'No Saddle Guy' proves doubters wrong with virtual 100 mile ride (+ exclusive interview); Is Elon Musk confused about congestion?; Fundraiser for Eritrean star; Worst parking pic ever; Are flashing lights safer than solids? + more on the live blog

sort of like a Tube network you mean...

OnYerBike wrote:

On tunnels: even if it just moves the problem underground, I think that's an improvement.

However, I think Elon Musk's pipe dreams (if you pardon the pun) are for tunnels for self-driving electric cars, where capacity can be increased by cars communicating with each other and going very fast and very close together, which is easier in a controlled environment with no other pesky road users. I'm skeptical to say the least, but there is slightly more to the idea than just moving congestion underground.

Put a couple of strips of metal either side of a channel in the centre of each lane, and a pin that drops down from the car that engages in the channel.
Charge the car batteries from the strips of metal ...

Might just work 😎

Giant Scalextric! I'm in!

And yet in his fully controlled environment with his fully controlled cars, the maximum speed is 30mph and can only be used with human operators. And if you look at the great fast and cheap tunnels he can build, it still took two years for 1 mile and there are no easy escape options in case of accident or a lithium battery fire. 

Musk makes claims left right and centre which makes people think he is some tech genius, however he makes them in sciences he has no knowledge of and the reality is then a 16 person air cushion floating pod travelling at 150mph turning into a Tesla model three being driven around at 30mph.

I'm so surprised Vegas decided to expand the network when the original tunnel didn't meet any of the criteria they set out for originally in terms of capacity and cost. But I suppose if there was a place to gamble away money on stupid decisions.....

TheBillder wrote:

That parking in the cycle lane is utterly routine - I see similar almost every day. Here's one I prepared earlier.

That is actually far worse than the example in the article, because (thanks to proper segregation) you can't easily move into and back out of the car lane.

Zebra zigzags, double yellows, kerb markings, bike lane - that driver doesn't give a flying fnck where they park.

I suspect he'd end up looking like one of Vlad the Impaler's opponents... 

makadu wrote:

My experience of cycle lights when I am driving in Bristol in the dark is that the flashing ones are good at instantly identifying a cyclist but not good at allowing me to judge distance/speed. Solid lights are not so good at identifying a cyclist but do give a good idea of speed/distance once spotted.

I find that the best front light for identifying a cyclist is a constant light with a brief pulse every second or so.

I've seen rear lights that do the same (a friend had a Cateye a few years ago that fitted to the seat rails and was ideal). A two light setup can achieve a very similar thing, with one constant and one flashing. And they don't have to fry anyone's eyeballs.

On less busy streets and rural roads you just need one constant light at each end since you aren't surrounded by other lights and don't need to be identified as a different vehicle/object. In all contexts reflectives, particularly moving ones (pedals, ankles, spokes etc), also aid identification.

I tend to use a pulse light setting when in towns at night because the street lights help with visibility. When out in the countryside, a solid light is my go-to help show the whole road, I find flashing lights just don't work in pitch black. 
 

Brighter lights are fine by me as long as the are angled down enough not to blind other road users and aren't like full beam brightness. Although saying that, some modern car lights are ridiculously bright these days. 

same, I use a flashing light for urban roads because street lights are good enough to see where you are going and so its really just for that visibility from other road users, but out in the countryside solid all the way, the thing with a flashing light and no other illumination around you, is the light flashes on & your eyes instantly react to the only light source around, and then it goes off again and you cant see anything, and then it flashes on again, gets quite annoying after a while if you havent ridden into a ditch in the meantime.

but Id never go with a light that bright, anyway, I normally stick to 300lumens, the Cycliq light is 600 I think but I dont tend to use it except in emergencies.

Oh absolutely - unlit roads and flashing (front) lights do not go together. I'm also a fan of helmet lights for unlit areas - you can see around corners, and dip the beam when necessary just by moving your head, but you do have to be careful not to blind people.

Modern car headlights are generally fine when dipped, but when a car goes over the crest of a hill or over a speed bump it can be blinding.

AidanR wrote:

At the other end of the scale are lights which flash so slowly as to be easily missed when glancing.​

These seem to be a real thing at the moment on my London commute, clearly expensive lights on expensive bikes that flash so slowly one can look three times in their direction and only catch the light on the third go. Why on earth?

Lights like that are really only for night time off road use, and maybe at a stretch an unlit rural road surrounded by hedges/trees. As long as it they are pointed down at the road.

In town/cities with decent street lighting, 300-500 lumens is more than good enough. No need for a set of rally car spot lamps....

The main problem is that light brightness is counter-intuitive for many people: one needs dimmer lights when it is dark/dusk and brighter lights for sunny times.

As an aside though (with a good degree of whataboutery), I have been 'blinded' many a time when riding at night in rural areas by oncoming cars with poorly adjusted/overly bright headlights so it does seem to be a common issue.

bobbinogs wrote:

The main problem is that light brightness is counter-intuitive for many people: one needs dimmer lights when it is dark/dusk and brighter lights for sunny times.

As an aside though (with a good degree of whataboutery), I have been 'blinded' many a time when riding at night in rural areas by oncoming cars with poorly adjusted/overly bright headlights so it does seem to be a common issue.

I tend to believe that one should not need lights at all at sunny times, unless you are worried about disapearing in the odd tree tunnel, in which case regular lights should do fine.

It shouldn't be about competing with the sun's brightness

Absolutely - Sleepy Silver Door by Dead Meadow.

It's a beautiful bike, IMO.

It's stunning!

Best light I have ever used, and I have owned these for about 11 years now, still going strong. Lightweight, you can get loads of spares and you can have the light units anodised in a number of colours so you can match them to your bike. These are seriously good, one of the best on the market. Swift delivery too, from ordering to delivery from Australia, four days.

www.ayup-lights.com