and is arguably overkill for more urban use where I just run it in low.
>
> You _really_ want a beam that illuminates to the sides and a little
> upward. Many of these paths have no fence or railing to prevent a
> cyclist that can't see the sides from veering off the embankment.
>
> For roads, there are often trees with low-hanging branches that will
> whack you in the head (except where Frank lives because he claimed that
> delivery trucks driving close to the curb, or on the shoulder, will
> knock down any low-hanging branches).

Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on roads or even cycle
infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the crane river which
does have one spot with a some branch’s that I have tapped with my helmet
once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots and what not, ie
it’s definitely a outlier that route I think it’s fun, but it requires some
technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place for a road bike!
>
> It must be miserable living in a place where the streets are only swept
> twice a year and where you have to depend on UPS, FedEx, etc., to clear
> low-hanging branches.
>
Even the Welsh Valleys which are old iron and coal or rather new as only
few hundred years old, but they in spite of crushing poverty (visible in
the population and their height or lack of) still get road sweepers and
what not.

Roger Merriman

On 3/29/2024 7:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> For roads, there are often trees with low-hanging branches that will
>> whack you in the head (except where Frank lives because he claimed that
>> delivery trucks driving close to the curb, or on the shoulder, will
>> knock down any low-hanging branches).
>
> Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on roads or even cycle
> infrastructure or parks and what not...

It is odd that Mr. Scharf's streets feature branches hanging just six
feet above the road surface! After all, that's roughly the height of a
typical cyclist. One would think such a prosperous place would afford to
do some pruning!

He's never explained how Ford F-150 trucks (the top selling vehicle in
the U.S.) manage to navigate those streets. Ford F-150s are up to six
inches taller than typical cyclists.

Our dear departed (?) Tom Kunich once claimed to have run into such a
branch. Weirdly, it was during one of our periodic discussions of the
issue, meaning he somehow ignored the outlier (and low lier!) branch
even with that reminder.

And few were surprised when he gave the location of the incident, but
Google Street View showed all branches far, far higher than could impact
even a tall bus.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/29/2024 4:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

> Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on roads or even cycle
> infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the crane river which
> does have one spot with a some branch’s that I have tapped with my helmet
> once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots and what not, ie
> it’s definitely a outlier that route I think it’s fun, but it requires some
> technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place for a road bike!

In many towns in this area the city will plant "street trees" between
the sidewalk and the road. Technically, residents are not to trim these
trees though they are required to water them. You're supposed to contact
the city if a street tree needs trimming and they'll send someone out
but it's pretty rare that a resident will do this. In late spring and
early summer there are often low-hanging branches that a cyclist would
hit if they don't see them and veer around them.

On 3/30/2024 1:17 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 4:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
>> Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on
>> roads or even cycle
>> infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the
>> crane river which
>> does have one spot with a some branch’s that I have tapped
>> with my helmet
>> once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots
>> and what not, ie
>> it’s definitely a outlier that route I think it’s fun, but
>> it requires some
>> technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place
>> for a road bike!
>
> In many towns in this area the city will plant "street
> trees" between the sidewalk and the road. Technically,
> residents are not to trim these trees though they are
> required to water them. You're supposed to contact the city
> if a street tree needs trimming and they'll send someone out
> but it's pretty rare that a resident will do this. In late
> spring and early summer there are often low-hanging branches
> that a cyclist would hit if they don't see them and veer
> around them.

As mentioned here previously. Lots of differences between
the Bay area and Poland OH:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/gov-newsom-announces-new-surveillance-cameras-in-19375921.php

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 14:16:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>As mentioned here previously. Lots of differences between
>the Bay area and Poland OH:
>https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/gov-newsom-announces-new-surveillance-cameras-in-19375921.php

Not really so different, just on different scales:

"New police cameras installed outside local schools" (Sept 13, 2023)
<https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/poland-news/new-police-cameras-installed-outside-local-schools/>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 4:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
>> Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on roads or even cycle
>> infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the crane river which
>> does have one spot with a some branch’s that I have tapped with my helmet
>> once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots and what not, ie
>> it’s definitely a outlier that route I think it’s fun, but it requires some
>> technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place for a road bike!
>
> In many towns in this area the city will plant "street trees" between
> the sidewalk and the road. Technically, residents are not to trim these
> trees though they are required to water them. You're supposed to contact
> the city if a street tree needs trimming and they'll send someone out
> but it's pretty rare that a resident will do this. In late spring and
> early summer there are often low-hanging branches that a cyclist would
> hit if they don't see them and veer around them.
>

That’s still a bit baffling after all have kerb side trees in uk, even some
in my street, but can’t say even out in the sticks (if your excuse the pun)
I’ve had to duck for low branch’s on roads, after all in urban/suburban
locations a significant proportion of residential roads will also be on bus
routes.

