Gorgeous video shows last weekend's Dunwich Dynamo - from the air

TerreyHill wrote:

Anyone know the backing music?

I'm not sure but agree it was really good - anyone know who it was?

EDIT: "Tsunami" https://m.soundcloud.com/thegronk

Luv2ride wrote:

TerreyHill wrote:

Anyone know the backing music?

I'm not sure but agree it was really good - anyone know who it was?

EDIT: "Tsunami" https://m.soundcloud.com/thegronk

Muchas gracias!

Roadie_john wrote:

I use a flashing rear light in low light or at night, with a steady light as well. Not sure of the evidence,  but flashing lights seem to create movement that the eye picks up better, steady lights allow better distance judgement.

Yeah - this is what I recommend to newbies: flashing to be seen, steady for them to judge how far away you are.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense.

  You obviously don't know the tragic story behind Exposure/USE.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

madcarew wrote:

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

You did read what you pasted there didn't you? They're comparisons of reflectors to three other visual aids: steady light(pedestrian); steady light(bicycle) and flashing light(bicycle). Nowhere in there is there a comparison between steady lights and flashing lights. The only one of those which I have been able to find is one performed on snowploughs in North America[1] and its conclusion was that steady lights enabled drivers to more correctly judge the distance to the snowplough. (There must be others but I cannot find them. I assume that there is psychology/perceptual vision research which demonstrates that blinking lights attract the attention more in _certain conditions_, but they are not easy to find).

Two points jump out from this:

1) People's confidence that they "know" some "common sense" is strongest when they are low in information and they will be ruder and more vehement in their assertion of the truth of that weak position.

2) Car drivers are so used to ignoring safe driving practices that they will even smash into the back of something as huge as a snow plough (admittedly in low visibility conditions). The emphasis on doing the little we can to make ourselves more visible is misplaced. By all means do so, but the only meaningful, significant improvements can some from the regulation and control of the origin of the problem: the dangerous vehicles.

1. Bullough, J.D. et al "PAPER #14: REAR LIGHTING CONFIGURATIONS FOR WINTER MAINTENANCE VEHICLES" IESNA Annual Conference: Ottawa, ON, Canada; August 5-8, 2001 http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/pdf/iesna01a.pdf

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

I think that you may have to just accept that there is no evidence, study results or anecdotal real world experience of other people that can challenge your rather strange and counter intuitive belief system.

Mungecrundle wrote:

I think that you may have to just accept that there is no evidence, study results or anecdotal real world experience of other people that can challenge your rather strange and counter intuitive belief system.[/quote]

Correct. There are just some people on here who are destined to keep making the same f-ups over and over again on the basis that they won't listen to anyone, and can't tell the difference between Googling to find what you want to find, and actual evidence.  This is the general area where the NHS interrups Darwinism.  Take a view...

BarryBianchi wrote:

Correct. There are just some people on here who are destined to keep making the same f-ups over and over again on the basis that they won't listen to anyone, and can't tell the difference between Googling to find what you want to find, and actual evidence.  This is the general area where the NHS interrups Darwinism.  Take a view...

This from someone who doesn't know what a dual carriageway is, and can't figure out quote tags.

My view is you're full of shit.

This from someone who doesn't know what a dual carriageway is, and can't figure out quote tags. My view is you're full of shit.

I just wish I could find the words to tell you exaclty how valuable your "view" is.

BarryBianchi wrote:

This from someone who doesn't know what a dual carriageway is, and can't figure out quote tags. My view is you're full of shit.

 

I just wish I could find the words to tell you exaclty how valuable your "view" is.

Echo, echo...

Who are you talking to, you dribbling mess?

Get your grandma to give you some HTML tips when you've put down your Biggles comic.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

When I was taking flight lessons, I remember learning that movement is detected better by your peripheral vision.  So flashing lights could could create a movement-like effect that would then be more noticeable to those people not looking directly where a cyclist could be.  Not saying I know this to be the case, but just throwing it out there as a possible reason flashing lights could be more effective in certain situations.

Anecdotally (useless overall, I know) it seems that I do get less people pulling out in front of me from side roads when I have my front light flashing.  I only set it this way at certain times, usually dawn or dusk, when it's not dark enough for the flashing to distract but not bright enough to feel like no light is needed, and also bright enough that a steady light may not be noticed as well.  Mainly used on my way to work when the sun is at my back; most people looking at me from the front get blinded by the sun so I need something to stick out more.  I also point the light further downwards when I have it flashing, to try not to piss off anyone

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

"how about you prove (your) hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible."

You are making some strong claims 

"Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. "

"hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you." 

It's up to you now to provide evidence to support your claims.

Actually one of these studies shows that hi vis does raise your conspicuity to motorists. As to your point about this being people who are "looking ". There is evidence to show that people who are "looking" will just as readily miss the obvious as those who aren't looking. 

Over to you, provide some evidence of your claims, or accept that you are talking exactly the same "balls" and poppycock that you are saying (most of) the rest of the world is saying.

I saw the snowplough report as well, and it provides interesting reading, but sbow plougsh, by nature (if you've ever followed one in action) are surrounded by a cloud of snow which as the study shows is a serious obfuscating factor. It did interestingly show that steady lights were more visible in that circumstance than flashing. 

I am very happy for the accepted wisdomto be challenged and that that flashing lights are no more visible, or no more likely to enhance your visibility than a steady light, or no light in the day time . But that is going to require some rigorous proof.  Clearly, no kind of light is not going to protect you from a driver who is looking at their phone or combing their beard in the mirror, but most accidents aren't a result of this. Common sense (!) says that raising your visibility is going to enhance your chances of not being run over by most motorists

madcarew wrote:

"how about you prove (your) hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible."

You're trying to train one of the stand-out packs of mince on this site to do back-flips.  It's like intellectual altitude training; long, aching process that's only rewarding if you have a definite use for it.

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. It won't stop those that aren't looking from crashing into you, it's those that you need to worry about and lights, hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you.

And as with certain police reports, all it does it then put the blame onto those that are riding with legal lights, "lights were not very bright", lights were 'dim', yet still were legal. Upping the ante on lights only has a negative outcome, flashing lights during the day gets right up my nose and overtly bright flashing lights on urban roads is simply a hazard/thoughtlessness at best.

but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts.

Definitely obtuse

"but if you've some hard evidence it will protect you/prevent incident link us to it so we can understand the thinking/facts." I have to assume by hard evidence you mean studies, and practical application of research:

LMGTFY

Not easy to find but...

https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/flashing_2.php

Blomberg 1986: A flashing light held by a pedestrian yielded a greater detecti on and recognition distance when compared with reflectorised accessories (420m versus 207m and 96m versus 92m respectively).
Watts 1984b: A rear bicycle lamp yielded a greater detection distance when compared with reflectors (306m versus 184m).
Watts 1984c: A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus 444m and 59m versus 71m respectively)

So, none of them show that it will prevent harm, but all demonstrate that a flashing light more readily gains attention than a steady light, or no light at all. 

Now that's been done for you, how about you prove th null hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible.

So no evidence then! These are people LOOKING, these are NOT the people who do not see steady lights. Try again.

it's not obtuse to question 'common sense' or other little fallacy nuggets.

"how about you prove (your) hypothesis, that flashing lights don't provide protection, or aren't more visible."

You are making some strong claims 

"Flashing lights during the day, what a load of old balls, more pointless nonsense. "

"hi-vis, sunflares aren't going to protect you." 

It's up to you now to provide evidence to support your claims.

Actually one of these studies shows that hi vis does raise your conspicuity to motorists. As to your point about this being people who are "looking ". There is evidence to show that people who are "looking" will just as readily miss the obvious as those who aren't looking. 

Over to you, provide some evidence of your claims, or accept that you are talking exactly the same "balls" and poppycock that you are saying (most of) the rest of the world is saying.

I saw the snowplough report as well, and it provides interesting reading, but sbow plougsh, by nature (if you've ever followed one in action) are surrounded by a cloud of snow which as the study shows is a serious obfuscating factor. It did interestingly show that steady lights were more visible in that circumstance than flashing. 

I am very happy for the accepted wisdomto be challenged and that that flashing lights are no more visible, or no more likely to enhance your visibility than a steady light, or no light in the day time . But that is going to require some rigorous proof.  Clearly, no kind of light is not going to protect you from a driver who is looking at their phone or combing their beard in the mirror, but most accidents aren't a result of this. Common sense (!) says that raising your visibility is going to enhance your chances of not being run over by most motorists

 

the initial claim was that flashing front lights ARE better/make you more visible, I said they're not, thus the onus of proof goes with those stating that flashing lights are better/more visible. Maybe you need to figure out how things work with regard to onus of evidence as what you linked to proves diddly squat.

"one study", yeah, there's always that 'one' study that might loosely prove your point. Plenty more that say that hi-vis doesn't work, and if it was so effective why aren't the government demanding hi-vis colours for those vehicles that crash into each other all the time???

And as i've said it before, going down the route of hi-vis, helmets, brighter lights puts more and more onus on the vulnerable to protect themselves and absolve responsibility from those that present the harm

As for dual carriageways and snow ploughs, what the fuck are you jabbering on about!

You're the one who is obtuse!

Behind wrote:

You're the one who is obtuse!

No. You have just confused your "onus" of proof with your "anus".

BarryBianchi wrote:

Behind wrote:

You're the one who is obtuse!

 

No. You have just confused your "onus" of proof with your "anus".

Ah so, having l;ost the argument you resort to personal insults, congrats on your loss!

BarryBianchi wrote:

FFS.  Flashing helmets are scientifically proven to be 106% more stifferer in crashes than Campag, and anyone that now says otherwise was killed by an Audi in a close pass.

I'm not falling for that one. You can get on a list if you flash your helmet. Stiff or otherwise.