More on daytime high-beam usage

["Gregory D. Girard" <ggirard@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matt,
Please see my responses below marked "GG:"


>>From a more
>>cynical perspective, and in no way intended to reflect on your personal
>>opinion expressed, one might seriously question the judgement of one who
>>would turn OFF their high-beams during the day and endanger themselves
>>needlessly knowing that reliable sources have clearly indicated that more
>>than 1/3 over everybody that dies on a motorcycle does so because a car
>>turning left did not see them coming.
>
>You made some very good points, but does anyone have any proof that a high
>beam significantly improves your chances of being seen by an oncoming left
>turner?

GG: I believe you are correct in pointing out that a causitive relationship
is only inferred but not proven. Is this like with vitamins in which more is
not necessarily better ? I don't know and a controlled study, if feasible,
would help. For now, all we have is the connection we make using our own
heads, but it is likely this speculation could transition to fact with a
modest degree of investigation.

Even a low beam is pretty conspicuous, and I used to wear a day-glo
>green helmet. Now if they can't see my headlight, or the red motorcycle, or
>my green helmet (and I had riding partners insist on being in front of me
>because it hurt their eyes looking at it) then they simply weren't looking.

GG: This is a good point with which I full agree. Would helicopter landing
gear facing forward make a difference ? Maybe not for those poor two-wheeled
potential victims that I have ALMOST taken a left in front of in my decades
of mostly incident free automobile driving. I have not hit any motorcyclists
yet and I do know that the ones with the glaring headlights are not easily
overlooked even during the day. More to the same point, on pull-outs from a
side road, I am often thankful that many trucks drive with high-beams on
during the day.
>
>Just as it is on the highway, lane placement approaching an intersection is
>the key. When I go through an intersection I try to put as much distance
>between me and any left turning cars, I don't charge through intersections,
>and I closely watch the vehicle and it's tires for any movement.

GG: COULD NOT AGREE MORE WITH THAT POINT! I ride often with my wife who is a
competent rider (Ducati ST4 but soon to be Sprint RS). My wife used to make
fun of me for my "procedure": whenever I detect an oncoming vehicle that I
have ANY reason to suspect is turning left, I simply slow it down as much as
is possible not to get rear-ended. In busy interesections with lots of
turning, I crawl though at a modestly annoying pace, and on fast two-lane
country roads I scan for blinkers or cars slowing from the other direction.
The simple act of a signification slowdown achieves two things:

1- It gives the driver MORE TIME to notice my approach and react accordingly
2- It gives me more of an ability to slow to a stop or at least a non-lethal
impact speed should the turn occur

It is a useful observation that if one takes a sharp left turn in a car at
more than about 20 MPH, the car will simply slide sideways or potentially
flip over if top-heavy. Virtually any vehicle must slow dramatically to
execute a left (or right) turn accross the roadway; thus whether I'm
following or approaching, a marked deceleration from the other vehicle
signals a turn or other hazard, and so to do I slow to encounter it. But
what's different for me is that in an approaching situation, I'm "looking
for the left turn" in that I'm waiting for the car to cross my path.  This
excercise is part of a 6-part regimen I maintain in my head as I ride. In
hundreds of thousands of sport-riding miles (and way too many speeding
tickets, so I'm no loafer) I' ve never had so much as a close call despite
the dozens of times that cars actually did cut me off, but not to my
surprise. I may get run down today, but up to now it's worked OK.

NOTE: My most significant "close call" with another vehicle was when I came
around a completely blind decreasing-radius curve on a Colorado moutain road
to find a pick-up backing out of hidden pull-in just around the apex. His
back-up lights were on and he was ready to move, but did not. A few seconds
later...ouch!

And by the way, in strong support of your earlier sentiment that started
this thread, I've gone on record on various web forums for "lecturing"
people against equipping their bikes with those nasty little "Piezzo"
running lights that shine like a pair of arch welders. They are so bright
they are like flash cubes that never go out and are not focussed in a single
line. The disperse brilliant white light across a wide area an severely
blind all who lookin their general direction. They are a menace and cross
the annoyance/safety line you spoke about.

I learned this after a following pal on a BMW K12 had his puny piezzo lights
catch in my mirrors on a tricky/traffic curve and blind me for so long that
I crossed over several lanes like a drunk before I could make out ahead of
me. Your "annoyance" concern did not fall on deaf ears with me, but only
that to me the issue of high-beams (designed for longer throw of focused
light) seemed like a reasonable safety margin. In fact, I believe that many
countries view the high-beam as the standard running light and the low-beam
is called the "dimmer", the point being that one "dims" the lights in
courtesty to oncoming vehicles at night.

>
>Maybe my opinion is too heavily influenced by riding in an area that seems
>to be filled with drivers nano-seconds away from their next rage attack,
>but I am not going to intentionally do something that I know is going to
>make people mad at me. Not when their vehicle safely wraps them in a
>protective skin of armour.

GG: You choice, but I would suggest that if I were riding around in my
Ducati 900ss or my Blackbird (brightest high-beam available), a controlled
experiment might show that if you were in a car, even the low beam is so
bright that it may prove impossible for you to tell the difference from the
high-beam without a direct on/off comparison. I am not sure on this next
point, but I believe the official positition of the Motorcycle Safety
Foundation is that daytime high-beam usage is recommended; surely someone in
our studio audience can assist in en"light"ening us :)


If I were a liberal (and it seems judging from the disturbing
fuel-rationing-thru-taxation fantasies I've seen streaming accross my
monitor from this list through last week, there are lots of such
well-intentioned individuals contributing to this list), I would outfit
myself in a sandwich board and march down to Washington to protest,
demanding a new law to require day-time headlight use for all motorcycle
riding. After all, if we could could "just save one life...." :)

But fortunately I am not a liberal on most things and in the majority of
cases such as this, I value freedom more than safety. Consquently, I am
happy to let respectfully leave you do as you wish. However, I do view
personal responsibility and information sharing as the predominent means by
which we collectively may improve motorcycling's safety record. Accordingly,
I felt it was at the very least appropriate to make a case for improving
one's frontal visibility using whatever reasonable means that do not
endanger or excessively annoy others.


Greg Girard



     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
      The ST/RS Mailing list is sponsored by Jack Lilley Ltd.
          http://www.TriumphNet.com/st/lilley for more info
   http://www.TriumphNet.com/st for ST, RS and Mailing List info

=-=-=-= Next Message =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=