Sent in response to Arnold Thompson ( arnoldrt99@yahoo.com ), who is not just
hard of learning, but behaves like an asshole. My original response to his
email with simplistic and wrong reasoning is included too because of his
quoting style (Saves me having to make 2 or 3 files ;-) ).

I did not cut anything so his entire email is included in between my comments.
---------------------------------

Arnold,

> You just do not get it. The evidence is already proven. Slow moving or
> stopped vehicles need extra light activity to warn the traffic of what's
> ahead. Slow moving vehicles are inherently dangerous and deserve the
> extra lighting effort to warn the driver behind.  It's safety first. You
> are blocking out the evidence with stubbornness and blindness. Your
> dangerous idea that visibilty is the primary and a sufficient factor for
> making taillights safer is just that, dangerous. 

No, I do get. You do not get it!

YOU don't understand that visibility in the dark is what gives enough
attention. If this were not the case then there were much stricter bike
lightin regulations in NL. Also note the difference in roads. But I told
you.

> There is no evidence that getting a driver's attention with flashing
> strobe lights causes more bicycle accidents. You are making that part
> up. Where I come from, if you make stuff up, we call you a liar.

You can't estimate distance therefore this can give problems.

Attracting attention, taking it away from everything else makes the road
less safe. This is simple logic.

Liar? Amusing.

> If you insist on following another bicyclist closely, then have
> different lighting options turned on, but have the last person in the
> group show the proper attention-getting and slow-moving vehicle warning
> lights (i.e. bright flashing).  Slow moving road cyclists are *not
> *getting killed by being *too* noticeable. At least I have never heard
> of such a case. Its just the opposite I hear.

It can give problems of others getting killed or hit because the
attention is grabbed by YOU!

It's unbelievable that you dare to accuse me of not understanding it
when you absolutely do not get the point that I clearly made!

> Drivers claim they do not see the cyclist most times. This is similar to
> the problem motorcyclists have, except motorcyclists have the advantage
> of not impeding traffic at a slow speed. Cyclists need the same level of
> notice-ability that a slow moving car or truck has with flashing lights.
> Its time to admit that fact. It's a basic need for safe noticeable
> lighting that the motor vehicle world adopted a long time ago.
>
> There is more of a chance that a cyclist or group of cyclists will *not*
> be hit if the driver of a car is jostled out of his stupor with a
> flashing red strobe light ahead of him. Get that through your thick hard
> head.
>
> You have a tendency to think in black and white, all or nothing. You
> cannot save everyone from being hit, but you can prevent more accidents,
> as evidenced by emergency vehicles and police cars. Evidence is
> evidence. More policemen lives are saved when their cars are properly
> sending out a warning to oncoming traffic. Warning drivers that
> something unusually slow in traffic lies just ahead, that is idea, that
> is what flashing lights are all about.
>
> This is not like crying wolf with too many lights flashing. Every time a
> light is flashing, there is an obstacle ahead that the driver must
> navigate cautiously. And psychologically, the driver does not have a
> choice but to notice a bright flashing light. As I mentioned, our mind
> and eyes are pre-wired to focus attention on extreme motion, colors and
> light. This is not a choice. A day-dreaming mind has no choice but to
> notice a bright flashing light. Only the really careless or otherwise
> distracted driver can ignore such blatant road signals. These drivers
> should not be allowed to drive. We all hope the police and judges take
> their licenses away from them.
>
> I sincerely hope you do get hit by a driver who is not paying attention,
> as I was. Why? Because it will be your own fault for ignoring my advice.
> You get what you deserve as far as I am concerned. I, for one, do not
> intend on being a victim again, not if I can help it. Yes, I am selfish.
> I want to live you fool.

You are an asshole and a moron.

Goodbye. And I will block you and publish this asshole letter of yours
on my website.

