Jump to content


Full Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LanghamP last won the day on November 21 2017

LanghamP had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,798 Excellent


About LanghamP

Profile Information

  • Location
    Missouri, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,706 profile views
  1. Didn't Goodman Sachs receive tremendous bailout cash in 2008-2009? Didn't VW set up their diesel cars to run extremely lean when hooked up to an emissions tester? The evidence is conclusive that diesel kills between 27,000 to 90,000 people in Europe per year (killing as many people in one year as Chernobyl killed over three decades). In my opinion, cheap batteries with poisonous metals are dangerous, because people will be tempted to buy and discard them. Instead, batteries should be managed like Plutonium, with pedigrees from miner to buyer. Should you be caught indifferently discarding said battery, your cell phone and your car shall be taken away from you for a year. What I find astonishing is that for a mere $50,000 (upper end estimate), you can have solar panels and a very big wall battery storage that meets all your needs in the summer. Perhaps Sweden needs to look at nuclear plants, because nuclear plants pollute less than a bunch of IC engines, even considering our past history of blowing up nuclear plants.
  2. One consideration missing from this discussion is "ease of use" whereby a wheel can be easily moved around, lifted, trolleys, and especially moved in and out of cars (or other vehicles) at awkward angles. My experience with the "open-wheel" form-factor that the MSX and Z10 have is that they need mudguards and that it's easy to accidentally pinch fingers between the shell and wheel, especially if you pick the wheel up by the rim. I don't think this matters with an enthusiast's wheel, but as a wheel you need to live with day to day, then the covered and round wheel form factor is far superior for day to day operations. I think a moderate size wheel, with handle cutoff, and most of the wheel covered, would work better as an only wheel than the Z10. Maybe the KS16X?
  3. I'm with you guys on this one, as I also have the Bell 3R MIPS, which I did get half priced in goofy colors. The motorcycle helmets are in a class of their own because they aren't constrained as much by weight, while being constrained to pass DOT and Snell tests. Notably, bicycle helmets only have two tests; the bicycle helmets own tests and the 200 gram test the bicycle rider does when he picks up the helmet. Predictably, longitudinal tests with great numbers of riders don't show much difference between helmet and non helmet riders. However, that's for bicyclists; EUC riders and eScooter riders suffer from their vehicles throwing them if they hit a dry spaghetti noodles (or perhaps no reason at all), and so a motorcycle helmet with entire head coverage is necessary. The Snell dual purpose helmets is therefore suggested, as they have Snell and are lightweight, much less than sport helmets, with the added bonus of being cheaper.
  4. NYC has a 10 or 20% bounty when photographic evidence is given by citizens to authorities when diesel trucks idle for over two minutes. As both China and Paris have depressingly found out, the health effects of diesel pollution kill about 27,000 people in Europe alone. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/27/health-effects-of-diesel-cost-european-taxpayers-billions Diesel emissions have been in the spotlight since 2015 when Volkswagen was caught cheating regulatory tests. Virtually all diesel cars were then revealed to be pumping out far more pollution on the road than in official tests. Research in 2017 showed at least 38,000 people a year were dying early as a result of this failure. Interestingly, one EU official got it exactly right. “Low and zero-emission alternatives would be a much more appropriate solution,” he said. “But as a public health advocate, I cannot stress enough the importance of walking and cycling, which give additional health benefits.” While another semi-official got it exactly wrong. “It is important that we differentiate between the old diesel fleet and the latest generation of vehicles,” said a spokeswoman from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA). “The latest-generation diesel cars emit very low NOx [nitrogen oxides] emissions not only in the lab, but also on the road. Modern diesel cars, supported by fleet renewal policies and combined with alternative powertrains, can therefore play a strong role in helping cities move towards compliance with air quality targets.”
  5. You are welcome to refute any or all these arguments while providing a better alternative.
  6. I am going to add another thing that occasionally (often) invalidates that being seen is useful. As stereo vision predators, we naturally and very quickly align our bodies towards whatever we see. That is, the human startle response results in the human facing towards the threat! You can confirm this; whenever you startle someone they instantly face you (or just scare your cat). That means that whenever something suddenly appears the driver will aim towards it; training and experience makes people swerve or dodge away from the threat but it is not the initial instinct. This term is called Target Fixation. It is associated with scenarios in which the observer is in control of a high-speed vehicle or other mode of transportation, such as fighter pilots, race-car drivers and motorcyclists.[1] In such cases, the observer may fixate so intently on the target that they steer in the direction of their gaze, which is often the ultimate cause of a collision.[1] It is for this reason I strongly suggest lower speed limits within city limits (or being on streets with low speed traffic); the human predator has more time to process you (the rider) without invoking the startle reflex. I'm guessing (not a theory but a postulation) that a lot of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists that get killed are because they weren't recognized until too late, and then the driver swerved into them. If you look at car crashes on stroads, you'll notice an awful lot of them seem to aim at each other. My dashcam of my recent crash shows the two drivers apparently aiming at each other. If you look at rear-ended collisions, almost all could be avoided simply by turning the steering wheel 1 degree to the left or the right; the fact that almost no driver does so is a good indication the startle response made the driver run into the car/vehicle/person in front of them. To sum up, you as a rider want two different things. 1. You want to be seen at long distances so the driver will calmly avoid you. 2. You don't want to be seen at short distances if that means the driver will be target fixated on you. Although...if you're directly in front of him you're screwed.
