Apologies to the OP if he thinks otherwise, but I think the general concept of side visibility pertains and isn't taking over the thread.
Anyone who takes 2 seconds to brake should lose his licence...
Two seconds is the minimum safe following distance because it allows for the recognition of need to brake, the movement of the foot from accelerator to brake pedal and the application of the brake with margin of error for older folks with slower reaction times. With over 1.5 million km of driving in numerous types of vehicles, under a wide range of driving conditions, I have found that to be a bit longer than I need on good dry roads in daylight, but a great rule of thumb. It assumes the car can be braked at least as fast as the vehicle in front. that the driver is attentive and not loading a CD in the player. Longer distances are needed for trucks that brake slower, or in wet roads in case the car ahead has better wet traction, or slides and you need the evasive room.
Since we are talking seeing and braking immediately after launch, drivers aren't going fast unless they are drag racing off the stop sign, then you are 'SOL' anyway. ;( So the actual stopping is very quick, and within the 2 seconds from recognition of the need to stop for most cases. A cyclists we also aren't trying to show up at the last possible instant like some sort of Ninja 'flasher'. Rain and other factors enter in. So I respectfully disagree that the 2 seconds is too long a lead time, as do the authors of every driving safety book I have read. Even if drivers can brake faster, in my environment, they are not expecting a cyclist so there is likely a bigger time lag to recognize and initiate action. So if I am riding at 25-33 kph, side reflectors don't come into play soon enough to be a big enough help with cross traffic unless overhead lighting makes them show sooner than the car's headlights do. I stand by the idea that unless you are riding very slowly, side reflectors don't contribute enough visibility soon enough for me to bet my life on them alone. You are free to do so, but good lights are required there, whereas a weak flashlight and a rear reflector, suffice here. I ride as I would love other cyclists to ride. I do *not* want or need that kind of mistake on my conscience, I trust other drivers don't either, so i hap all I can and don't expect too much of them, whether they are supposed to give it or no..
My point is that for low beam to really hit the reflector at large distance you need them mounted low. Not handlebar, far lower.
I believe you misunderstood my meaning. They don't show up above handle bar height very well. So the implication is that they must be below that maximum to have much chance. So we in fact agree on that. I don't speak or read Dutch at all, so understand I am not being critical of your language skills, just clarifying what I was trying to say, (maybe not very well).
Like pedal reflectors. Like reflectors on tyres. These reflect to nearly 90 degrees so any tiny angle and the reflecting stripe on the tyre will show so they are not just for cross traffic. Rim mounted reflectors won't work so well as the tyres are usually a lot wider. Pedal reflectors are very effective at showing there's a bicycle ahead.
First, i said at low angles they work. They are part of a full visibility package. There is enough time. I didn't say my lights beat my reflectors hands down at angles too, so I will now, because they do.
I just tested my tire sidewalls and pedals in a dark room. Yes there is a small return from a light at angles other the the incidence reflectance ideal. It is so small as to be inconsequential for the edge of a car's headlights when it is at a cross street. Elderly drivers with less night vision but enough to still drive, would not see them at all IMHO because the video camera didn't. In my ride by videos of my truck lights on high or low beam, the front tire reflective stripe was so weak on first entering the trucks headlights as to be useless and it was within the 2 seconds of being in front of the vehicle, what I would at least call 'cutting it to close for comfort'. As to rims, it depends on the rim My classic 30 year old Gentleman 27" shallow rims would show little, you are right. They are retired as in 'no longer used' not with new rubber.
The Deep Vees have a 22 mm band inside of the brake surface, and if I had disc brakes, the braking surface would also be available for reflective material. The tire stripes are about 5-6 mm in comparison. So in the case of rims it depends. There are even deeper rims than the Deep Vees.
As to *any* reflector whether on a pedal or not, being lit from a light shining straight on it, they work great. Pedal one are especially useful for bike identification as you point out. In fact the effectiveness is a function of that direct light so bike reflectors in the US have three sections with the side ones tilted back a bit to catch light from a vehicle in the lane on either side. But pedal reflectors don't show for all intents and purposes in the beams of a car at a cross street.
This side visibility is complicated. I was appalled at how little most reflectors showed in video in a cross street scenario. Even allowing for more sensitive human eyes, i had to give them an 'F' grade.
I think that gets into the category "way too distracting therefore making the road as a whole a less safe place"...
I am sorry. Distracting? You make that sound like a negative.
I am often the only vehicle in the vicinity other than the one at the cross street. What does the driver have to be doing *other* than seeing me and avoiding a collision with me? So I am not distracting him or her from driving, but on the contrary am bringing them out of a stupor to pay attention. Too many here are distracted on their cell phones or by their overloud stereos, or even texting. I *need* to distract them back to the job at hand: driving safely. It is a visual 'dumb slap'. Fortunately these bad drivers are so common that the good ones know exactly what I am about. Actually they fear for my life, to tell you the truth, so I get a lot of slack, not flack.. That you have better behaved and careful attentive drivers, is great for you. I can only wish, and learn to play the cards that I am dealt here.
Wheel reflectors that are at least as bright as my wheel lights when headlights shine on them are not only legal, but required on all new bikes here (federal law) although they are not required in the vehicle code (state law). So what is the difference between my spoke light active system and those reflectors? Mine show up at a greater distance and in plenty of time to let the driver make a safe decision. The spoke reflectors don't for cross traffic, the very thing they are intended for.
Unless we move to like environs, we will likely have to agree to disagree, on some of this. People on this forum are not idiots, they will know whether their riding situation calls for a high level of 'distraction' or not. I am not imposing my will on anyone. I am not even recruiting members to my club. I am merely reporting what my evaluations have told me.
I once rode with a small to be seen light (incandescent flashlight, so take 'to be seen' lightly, more to be legal) and a rear reflector only. The streets were very well lit. The drivers were very aware of cyclists. The drivers obeyed stop, yield, and traffic lights.On campus here were some bike lanes avoiding some bad spots. There were no cell phones then. No texting. Though 8 tracks and cassettes could jamb up. It was a whole different urban riding experience. I was able to keep up with traffic then, too. Unless there is a good tailwind, those days are gone. ;(
No rancor intended. I hope this clarifies things.
BrianMc
