legitimate use for mirrors.. consider this - Page 7 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

05-04-2004, 12:24 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ca>,
Ryan Cousineau <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Chalo) wrote:
>
>> w l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m (larry english) wrote:
>>
>> > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says:
>> > >I have gone
>> > >through a few of the eyeglass mirrors and the tiny little ones that go
>> > >on the inside of your lense.
>> >
>> > i made mine, from actual piano wire and plastic mirror material.
>> > it is taped to the helmet.
>>
>> Wow, that seems like a tragic waste of a piano.
>>
>> Chalo Colina
>
> Unlike 7-speed bike drivetrains, piano wire is not most easily or
> cheaply acquired by buying the complete device which it is designed to
> be part of.

Malkin & Pinton. That's where I acquired the piano wire
with which I strung the hammered dulcimer I built, a few
decades ago.

Bronze wire is somewhat more ... obliging, in terms of
workability. Sweeter sounding, too.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

05-04-2004, 07:02 AM

ah, here it is, the uproar.

wle.

In article <cmf77c.23j.ln@bud.garden.local>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>
>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (larry english - no address harvesting) writes:
>
>> say you are in fairly dense traffic.
>> you do not need to look back to see if there are cars -
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> you know there are cars.
>> you are not considering changing your lane position.
>> but you would like to know how far back that closest car is,
>> and where it is in the lane.
>
>Why? And why look back if, as you say, you don't need to?
>I'd think it's much better to look forward, to watch out for
>cars crossing your line. After all, those are proven to be
>bigger threats than anything on your 6.
>
>...
>
>> here is another one.
>> you are on a quiet road.
>> you are fairly far from the right, maybe even near the center of the
>> lane.
>> there are no cars.
>> you know there are no cars.
>> periodic scans behind, using the mirror, reinforce this
>> fact for you.
>
>Periodic shoulder checks do the same thing.
>
>> the reason you want to know is,
>> if a car did come along, you might consider moving a little farther
>> to the right.
>
>We're mostly already required to be as far right as practicable,
>and allowed to be as far left as is safe (North America, right-hand
>driving.) So you should already be in the rightmost safest line.
>Or, the safest rightmost line.
>
>> thoughts..?
>
>People should learn to ride safely without mirrors before
>resorting to them. It's been demonstratedly done in the
>past, so it's do-able now. Mirrors are okay, but get the
>skills first; the mirror, second.
>
>Mirrors can good on narrow, urban, residential streets when
>you take a track-stand siding between parked cars to let an
>oncoming car through, and then prepare to re-enter the
>traffic line. But even then, shoulder-checking is better.
>Mirrors are also good for seeing how mussed your hair is,
>after taking your helmet off.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom
>
>
>--
>-- Powered by FreeBSD
>Above address is just a spam midden.
>I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

05-04-2004, 07:02 AM

ah, here it is, the uproar.

wle.

In article <cmf77c.23j.ln@bud.garden.local>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>
>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (larry english - no address harvesting) writes:
>
>> say you are in fairly dense traffic.
>> you do not need to look back to see if there are cars -
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> you know there are cars.
>> you are not considering changing your lane position.
>> but you would like to know how far back that closest car is,
>> and where it is in the lane.
>
>Why? And why look back if, as you say, you don't need to?
>I'd think it's much better to look forward, to watch out for
>cars crossing your line. After all, those are proven to be
>bigger threats than anything on your 6.
>
>...
>
>> here is another one.
>> you are on a quiet road.
>> you are fairly far from the right, maybe even near the center of the
>> lane.
>> there are no cars.
>> you know there are no cars.
>> periodic scans behind, using the mirror, reinforce this
>> fact for you.
>
>Periodic shoulder checks do the same thing.
>
>> the reason you want to know is,
>> if a car did come along, you might consider moving a little farther
>> to the right.
>
>We're mostly already required to be as far right as practicable,
>and allowed to be as far left as is safe (North America, right-hand
>driving.) So you should already be in the rightmost safest line.
>Or, the safest rightmost line.
>
>> thoughts..?
>
>People should learn to ride safely without mirrors before
>resorting to them. It's been demonstratedly done in the
>past, so it's do-able now. Mirrors are okay, but get the
>skills first; the mirror, second.
>
>Mirrors can good on narrow, urban, residential streets when
>you take a track-stand siding between parked cars to let an
>oncoming car through, and then prepare to re-enter the
>traffic line. But even then, shoulder-checking is better.
>Mirrors are also good for seeing how mussed your hair is,
>after taking your helmet off.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom
>
>
>--
>-- Powered by FreeBSD
>Above address is just a spam midden.
>I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

05-04-2004, 07:02 AM

ah, here it is, the uproar.

wle.

