Text 15733, 77 rader
Skriven 2005-11-10 00:33:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 15715 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: Fog lights
==================
 >>> That works even better for motorcyclists...used to be a lot of
 >>> motorcyclists hit cars broadside when the driver pulled out in
 >>> front of them because they weren't seen.

 MvdV>> If the motor bike runs into the side of the car, it is the fault of
 MvdV>> the biker; he failed to spot the car in time. When the car driver
 MvdV>> fails to see the biker, the car would hit the bike broadside.

 > Wrong. Apparently you've never ridden a motorcycle.

Wrong. It appear *you* are the one who has never ridden a motor cycle.

 > When a driver fails to see the bike coming and pulls out
 > in front of it, the biker, if he doesn't have time to swerve
 > out of the vehicles path, will hit the car broadside.

Exactly. If the biker assumes the driver of the car has seen him, he is toast
if his assumption is wrong. So either the biker learns very quickly to cease
making that assumption or he very quickly ceases to be a survivor.

I was lucky to learn soon enough to always approach a crossing under the
assumption that the car driver did not see me. I rode a bike and survived.

 MvdV>> Anyway, when evaluating statistics like this one should not just
 MvdV>> count the lives saved among the bikers or the passengers of cars.
 MvdV>> One should count *every* life, including those of bicyclists and
 MvdV>> pedestrians.

 > There must be at least 30 of them...:o)

Yep. ;-)

 MvdV>> When seat belts became compulsory, the number of death among car
 MvdV>> drivers and passengers dropped slightly. However, there was an
 MvdV>> increase of death among pedestrians....

 > I don't see the correalation.

That you don't see it does mot mean there isn't one.

 > Seat belts don't have anything to do with pedestrians.

Indirectly they do.

 > And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with
 > a different method of driving.

But is does. See my massage to Frank S.

 MvdV>> Yes, sure under adverse conditions having the lights on is a good
 MvdV>> idea. In broad daylight and clear weather it is nonsense.

 > Actually just the opposite. On a clear day, it's just as easy
 > to miss an oncoming car as any other day. With DRLs, the chance
 > of not seeing the other car is less.

Yeah, but the marginal increased visibility does not automatically lead to an
overall reduction in casualities.

 MvdV>> The chance of running headlong into another car because
 MvdV>> you do not see him under those conditions is near zero.
 MvdV>> Can't improve on that by switching the lights on.

 > Anything that moves will catch the eye, most of the time, if
 > one is wide awake and aware of the surroundings. Anything that
 > moves and has lights on, cloudy or bright sunshine day, will
 > be noticed sooner and more often.

In bright sunshine the enhanced visibility isa marginal. That marginal enhanced
visibility does not necesarily lead to an overall reduction of casualties. The
statistics do not support the theory that it does.


Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)