  7. Are you using "theory" in the scientific sense? In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. The information I gave to you is been confirmed again and again in evolutionary biology, and in practical applications mostly war-related. Is this insufficient for you? That is, what higher level of proof would you find satisfactory?
  8. If at night then of course you want lights. I'd even wager that you with lights at night is safer than any situation in the daytime, because lights stand out like nothing else, but reflectors would be horribly ineffective since they are outside the cone of light put out by a car. In the daytime, however, you're fighting three problems that make human vision ineffective. 1. The stereo vision humans have to detect anything doesn't work very well beyond 30 meters. Inside this range, humans are deadly predators, capable of detecting creatures that don't move. This presents a problem to the automobile driver, because a vehicle can cover that distance in a time that is under the reaction time of the driver. 2. That means stereo vision is ineffective in many (most) driving situations and therefore drivers are depending another trait of predator vision...that of movement. Humans, being able to see in color, are able to detect anything that moves extremely well under almost any lighting condition. This presents a problem to the driver because anything moving in the same direction is effectively invisible. It is for this reason that even a slow tennis ball returned directly at your head is so damned hard to spot (ouch) or MLB players seem to have laughably slow reaction times before they get bonked on the head. 3. That means, finally and worryingly, the human predator defaults to the final and least effective form of spotting...that of pattern recognition. That is, the driver will recognize there is person in front of him, and then based upon the driver's experience on how big things should be at various distances, will then calculate how far away the rider is. If the pattern is broken up then the driver won't recognize the rider until 2 and then finally 1 kicks in! You are riding a vehicle that is much slower than a car (condition 1), usually traveling in the same direction as the driver (condition 2), and so do you really really want to wear razzle dazzle camouflage (condition 3)?
  9. Fox News, in the other hand, states that drivers and not cars/trucks kill people. https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-drunk-driver-amish-buggy-children-dead Two children were killed and two others critically injured when an allegedly intoxicated driver crashed into an Amish horse-drawn buggy in southern Michigan, police said. To be fair, everytime a shooter killed a person we could more accurately say it was the gun that killed a person. For instance, instead of saying, "Paris shooters kill 127" we could instead say "AK47's kill 127". However, if a car really did drive itself into a person and killed him, then we could accurately say "the car killed him." Since most news agencies clearly state it was a car/truck that killed x, then we can safely assume an Autonomous Vehicle killed x.
  10. You may be dramatically underestimating your speed, especially if "you're as one" with the wheel, and it's just part of your body "down there". You think of going somewhere or doing something, and your feet/wheel combo take you there without thinking. And it's for this reason alone that anyone buying an EUC, regardless of their usage case, should buy an 18 incher as their first wheel. The 14 inchers can later be your trick wheel, and the 16 inchers can be your dissatisfied compromise wheel. The 18 inchers do give a strong sense of security, so much so that riding without any sort of protection is completely understandable. Could you trip and fall over walking to your mailbox? You could no sooner crash your 18 incher as your could lose your foot! Untrue, of course, but maybe very close to the truth.
  11. Using bright disparate clothing to be more easily seen is incorrect, as study after study has shown. Humans can see patterns and movement best; the best camouflage, through testing and operative experience, is that of disruptive camouflage where a recognizable pattern is broken up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_coloration Almost all bikers and cyclists use bright colors (bright colors working better than grey shades) in irregular patterns in order to disrupt the human ability to see and recognize them. Because using bright irregular patterns is the most effective way of not being seen, I can only conclude that bikers (and EUC riders here) do not want to be seen by drivers. That is, given the choice between being recognized as a person and being nearly invisible, people like @Unventorin his second picture would prefer not to be seen, because his choice of protective clothing exactly imitates disruptive camouflage. Since virtually all bicycle and motorcycle manufacturers make almost exclusively disruptive colors (or black) in their protective clothing (the worst possible choice), then I can only conclude that both users and manufacturers want to get hit by drivers, with their clothing then providing maximum impact protection.
  12. Are you sure? I mean, when a gun kills a person then they usually say a person shot another person. These two sentences are equivalent: 1. The car killed the person. 2. The gun killed the person. I can only conclude that since cars don't usually drive down a street by themselves, then it must have been an Autonomous Vehicle.
  13. The article clearly stated that a car struck him at 50 mph. It didn't say a driver, it said a car hit him.
  14. Autonomous car that was speeding hits eScooter rider crossing street; rider then blames the eScooter. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/06/worldwide-electric-scooter-boom-leads-to-more-serious-injuries-and-fatalities.html?outputType=amp Andrew Hardy was crossing the street on an electric scooter in downtown Los Angeles when a car struck him at 50 miles per hour and flung him 15 feet in the air before he smacked his head on the pavement and fell unconscious. The 26-year-old snapped two bones in each leg, broke a thighbone, shattered a kneecap, punctured a lung and fractured three vertebrae in his neck, in addition to sustaining a head injury.
  15. I'm irritated at YouTube's algorithms, under the assumption that I wish to watch videos that it thinks politically align with me, presumably just to show me ads. I don't need videos about stuff and viewpoints that I already know about. Right now, YouTube is trying to mostly give me videos of Conservatives whining about being demonetized. And why man-made global warming is a hoax. In reality I have simply been disliking videos that show me ads about cars, with the end result that only demonetized channels are now shown to me, as those show few to no ads.
  • Create New...