In article <cmf77c.23j.ln@bud.garden.local>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>
>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (larry english - no address harvesting) writes:
>
>> say you are in fairly dense traffic.
>> you do not need to look back to see if there are cars -
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> you know there are cars.
>> you are not considering changing your lane position.
>> but you would like to know how far back that closest car is,
>> and where it is in the lane.
>
>Why? And why look back if, as you say, you don't need to?
>I'd think it's much better to look forward, to watch out for
>cars crossing your line. After all, those are proven to be
>bigger threats than anything on your 6.
>
>...
>
>> here is another one.
>> you are on a quiet road.
>> you are fairly far from the right, maybe even near the center of the
>> lane.
>> there are no cars.
>> you know there are no cars.
>> periodic scans behind, using the mirror, reinforce this
>> fact for you.
>
>Periodic shoulder checks do the same thing.
>
>> the reason you want to know is,
>> if a car did come along, you might consider moving a little farther
>> to the right.
>
>We're mostly already required to be as far right as practicable,
>and allowed to be as far left as is safe (North America, right-hand
>driving.) So you should already be in the rightmost safest line.
>Or, the safest rightmost line.
>
>> thoughts..?
>
>People should learn to ride safely without mirrors before
>resorting to them. It's been demonstratedly done in the
>past, so it's do-able now. Mirrors are okay, but get the
>skills first; the mirror, second.
>
>Mirrors can good on narrow, urban, residential streets when
>you take a track-stand siding between parked cars to let an
>oncoming car through, and then prepare to re-enter the
>traffic line. But even then, shoulder-checking is better.
>Mirrors are also good for seeing how mussed your hair is,
>after taking your helmet off.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom
>
>
>--
>-- Powered by FreeBSD
>Above address is just a spam midden.
>I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

05-04-2004, 07:02 AM

ah, here it is, the uproar.

wle.

In article <cmf77c.23j.ln@bud.garden.local>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>
>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (larry english - no address harvesting) writes:
>
>> say you are in fairly dense traffic.
>> you do not need to look back to see if there are cars -
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> you know there are cars.
>> you are not considering changing your lane position.
>> but you would like to know how far back that closest car is,
>> and where it is in the lane.
>
>Why? And why look back if, as you say, you don't need to?
>I'd think it's much better to look forward, to watch out for
>cars crossing your line. After all, those are proven to be
>bigger threats than anything on your 6.
>
>...
>
>> here is another one.
>> you are on a quiet road.
>> you are fairly far from the right, maybe even near the center of the
>> lane.
>> there are no cars.
>> you know there are no cars.
>> periodic scans behind, using the mirror, reinforce this
>> fact for you.
>
>Periodic shoulder checks do the same thing.
>
>> the reason you want to know is,
>> if a car did come along, you might consider moving a little farther
>> to the right.
>
>We're mostly already required to be as far right as practicable,
>and allowed to be as far left as is safe (North America, right-hand
>driving.) So you should already be in the rightmost safest line.
>Or, the safest rightmost line.
>
>> thoughts..?
>
>People should learn to ride safely without mirrors before
>resorting to them. It's been demonstratedly done in the
>past, so it's do-able now. Mirrors are okay, but get the
>skills first; the mirror, second.
>
>Mirrors can good on narrow, urban, residential streets when
>you take a track-stand siding between parked cars to let an
>oncoming car through, and then prepare to re-enter the
>traffic line. But even then, shoulder-checking is better.
>Mirrors are also good for seeing how mussed your hair is,
>after taking your helmet off.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom
>
>
>--
>-- Powered by FreeBSD
>Above address is just a spam midden.
>I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

05-04-2004, 07:02 AM

ah, here it is, the uproar.

wle.