Goodbye,

Wouter


>
> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:07 PM, W.Scholten <whs-fiets@xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
>
> Arnold,
>
>> I have been hit by a car. It was the car driver's fault. */He did not
>> notice me/*. So I can attest to the fact that safety is now my only
>> concern. There are several things you should know about bicycling safety
>> as it applies to all vehicles on the road, motorized or non-motorized.
>>
>> 1. Visibility cannot be equated as equal to being noticed. A bright
>> visible taillight is not equal to an irritating flashing taillight. The
>> irritating light has the advantage of not being run over, /*unnoticed*/.
>
> Not so, as evidenced by accidents I read, for example one which was
> descirbed on I think mtbr.com, where a guy, even a group, with multiple
> taillamps (of all types, flashing too) was run into (sideswiped taking a
> right IIRC) by motorists...
>
>
>> 2. Being distracted is what gets the attention of vehicle drivers. The
>> driver becomes focused on the distraction. This is as it should be. I
>> would rather you notice me on a bike than run over me.
>
> And you would rather he hit someone else than you? Because distracting =
> taking attention away from everything else...
>
>> Drivers daydream all the time. They do not focus all their attention on
>> driving as they should. Only a visual or audible distraction will alert
>> a driver to pay attention. This is the lesson learned by all emergency
>> service vehicles and police cars. Yes, these distractions are annoying,
>> but that is why they are effective. Vehicles on the road will respond
>> more safely to confusing flashing lights and irritating sirens. That is
>> the fact of the matter. You cannot argue otherwise. Otherwise, you would
>> have to argue that all emergency vehicles have to get rid of their
>> obnoxious lights and sirens.
>
> No, the flashing light and sirens are to be noticed that a vehicle is
> coming which does not comply with normal driving procedures and that
> traffic should get out of the way!
>
> Also it's not true that this is always effective, es evidenced by the
> fact that ambulances and police cars get run into and the motorists then
> claim "they did not see them".
>
> As I wrote on my site: When someone is not paying attention in that way,
> then nothing will help.
>
>> Bicyclists should be required to have the same level of light
>> distraction that a slow moving vehicle has. At the very least, we should
>> be required this small safety level. A slow moving vehicle's taillights
>> are bright and flashing. There is a distraction element to the lighting,
>> a warning to other vehicles. This is how it should be. It is much safer
>> for everyone.
>
> It could help, but only in case of traffic with few slow moving
> vehicles, certainly not in NL, Germany, Belgium. Then the annoying
> and/or flashing taillamps would be everywhere which means back to square
> 1. If there are blinking lights everywhere, then they don't stand out
> any more.
>
> And in other countries like the UK the attitude of motorists is a big
> part of the problem.
>
>> Due to the limits of electric capacity on a bike, the only way to make
>> up for the brightness a motor vehicle taillight has is to increase the
>> distraction ability of bike lights. The flashing strobe taillight put a
>> bicycle on equal footing with flashing motor vehicle taillights. Unless
>> you want to sacrifice safety, I suggest you change your stance on
>> flashing lights for bikes somewhat. As a cyclist, you are riding a slow
>
> No, my stance on flashing is about safety. Your stand on attraction
> attention is that you don't get hit, which is selfish. You obviously
> don't care about anyone else nor that what you do makes the road less
> safe, as shown in what you write.
>
>> moving vehicle and you should remember that. You are a possible hazard
>> on the road just like a slow moving car or truck. You should also not
>> underestimate the safety lessons learned by irritating emergency
>> vehicles and police cars.
>
> See above...
>
>> The more irritating the light, the safer everyone becomes.
>
> No.
>
>> Why? Because
>> drivers are paying attention to you on the bicycle. This is as it should
>> be. Drivers are lax and often not paying attention while driving. You
>> need something out of the ordinary to bring their focus back into
>> driving safely around you.
>
> See above.
>
>> 3. This is the third thing you should know. Vision is not seen as a
>> whole picture. The brain is wired to only notice something out of the
>> ordinary, then your brain directs your vision to focus on only that part
>> which is gathering all the attention.
>
> You haven't told me anything that I don't know... The way this attention
> grabbing, in a mild way and therefore properly working way works, is
> with pedal reflectors...
>
> If something like that could be/would allowed to be used on bicycles as
> active lighting and be as visible and yet non-distracting nor
> too-attention grabbing, then perhaps it would be a good idea.
>
>
>> There are several ways this happens. Cyclists will wear bright colors,
>> colors that clash and are noticed. Also, movement will garner the
>> attention immediately, like a rabbit darting across the road. Flashing
>> taillights lights are a type of stationary movement (on/off) and a clash
>> of colors (clashing red color maximized by brightness). The brain
>> automatically focuses your vision on such an object. Whether you were
>> paying attention to your driving or not, it gets your attention first,
>> and then you see it. It is an automatic response. Drivers will respond
>> to what they notice and see.
>
>
> The problem then is not being able to estimate distance speed, nor
> actually being able to see properly what else is there in case of
> annoying point sources. And that means that it can give problems such as
> motorists taking a right thinking the cyclist is way back, because
> flashing = no speed indication = standing still in the mind of a motorist.
>
>
>
> The first thing that needs to be done, is to give proper light, from a
> large illuminated surface. Most bicycle taillamps are crap, and none
> have a proper large illuminating surface. Blinking and point sources are
> NOT a substitute for proper lighting and properly making oneself visible.
>
> Do you ride with pedal reflectors?
>
> How do you know that if you had ridden with annoying and/or blinking
> taillamp that that motorist would not have hit you in that case too?
>
> Further you must consider differences of roads. On shared roads where
> cars may drive only 60 km/h, speed differences are not enough to warrant
> anything more than normal good bike lighting. For higher speed
> differences and where motorists don't expect bicycles, something else
> may be needed as I mentioned on my site. But that means outside cities
> on large roads. Then a flashing indicator could perhaps be useful but
> only accompanied with a non-flashing light so there is some distance
> estimation possible.
>
> Wouter
>
>
> -- 
> Gambiet: bicycles/components: http://www.xs4all.nl/~swhs/fiets/index_en.html
> --
> Component reviews: http://www.xs4all.nl/~swhs/fiets/tests/index_en.html
>
>
>


-- Gambiet: bicycles/components: http://www.xs4all.nl/~swhs/fiets/index_en.html -- Component reviews: http://www.xs4all.nl/~swhs/fiets/tests/index_en.html