Another bike down - "I didn't see him"

Actually those studies say something subtly different to that, they say
that in some cases seat belts can cause or contribute to injuries. They
don't (at least the 2 I saw) cover percentages of other injuries
prevented or reduced.

As far as they go the studies _are_ accurate, they are just narrow focused.

And I fail to see how this is different from our own governments fudging
of the slow down 5 save a life (or whatever the slogan is for reducing
speed by 5kph).

The government deliberatly chose circumstances which made the most of
the point they wanted to make... that's what governments tend to do.

The problem only comes about when people actually believe what pollies
spout without checking it first, as you have done with the lights on debate!


G-S

 

No, not for sale, not this one.

 

Eh? Oh, optimax rots your leathers, buy Texaco instead!

Smee, hurry up with the FAQ and have all the points about "conspicuity"
explained. Also point out studies that are based on countries that are not
Au, shouldn't be extrapolated.

Hammo

 

As obscure as ever Hamish
wtf are you talking about?

(I'm not following this thread)

 

Shane wrote:

Anyone with a big enough sackfull of money can get a report writen to
prove more or less anything they want.

If it makes you happy, you are perfectly entitled to ride about with
your headlamp switched on.

That is the elegant simplicity of the current legislation.

From my personal experience, riding around on a fluoro pink RZ, it
matters not a bit (during day time) if I have the lights on or not.

But I don't find the need to tell every other bikie that they should
ride around on fluoro pink bikes.

Again, from personal experience, I have found that riding around on a
Z50, is, in it's self, very conspicuous. With it's wee 6-volt headlamp,
nobody would know if it's lights were on or not, but they still notice it.

Make everyone ride Z50s! Imagine how many lives would be saved!

Better still, everyone must ride fluoro pink Z50s with headlights on!

Well, no. It wouldn't work. Trouble is, once everyone does whatever to
make them more conspicuous, then whatever it is becomes the normal
situation, and stops being significant.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:47:41 +1000

hence the stupidity of having all vehicles with their lights on in
daytime....

The most conspicuous bike I've had would be a draw between the Baby
Beemer (black, 6v, never had the headlight on in daytime cos the
electrics were elderly) and the "Orrible 'Onda Chop (black, electrics
very home made, never used the headlight in daytime and tried to avoid
riding it at night).

Mind you, the Kwak GT was also fairly visible. Apparently the big
white fairing made it look like a cop bike to drivers who saw it
coming towards them...

Zebee

 

So, it's ok to hold a position, so long as you can rig an experiment to
come up with the results you want?

You sad, miserable wanker...

 

Yeah, funny how the tin tops never have any trouble seeing cop bikes. A mate
put reflective tape on the front of his rear-view mirrors on his K1100. Red
on one side, blue on the other. Never even a near miss.

Funny old thing that.

 

Only of you subscribe to the view that headlights don't make you more
visible.

Headlights on in the day do make you more visible, to me, I can't speak for
anyone else. So if it makes a difference to even 1 in a 1000 people and it
helps prevent you having that one accident, why not do it, anything else is
just bloody mindedness.

It should not be legislation though but then neither should helmets, seat
belts, pink fluro jackets and/or a plethora of other "devices".

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

 

In aus.motorcycles on 11 Jun 2006 06:09:12 GMT

If all vehicles have their lights on, then what you see is a sea of
lights. It's quite difficult to distinguish individual vehicles, and
it's especially difficult to distinguish the single light of a
motorcycle.

This is in Australian daylight conditions. In low ambient light
conditions, then the glare factor and the light factors are different.
Although the masking effect for bikes is still there, a motorcycle at
night in a long line of cars can be difficult to see if it's holding a
steady line.

What if there's a chance of *having* a crash because of it? That's not
theoretical, there are studies showing that a number of vehicles pulled
out into a *smaller* gap when a motorcycle approached with headlight on
compared to an unlit bike or a lit car.

How much of a liklihood of that would make you change your mind? 1
1000 drivers? The same number as you think justifies having them
on? What if it was more than that? Would that change your mind?

