🚀 go-pugleaf

This will not help the commuter cyclist.

Glowing bicycles are not superior to a cyclist that has 
a good white headlight, a flat rear reflector (correctly
positioned), and bright clothing.

For kids with parents who do not equip their kids bikes 
with the proper lights and reflectors. It may help a little.

Frankly, I do not think 600 feet is enough. Can someone tell
me how slow a car would have to be going to stop in 600 feet?

Secondly, rear visibility is what is required the most, and
a bicycle just does not have much surface pointing to the rear.
Therefore, a good flat reflector, and a retro-reflective triangle
is still your best protection.

Thirdly, no vest or glow bike will help a cyclist if they run
a stop sign or red light. Also do not expose yourself to traffic
when waiting to turn at intersections.

Peter McNichol
CAN-BIKE Instructor
 

Daniel Say wrote:
> 
>  X-URL: http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbike.htm
> 
>  UNIV. OF FLA. ENGINEER, STUDENTS CREATE GLOW-IN-THE-DARK BICYCLE
> 
>  Oct. 15, 2001
>  [6]Contact Information  | [7]Photo Information
>  ______________________________________________________________________
>  [8]Glow-In-The-Dark Bicycle Photo GAINESVILLE, Fla. ---
>  Nighttime cyclists may soon have a dramatic safety improvement
>  that's sure to get glowing reviews: a bike that glows from
>  stem to stern, wheels included.
> 
>  Using the same technology that makes wristwatch faces light up in the
>  dark, researchers at the University of Florida have created a bicycle
>  with electro-luminescent panels on the frame and tire rims. The
>  devices make the average bike visible from up to 600 feet away,
>  significantly reducing the risk of a collision for cyclists and
>  motorists, said Christopher Niezrecki, an assistant professor of
>  mechanical engineering who, along with two undergraduate students,
>  created the system.
> 
>  Drivers need to detect that there is something in the road, posing a
>  hazard, he said. Second, they need to recognize that what they have
>  detected is a bicycle.
> 
>  One factor contributing to fatal nighttime bicycle accidents is riders
>  low visibility to motorists. The Consumer Product Safety Commission
>  has estimated that riding after dark is roughly four times riskier
>  than riding during the day. U.S. Dept. of Transportation studies have
>  proven that the risk of being hit by a motorist at night is eight
>  times lower when wearing a safety reflector.
> 
>  Powered by a nine-volt battery that rests below the seat, the panels
>  on the glowing bike last for years, according to Niezrecki. The
>  battery can last for up to four hours when the lights are used
>  continuously, longer when blinking. Unlike reflectors or conventional
>  lights, the electro-luminescent lighting is not subject to dimming or
>  fading when blocked from an external light source.
> 
>  In addition, the panels may be switched off when not needed, such as
>  during daylight hours, to extend battery life.
> 
>  The illumination technology appears to be perfectly suited for college
>  campuses, where large numbers of people ride bicycles in the dark.
> 
>  It just seemed like the need was there, said Niezrecki. There are a
>  lot of bicyclists at the university who ride at night and are
>  practically invisible to drivers.
> 
>  The prototype, which cost Niezrecki and his team demonstrated at a Las
>  Vegas trade show last month, cost roughly $1,500 to build. However,
>  Niezrecki said, production models could be sell for as little as $70,
>  and bikes could be retrofitted with the illuminated panels for about
>  the same price.
> 
>  The National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance funded the
>  glowing-bike project with a $16,000 grant.
> 
>  With the novelty of a bicycle that glows in the dark and an affordable
>  price, Niezrecki and his team anticipate the bike to be especially
>  attractive to parents of young children.
> 
>  Were hoping it will be the next Razor scooter, he said, referring to
>  the hot toy craze of last Christmas.
>                                   -30-
>  ______________________________________________________________________
> 
>  Writer: Kate Palmer, [9]Kategpalmer@hotmail.com
>  Source: Christopher Niezrecki, (352) 392-8494, [10]niezreck@ufl.edu
>  ______________________________________________________________________
>    [niezrecki.jpg] Christopher Niezrecki
>    Assistant Professor
>    Ph.D., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, 1999
>    Vibrations, Acoustics, Intelligent Materials, Mechatronics, Controls.
>    [21]Smart Structures and Acoustics Laboratory
>      _________________________________________________________________
> 
>    Department of Mechanical Engineering
>    P.O. Box 116300
>    Gainesville, Florida 32611
>    352-392-8494
>    352-392-1071 fax
>       niezreck@ufl.edu
>      _________________________________________________________________
> 
> " References
>  Visible links
>  6. http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbike.htm#contact
>  7. http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbikeph.htm
>  8. http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbikeph.htm
>  9. mailto:Kategpalmer@hotmail.com
> 10. mailto:niezreck@ufl.edu
> 11. http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbike.htm#top
> 
> ---------------------------------------------

Peter McNichol wrote:
> 
> This will not help the commuter cyclist.
> 
> Glowing bicycles are not superior to a cyclist that has
> a good white headlight, a flat rear reflector (correctly
> positioned), and bright clothing.
> 

I think it would be from the side view.  Reflectors rely on headlights,
headlights only point where the car is pointing, which in the apex of a
turn is not where the car is going.

> For kids with parents who do not equip their kids bikes
> with the proper lights and reflectors. It may help a little.
> 
> Frankly, I do not think 600 feet is enough. Can someone tell
> me how slow a car would have to be going to stop in 600 feet?

For the average size car to take 600 feet to stop, not counting the
driver's reaction time, the car would have to be going about 200 mph. 
If you include the reaction time of someone not paying attention, say,
1.5 seconds, then the car would have to be travelling 115 mph.


> 
> Secondly, rear visibility is what is required the most, and
> a bicycle just does not have much surface pointing to the rear.
> Therefore, a good flat reflector, and a retro-reflective triangle
> is still your best protection.
> 

I would say using those items in addition to any other visibility
feature would be the best protection.



--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

I saw this on a newscast. The bike is VERY visible when approached
from the side. And this was the only angle that was shown. My guess is
that the visibility from a rear or front  approach would not be much
different than a bike without any lights whatsoever. Probably still
need front and rear lights for car drivers to see you. 
On 26 Oct 2001 06:56:53 GMT, say@sfu.ca (Daniel Say) wrote:

> X-URL: http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbike.htm
>
> UNIV. OF FLA. ENGINEER, STUDENTS CREATE GLOW-IN-THE-DARK BICYCLE
>
> Oct. 15, 2001
> [6]Contact Information  | [7]Photo Information
> ______________________________________________________________________
> [8]Glow-In-The-Dark Bicycle Photo GAINESVILLE, Fla. ---
> Nighttime cyclists may soon have a dramatic safety improvement
> that's sure to get glowing reviews: a bike that glows from
> stem to stern, wheels included.
>
> Using the same technology that makes wristwatch faces light up in the
> dark, researchers at the University of Florida have created a bicycle
> with electro-luminescent panels on the frame and tire rims. The
> devices make the average bike visible from up to 600 feet away,
> significantly reducing the risk of a collision for cyclists and
> motorists, said Christopher Niezrecki, an assistant professor of
> mechanical engineering who, along with two undergraduate students,
> created the system.
>
> Drivers need to detect that there is something in the road, posing a
> hazard, he said. Second, they need to recognize that what they have
> detected is a bicycle.
>
> One factor contributing to fatal nighttime bicycle accidents is riders
> low visibility to motorists. The Consumer Product Safety Commission
> has estimated that riding after dark is roughly four times riskier
> than riding during the day. U.S. Dept. of Transportation studies have
> proven that the risk of being hit by a motorist at night is eight
> times lower when wearing a safety reflector.
>
> Powered by a nine-volt battery that rests below the seat, the panels
> on the glowing bike last for years, according to Niezrecki. The
> battery can last for up to four hours when the lights are used
> continuously, longer when blinking. Unlike reflectors or conventional
> lights, the electro-luminescent lighting is not subject to dimming or
> fading when blocked from an external light source.
>
> In addition, the panels may be switched off when not needed, such as
> during daylight hours, to extend battery life.
>
> The illumination technology appears to be perfectly suited for college
> campuses, where large numbers of people ride bicycles in the dark.
>
> It just seemed like the need was there, said Niezrecki. There are a
> lot of bicyclists at the university who ride at night and are
> practically invisible to drivers.
>
> The prototype, which cost Niezrecki and his team demonstrated at a Las
> Vegas trade show last month, cost roughly $1,500 to build. However,
> Niezrecki said, production models could be sell for as little as $70,
> and bikes could be retrofitted with the illuminated panels for about
> the same price.
>
> The National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance funded the
> glowing-bike project with a $16,000 grant.
>
> With the novelty of a bicycle that glows in the dark and an affordable
> price, Niezrecki and his team anticipate the bike to be especially
> attractive to parents of young children.
>
> Were hoping it will be the next Razor scooter, he said, referring to
> the hot toy craze of last Christmas.
>                                  -30-
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Writer: Kate Palmer, [9]Kategpalmer@hotmail.com
> Source: Christopher Niezrecki, (352) 392-8494, [10]niezreck@ufl.edu
> ______________________________________________________________________
>   [niezrecki.jpg] Christopher Niezrecki
>   Assistant Professor
>   Ph.D., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, 1999
>   Vibrations, Acoustics, Intelligent Materials, Mechatronics, Controls.
>   [21]Smart Structures and Acoustics Laboratory
>     _________________________________________________________________
>
>   Department of Mechanical Engineering
>   P.O. Box 116300
>   Gainesville, Florida 32611
>   352-392-8494
>   352-392-1071 fax
>      niezreck@ufl.edu
>     _________________________________________________________________
>
>" References
> Visible links
> 6. http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbike.htm#contact
> 7. http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbikeph.htm
> 8. http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbikeph.htm
> 9. mailto:Kategpalmer@hotmail.com
>10. mailto:niezreck@ufl.edu
>11. http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/glowingbike.htm#top
>
>---------------------------------------------
>

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> 
> Peter McNichol wrote:
> >
> > This will not help the commuter cyclist.
> >
> > Glowing bicycles are not superior to a cyclist that has
> > a good white headlight, a flat rear reflector (correctly
> > positioned), and bright clothing.
> >
> 
> I think it would be from the side view.  Reflectors rely on headlights,
> headlights only point where the car is pointing, which in the apex of a
> turn is not where the car is going.

Which is why you need a white head light to cast a beam into the view
of the driver. I see no evidence the glow bike has any visibility from 
the front, or rear.

> 
> > For kids with parents who do not equip their kids bikes
> > with the proper lights and reflectors. It may help a little.
> >
> > Frankly, I do not think 600 feet is enough. Can someone tell
> > me how slow a car would have to be going to stop in 600 feet?
> 
> For the average size car to take 600 feet to stop, not counting the
> driver's reaction time, the car would have to be going about 200 mph.
> If you include the reaction time of someone not paying attention, say,
> 1.5 seconds, then the car would have to be travelling 115 mph.

Actually this was a trick question. It is not how far you can see,
but when you see, and without a white light you will not see the
front of the glow bike until it is too late.

> 
> >
> > Secondly, rear visibility is what is required the most, and
> > a bicycle just does not have much surface pointing to the rear.
> > Therefore, a good flat reflector, and a retro-reflective triangle
> > is still your best protection.
> >
> 
> I would say using those items in addition to any other visibility
> feature would be the best protection.

So the side visibility of a glow bike does not help your visibility
to the front or the rear. Thus a white light and red reflector are
still required.

> >
> > I think it would be from the side view.  Reflectors rely on headlights,
> > headlights only point where the car is pointing, which in the apex of a
> > turn is not where the car is going.
> 
> Which is why you need a white head light to cast a beam into the view
> of the driver. I see no evidence the glow bike has any visibility from
> the front, or rear.

Speaking as someone who has never been broad sided in an intersection I
would wager.

> 
> >
> > > For kids with parents who do not equip their kids bikes
> > > with the proper lights and reflectors. It may help a little.
> > >
> > > Frankly, I do not think 600 feet is enough. Can someone tell
> > > me how slow a car would have to be going to stop in 600 feet?
> >
> > For the average size car to take 600 feet to stop, not counting the
> > driver's reaction time, the car would have to be going about 200 mph.
> > If you include the reaction time of someone not paying attention, say,
> > 1.5 seconds, then the car would have to be travelling 115 mph.
> 
> Actually this was a trick question. It is not how far you can see,
> but when you see, and without a white light you will not see the
> front of the glow bike until it is too late.
> 
> >
> > >
> > > Secondly, rear visibility is what is required the most, and
> > > a bicycle just does not have much surface pointing to the rear.
> > > Therefore, a good flat reflector, and a retro-reflective triangle
> > > is still your best protection.
> > >
> >
> > I would say using those items in addition to any other visibility
> > feature would be the best protection.
> 
> So the side visibility of a glow bike does not help your visibility
> to the front or the rear. Thus a white light and red reflector are
> still required.

Yes, did I say they were not?  All I am saying is there would be no harm
in having your frame glow in addition to the required light and
reflector.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

In article <3BD92CFC.1BB59895@sympatico.ca>,
Peter McNichol  <pmcnichol@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Secondly, rear visibility is what is required the most...

Hmmm...  Why would rear visibilty be required more that front
visibility.  Although i have no sources to back this up, I understood
that being hit from the rear was less common than those accidents
involving hits from the front or side. 

I guess my point is that visibility from any specific direction is no
more important than from any other direction.

C-ya
-- 
Doug Chinnery          doug@zadall.com
'Dead is the drunkest you can get.  But I haven't been that drunk yet' - Tielli

Rear is where you require the most reflective illumination.

Where as in the front a white light is required.

Glow bikes will not help you being seen from the front or rear.

Doug Chinnery wrote:
> 
> In article <3BD92CFC.1BB59895@sympatico.ca>,
> Peter McNichol  <pmcnichol@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Secondly, rear visibility is what is required the most...
> 
> Hmmm...  Why would rear visibilty be required more that front
> visibility.  Although i have no sources to back this up, I understood
> that being hit from the rear was less common than those accidents
> involving hits from the front or side.
> 
> I guess my point is that visibility from any specific direction is no
> more important than from any other direction.
> 
> C-ya
> --
> Doug Chinnery          doug@zadall.com
> 'Dead is the drunkest you can get.  But I haven't been that drunk yet' - Tielli