In article <cmf77c.23j.ln@bud.garden.local>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>
>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (larry english - no address harvesting) writes:
>
>> say you are in fairly dense traffic.
>> you do not need to look back to see if there are cars -
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> you know there are cars.
>> you are not considering changing your lane position.
>> but you would like to know how far back that closest car is,
>> and where it is in the lane.
>
>Why? And why look back if, as you say, you don't need to?
>I'd think it's much better to look forward, to watch out for
>cars crossing your line. After all, those are proven to be
>bigger threats than anything on your 6.
>
>...
>
>> here is another one.
>> you are on a quiet road.
>> you are fairly far from the right, maybe even near the center of the
>> lane.
>> there are no cars.
>> you know there are no cars.
>> periodic scans behind, using the mirror, reinforce this
>> fact for you.
>
>Periodic shoulder checks do the same thing.
>
>> the reason you want to know is,
>> if a car did come along, you might consider moving a little farther
>> to the right.
>
>We're mostly already required to be as far right as practicable,
>and allowed to be as far left as is safe (North America, right-hand
>driving.) So you should already be in the rightmost safest line.
>Or, the safest rightmost line.
>
>> thoughts..?
>
>People should learn to ride safely without mirrors before
>resorting to them. It's been demonstratedly done in the
>past, so it's do-able now. Mirrors are okay, but get the
>skills first; the mirror, second.
>
>Mirrors can good on narrow, urban, residential streets when
>you take a track-stand siding between parked cars to let an
>oncoming car through, and then prepare to re-enter the
>traffic line. But even then, shoulder-checking is better.
>Mirrors are also good for seeing how mussed your hair is,
>after taking your helmet off.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom
>
>
>--
>-- Powered by FreeBSD
>Above address is just a spam midden.
>I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

05-04-2004, 11:10 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
w l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m (wle - no address harvesting!!) writes:

> ah, here it is, the uproar.

Not much of one. But hey, if ya want uproar I can
give you upr- ... nah, I've gotta make some brunch.
Two shingled over-easies, two rashers of bacon, cup
of coffee, and then maybe another one. I'd fix some
up for you, too, if I could. Or something healthier
and less greasy if you prefer. Salmon salad makes
a nice brunch.

cheers,
Tom

> In article <cmf77c.23j.ln@bud.garden.local>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...

>> Mirrors are okay

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

05-04-2004, 11:10 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
w l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m (wle - no address harvesting!!) writes:

> ah, here it is, the uproar.

Not much of one. But hey, if ya want uproar I can
give you upr- ... nah, I've gotta make some brunch.
Two shingled over-easies, two rashers of bacon, cup
of coffee, and then maybe another one. I'd fix some
up for you, too, if I could. Or something healthier
and less greasy if you prefer. Salmon salad makes
a nice brunch.

cheers,
Tom

> In article <cmf77c.23j.ln@bud.garden.local>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...

>> Mirrors are okay

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

05-04-2004, 11:10 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
w l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m (wle - no address harvesting!!) writes:

> ah, here it is, the uproar.

Not much of one. But hey, if ya want uproar I can
give you upr- ... nah, I've gotta make some brunch.
Two shingled over-easies, two rashers of bacon, cup
of coffee, and then maybe another one. I'd fix some
up for you, too, if I could. Or something healthier
and less greasy if you prefer. Salmon salad makes
a nice brunch.

cheers,
Tom

> In article <cmf77c.23j.ln@bud.garden.local>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...

>> Mirrors are okay

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

05-04-2004, 11:10 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
w l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m (wle - no address harvesting!!) writes:

> ah, here it is, the uproar.

Not much of one. But hey, if ya want uproar I can
give you upr- ... nah, I've gotta make some brunch.
Two shingled over-easies, two rashers of bacon, cup
of coffee, and then maybe another one. I'd fix some
up for you, too, if I could. Or something healthier
and less greasy if you prefer. Salmon salad makes
a nice brunch.

cheers,
Tom

> In article <cmf77c.23j.ln@bud.garden.local>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...

>> Mirrors are okay

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca