[Author Index] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Humm....!!!



Eric,
Fair enough point you make below. But by the same reasoning, would I ride
with my front light off it had an off switch simply because some percentage
of cars will cause a crash even when they see the bike ? The answer, of
course, is no.

Moreover, there is the critical issue of WHEN they see the bike. I would say
that the high-beam is designed to work (usually) in conjunction with the
low-beam, but more for distance projection. Thereby, the hi-beam would
importantly enhance the distance at which the bike was detected and thus
more likely warn an  oncoming car at a safe stopping in those cases where
such visibility was a factor in avoiding incident.

This discussion, like many others that involve inferences based on what some
might call "common sense," is like trying to prove that vigorous regular
excercise extends life. We can forever cite examples of athletes that die
young and fat chain-smokers that reach 90. While many will downplay the
benefits of excercise, few would say that being fat and chain-smoking
extends life. So really the argument becomes one of the degree to which we
can emphasis or de-emphasis a point that has already been proven quite
implicitly.

The point here is that are certain considerations that seem to make a
difference in large number of relevant "left turn accident" cases. One can
safely state that lights shining from the front of your vehicle will do less
to obscure it from the view of an oncoming vehicle than might turning them
off entirely. Advancing the point, the issue of high versus low beam is
really not a discussion about safety at all, but about the degree of safety
that can be obtained short of becoming a public nuisance. I would say that
daytime high-beam represents a behavior that will result in a significantly
increased "degree of safety" when compared to the alternatives, and as a
result view such usage as the most prudent course of action for responsible
motorcyclists. Just one person's point of view :)


Greg Girard


- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Sheley <eric@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Humm....!!!


>
>>At 03:45 AM 3/9/00 -0500, Gregory D. Girard wrote:
>>Pulsing lights are fine, but the 36% frontal crash data was based on 1998
>>figures.
>>
>>Greg Girard
>
>I understand that - I published a lot of those figures to the list. My
>point was that you cannot base your conclusions on data derived from the
>Hurt report - it is too old an out of date.
>
>I was trying to make the point that the difference between high beam and
>low beam during the day probably will not help an oncoming car determine
>how fast you are moving. People see the bikes (even if they say they don't
>- how many people at a crash will say "yes I saw the bike but thought I
>could beat it" ?) but don't realize until too late that they are moving a
>lot faster that it appears.
>
>- Eric
>
>
>     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
*
>      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


     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
      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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=