I’d absolutely want a different beam shape than a cut off beam for the
commute mainly because I use parks and other green spaces, which are unlit,
on roads and even the cycleway which isn’t directly lit bar the street
lights left behind on the brief section of old road! So I have no need to
run the light in anything but low as I can see the road etc,

On the darker places I do run the light on full, so I can see further,
though even there low branches aren’t really an issue even riding though
wooded areas.

The commute light I use is by today’s standards fairly modest but is plenty
for that usage.

Roger Merriman

On 3/30/2024 2:17 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 4:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
>> Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on roads or even cycle
>> infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the crane river which
>> does have one spot with a some branch’s that I have tapped with my helmet
>> once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots and what not, ie
>> it’s definitely a outlier that route I think it’s fun, but it requires
>> some
>> technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place for a road bike!
>
> In many towns in this area the city will plant "street trees" between
> the sidewalk and the road. Technically, residents are not to trim these
> trees though they are required to water them. You're supposed to contact
> the city if a street tree needs trimming and they'll send someone out
> but it's pretty rare that a resident will do this. In late spring and
> early summer there are often low-hanging branches that a cyclist would
> hit if they don't see them and veer around them.

Branches must hang below six feet above pavement for a normal cyclist to
run into one. For a branch to be a serious risk, it can't just be a few
leaves and twigs; it must be a substantially thick branch.

If those are so prevalent in the roads of your wealthy city:

1) Post a few photos of them with detail on their locations.

2) Also, explain why a city so wealthy that it constantly sweeps gravel
out of bike lanes (as you've claimed) would allow such a hazard to remain.

3) And _do_ explain why those branches are somehow not damaging tall
motor vehicles, like the super-common Ford F-150 - not to mention Amazon
vans, Ford Transit vans, buses, dump trucks, post office trucks, etc.

Until you do that, I'll continue to assume this is a mythical hazard
you're using to justify your long-held preference for super bright road
bike lights with primitive optics.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:58:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/30/2024 2:17 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 3/29/2024 4:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>>> Can’t say I’ve ever had problems with low branches on roads or even cycle
>>> infrastructure or parks and what not, bar following the crane river which
>>> does have one spot with a some branch’s that I have tapped with my helmet
>>> once, but to do so will have had to ride over tree roots and what not, ie
>>> it’s definitely a outlier that route I think it’s fun, but it requires
>>> some
>>> technique and a bike able to handle it, ie not the place for a road bike!
>>
>> In many towns in this area the city will plant "street trees" between
>> the sidewalk and the road. Technically, residents are not to trim these
>> trees though they are required to water them. You're supposed to contact
>> the city if a street tree needs trimming and they'll send someone out
>> but it's pretty rare that a resident will do this. In late spring and
>> early summer there are often low-hanging branches that a cyclist would
>> hit if they don't see them and veer around them.
>
>Branches must hang below six feet above pavement for a normal cyclist to
>run into one. For a branch to be a serious risk, it can't just be a few
>leaves and twigs; it must be a substantially thick branch.
>
>If those are so prevalent in the roads of your wealthy city:
>
>1) Post a few photos of them with detail on their locations.
>
>2) Also, explain why a city so wealthy that it constantly sweeps gravel
>out of bike lanes (as you've claimed) would allow such a hazard to remain.
>
>3) And _do_ explain why those branches are somehow not damaging tall
>motor vehicles, like the super-common Ford F-150 - not to mention Amazon
>vans, Ford Transit vans, buses, dump trucks, post office trucks, etc.
>
>Until you do that, I'll continue to assume this is a mythical hazard
>you're using to justify your long-held preference for super bright road
>bike lights with primitive optics.

.....but does anyone care what Krygowski continues to assume?

On 3/29/2024 6:35 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 2:19 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Unless it’s fairly tame riding that light would feel fairly poor on a
>> gravel bike, even with a road bike a cut off beam shape isn’t wildly
>> great
>> if you’re relying on the light to see, off road be totally the wrong
>> shape.
>
> It's the same issue on unlit MUPs which are quite common in my area
> because they are usually along creeks and rivers and the water district
> usually doesn't allow lighting.
>
> You _really_ want a beam that illuminates to the sides and a little
> upward. Many of these paths have no fence or railing to prevent a
> cyclist that can't see the sides from veering off the embankment.
>
> For roads, there are often trees with low-hanging branches that will
> whack you in the head (except where Frank lives because he claimed that
> delivery trucks driving close to the curb, or on the shoulder, will
> knock down any low-hanging branches).