What if the light makes no difference at all at the crucial distance in
Australian daylight conditions at city speeds, but can cause things like
people looking away from you and means they are more dangerous to you
or others? What about glare in rear vision mirrors (especially affecting
older drivers) meaning they don't look in the mirror because it's painful?
How much of a "chance of preventing" is required to overcome a chance
of causing?

To me, an unknown amount of reduction in chance of a collision at urban
speeds in Australian daylight conditions with headlight on is not worth
the unknown chance of causing one to myself or others, especially as
the information available is that the headlight doesn't do that much
good.

(that 2 unrelated surveys of hospitalised bikers showed a self-reported
frequency of lights on greater than the counted frequency of lights on
in traffic in those cities (adelaide and perth) is another reason that
I am unimpressed by the idea that it's self evidently good.)

Anecdotally, people I know who have had crashes that involved drivers
being able to see the front of the bike have more often had the light
on than not.

While the plural of anecdote isn't evidence.... I still find it hard
to believe the idea is an unalloyed good!

Everyone's certainly entitled to make their own choices. As long as
they are informed.

THe problem I have is that many people think "I can see that bike half
a mile off, so therefore it's going to prevent a crash if someone is
20 feet off", but they don't realise that when they are 20 feet off the
headlight's hardly visible in Australian daylight conditions. So they
are running under a false sense of security, and worse, condemn those
who don't agree with them. As you did up there with the
"bloodymindedness" comment.

That I don't do it in bright daylight isn't bloodymindedness. It is
careful study of the studies available, all neatly brought together
in the Victorian parliamentary enquiry on the subject, and me studying
the effect of properly adjusted headlights at close distance where it
matters, and of improperly adjusted ones at varying distances. Not to
mention the sea-of-lights effect in bright daylight that I have seen
once when there was a promotion of lights on.

If you want to ride with them on, after studying the available
information and coming to a different conclusion, then go for it. But
don't think that I haven't thought about what I do, and don't condemn
me for deciding on the evidence just because I decided differently.

Zebee

 

My Saint Christopher medal protects me in exactly the same manner.

If they outlaw St Christopher medals then my inlaws will be outlaws!

 

You make the mistake of thinking we're on some sort of recruitment drive, or we need more people to contribute. If these people you
speak of don't like what they see, then clearly this newsgroup is not for them.

Oh dear, there are people not contributing! Whatever shall we do?

 

All this headlight on rubbish is probably because of the "statistical"I
did not see him response which may be not so .It is the standard
response like "I did not know the gun was loaded" in a lot of shooting
accidents whether true or not

 

Shit, that's some good news then.

JL

 

Well that's simply not true, there are a large number of people
interested in bikes and riding that get value from ausmoto BECAUSE of
the participation of people like IK

JL
(in particular anyone who owns a kawasaki - odd obsession that, but worthy)

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:07:12 +1000

It's a weird definition of "really interested" isn't it. "Doesn't
like IK's style on usenet" isn't how I'd define "really interested"
myself.

Zebee
- obviously not really interested in bikes or riding. Been fooling
myself all these years.

 

I love reading this newsgroup for a laugh!
No matter who throws a line, there's always someone who'll bite, LMAO.

Aido. >
Anybody got any vertual boxing gloves?

 

And a hearty well done to yourself Shane. You have *yet again* shown your ignorance.

 

The "I didn't see you" line is almost a conditioned response in society these days. Anything to try and deflect blame, no matter how
lame the attempt. Too many people don't see because they're not looking properly. A headlight on is not going to correct this
problem.

I have had a number of close calls with people pulling out on me. Every single time I have heard the "I didn't see you" line (quite
often followed by a glance at the motorbike and the suggestion that I must have been speeding). Both of my bikes have their
headlights hardwired on from the manufacturer. If "headlights are easily seen" then it should be reasonable to assume that I would
seldom hear people claim they never saw me.

Car drivers do not have adequate training on hazard perception and avoidance, and there's an ever growing culture that the car is an
extension of one's living room.

 

*AGAIN* showing your ignorance. You really know very little about this group.