Text 15909, 98 rader
Skriven 2005-11-12 10:48:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 15789 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: Fog lights
==================
 >>> Wrong. Apparently you've never ridden a motorcycle.

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

 > LOL! I was riding motorcycles long before you became old
 > enough to know what they are.

You can not possible be that old.

 >>> 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.

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

 > See 'time', above.

The biker that is a survivor will create the time by slowing down so that he
can always stop before the line where the car would be if it suddenly decides
to pull up. He will only accelerate when he has reached the point where he can
pull out in front of the car no matter what the car does.

 > Anticipating the vehicle's movement still
 > requires enough reactionary time to avoid it.

See above. An experienced and careful biker can not be tricked into running
into the side of car.

 > new 1959 Cadillac...if you've ever seen the tailights and fins
 > on that car, they're really dangerous to people on bikes. I broke
 > the left rear tailight lense with my knee.

 > http://home.earthlink.net/~gallery59/cadangR.jpg

Oops, that look s awful. I remember those fins from when I was young. I always
wondered why people thought that was nice...

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

 MvdV>> Indirectly they do.

 > Maybe when they become passengers or drivers.

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

 MvdV>> But is does. See my massage to Frank S.

 > I saw it, but I didn't think it was relevant.

That's not my problem.

 > I feel no safer with seat belts on than I did without them. I
 > have no more confidence that I'll somehow be saved from injury
 > than I did with out them. Until there's an opportunity to prove
 > they're safer than not, I only feel inconvenienced by having
 > to strap myself into the car before I can go anywhere.

The staistics show that you have a better chance of surviving a serious
accident when you are buckled up. Most people seem to believe that and DO feel
safer when belted in.

 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.

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

 > The increased viisbility isn't merely marginal...

Whatever. I have been hearing all these arguments for decades. I have yet to
see the accident statisctics to back it up.

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

 > Wrong...by now you've seen the list of studies, which prove
 > your theory wrong.

I have seen a list of article about visibility. There was nothing to prove that
carrying lights in broad daylight improves overall road safety.

I do not feel safer with the lights on in broad daylight.

Cheers, Michiel

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