We don't have issues with tree branches, rather heavy brush which pushes
out into the traffic lane. Trying to ride through it on the shoulder
could easily slice open flesh (it's happened to me several times) or
pull the bar and force a crash (never happened to me, but have seen it).
Most towns around here don't trim this vegetation unless they get enough
complaints.

For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
every passing SUV.

>
> It must be miserable living in a place where the streets are only swept
> twice a year and where you have to depend on UPS, FedEx, etc., to clear
> low-hanging branches.
>

it must be wonderful to live in a cycling utopia where every cyclist
whim and need is met with government acquiescence

On 3/30/2024 5:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> The commute light I use is by today’s standards fairly modest but is plenty
> for that usage.

I've never believed in these crazy bright bicycle lights Even on unlit
MUPs 1500-1800 lumens is sufficient if the optics are correct. For trail
riding on mountain bikes you may need something brighter and there are
lights with 2600-3600 lumens available.

Lately, one thing I've seen is annoyingly bright rear flashers, there is
really no need for a 500 lumen rear flasher! When you're riding behind
someone they are directly in your field of view for a long time, unlike
with a front light where they are on the other side of the road and you
only see their front light, indirectly, for a short time.

On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:

> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
> every passing SUV.

If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
"stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
not supposed to be there).

"Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
cyclists stay to the right.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>
>> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
>> every passing SUV.
>
> If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
> protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
> not supposed to be there).
>
> "Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
> cyclists stay to the right.
>
>
Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of
the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!

Roger Merriman

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/2024 5:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The commute light I use is by today’s standards fairly modest but is plenty
>> for that usage.
>
> I've never believed in these crazy bright bicycle lights Even on unlit
> MUPs 1500-1800 lumens is sufficient if the optics are correct. For trail
> riding on mountain bikes you may need something brighter and there are
> lights with 2600-3600 lumens available.
>
> Lately, one thing I've seen is annoyingly bright rear flashers, there is
> really no need for a 500 lumen rear flasher! When you're riding behind
> someone they are directly in your field of view for a long time, unlike
> with a front light where they are on the other side of the road and you
> only see their front light, indirectly, for a short time.
>

My commute light is a older Exposure Strada 600 ie 600 lumens on high,
which is fine for dark parks and places, it’s only being used on the Gravel
bike let alone the MTB that it feels underpowered and due to having a
shaped beam for the road, that doesn’t help.

Are some bright rear lights but to be honest my commute has so few bikes
not something I notice, even with bikes is a element of man bites dog, in
that we ignore the car lights which due to vehicles increased size and
height and the power of led bulbs, can and are hard to see into, easier if
on bike but in car when wet people to a extent ignore it, as cars are
normal just the way it is and so on.

That’s not to say that some folks do some really anti social stuff with
their lights, such as folks with lights on flash (unless very low powered)
in dark parks, or folks relying on there cars lights to auto dip or just
can’t be bothered to, with both i train them by returning the favour ie
light to high which always seems to get folks to correct their behaviour!

Roger Merriman

On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>
>>> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
>>> every passing SUV.
>>
>> If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
>> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
>> protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
>> not supposed to be there).
>>
>> "Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
>> cyclists stay to the right.
>>
>>
> Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of
> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
> streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
>
> Roger Merriman
>
>

I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but
most places the bus routes are on arterials while savvy
cyclists are a block over on a less busy parallel street
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/31/2024 6:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>
>>>> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch
>>>> could be
>>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
>>>> every passing SUV.
>>>
>>> If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
>>> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
>>> protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
>>> not supposed to be there).
>>>
>>> "Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
>>> cyclists stay to the right.
>>>
>>>
>> Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even
>> some of
>> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
>> streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
>> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
>> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>>
>
> I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but most places the
> bus routes are on arterials while savvy cyclists are a block over on a
> less busy parallel street

True, but tall vehicles like Amazon delivery vans, Ford Transits and
similar vans, pickups towing trailers, garbage trucks etc. are on all
streets at least occasionally. If there were such low branches over the
roadway those vehicles would get damaged and/or the owners would
complain to the city.

On roads, the problem is imaginary. On every bike trail I've seen, the
problem has been imaginary, other than one incident when a storm tipped
over a tree.

And even then, I saw that hazard in plenty of time with my Busch &
Mueller headlight with a properly cut off beam. Those who imagine zero
light above the cutoff are also imagining things.

Unlike Tom Kunich, Mr. Scharf knows how to post links to photos. If the
problem were real and common, he'd have given evidence by now.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>
>>>> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
>>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
>>>> every passing SUV.
>>>
>>> If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
>>> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
>>> protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
>>> not supposed to be there).
>>>
>>> "Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
>>> cyclists stay to the right.
>>>
>>>
>> Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of
>> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
>> streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
>> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
>> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>>
>
> I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but
> most places the bus routes are on arterials while savvy
> cyclists are a block over on a less busy parallel street

That sounds subpar ie public transport only works if convenient, certainly
in london arterials which tend to be big bypasses built in the 20/30’s
probably with a parallel cycleway if not converted into a side road, but
will not be on a bus route or have any bus stops or train stations etc as
it’s not where people are.

For cars bypasses work ie longer distances but bigger road.

It also doesn’t work for bike infrastructure ie folks will not ride a mile
or so to ride along and so on, hence the old cycleways are in general very
lightly used as not direct or convenient.

Roger Merriman

On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 04:59:30 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
>>>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
>>>>> every passing SUV.
>>>>
>>>> If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
>>>> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
>>>> protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
>>>> not supposed to be there).
>>>>
>>>> "Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
>>>> cyclists stay to the right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of
>>> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
>>> streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
>>> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
>>> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but
>> most places the bus routes are on arterials while savvy
>> cyclists are a block over on a less busy parallel street
>
>That sounds subpar ie public transport only works if convenient, certainly
>in london arterials which tend to be big bypasses built in the 20/30’s
>probably with a parallel cycleway if not converted into a side road, but
>will not be on a bus route or have any bus stops or train stations etc as
>it’s not where people are.
>
>For cars bypasses work ie longer distances but bigger road.
>
>It also doesn’t work for bike infrastructure ie folks will not ride a mile
>or so to ride along and so on, hence the old cycleways are in general very
>lightly used as not direct or convenient.
>
>Roger Merriman

It's very rare to see shopping or commuting bikers on streets and
roads around here. What few I see are on the sidewalks.

On 3/31/2024 5:25 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>
>> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could
>> be so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage
>> to every passing SUV.
>
> If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
> protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
> not supposed to be there).

Not buyin' it. A branch with enough substance to take you off the bike
doesn't hit some imaginary vertical barrier extending upward from the
white line and progress no further.

>
> "Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
> cyclists stay to the right.

A cyclist would have to understand that 'taking the lane' is an accepted
and useful practice first. Some people insist there is no such thing.

>

--
Add xx to reply

On 3/31/2024 10:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 6:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch
>>>>> could be
>>>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
>>>>> every passing SUV.
>>>>
>>>> If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
>>>> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
>>>> protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
>>>> not supposed to be there).
>>>>
>>>> "Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
>>>> cyclists stay to the right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even
>>> some of
>>> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
>>> streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
>>> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further
>>> out
>>> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but most places
>> the bus routes are on arterials while savvy cyclists are a block over
>> on a less busy parallel street
>
> True, but tall vehicles like Amazon delivery vans, Ford Transits and
> similar vans, pickups towing trailers, garbage trucks etc. are on all
> streets at least occasionally. If there were such low branches over the
> roadway those vehicles would get damaged and/or the owners would
> complain to the city.
>
> On roads, the problem is imaginary. On every bike trail I've seen, the
> problem has been imaginary, other than one incident when a storm tipped
> over a tree.

It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
multi-use/recreational trails.

>
> And even then, I saw that hazard in plenty of time with my Busch &
> Mueller headlight with a properly cut off beam. Those who imagine zero
> light above the cutoff are also imagining things.
>
> Unlike Tom Kunich, Mr. Scharf knows how to post links to photos. If the
> problem were real and common, he'd have given evidence by now.
>

--
Add xx to reply

On 4/1/2024 12:59 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
>>>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
>>>>> every passing SUV.
>>>>
>>>> If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
>>>> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
>>>> protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
>>>> not supposed to be there).
>>>>
>>>> "Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
>>>> cyclists stay to the right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of
>>> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
>>> streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
>>> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
>>> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but
>> most places the bus routes are on arterials while savvy
>> cyclists are a block over on a less busy parallel street
>
> That sounds subpar ie public transport only works if convenient

Why, Roger, are you suggesting good ole' USAian public transportation
infrastructure is sub-par?

, certainly
> in london arterials which tend to be big bypasses built in the 20/30’s
> probably with a parallel cycleway if not converted into a side road, but
> will not be on a bus route or have any bus stops or train stations etc as
> it’s not where people are.
>
> For cars bypasses work ie longer distances but bigger road.
>
> It also doesn’t work for bike infrastructure ie folks will not ride a mile
> or so to ride along and so on, hence the old cycleways are in general very
> lightly used as not direct or convenient.
>
> Roger Merriman
>

--
Add xx to reply

On 3/31/2024 3:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of
> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
> streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!

Buses are almost always on major thoroughfares and arterials, rarely on
residential streets.

In Silicon Valley we have a particularly awful transportation agency
whose mission is more of a social service agency than a transportation
provider.