Originally Posted by
base2
I'm not saying the use of a strobe on the path isn't stupid & rude. What I am saying is the risk of actual harm is so low so as to be virtually nonexistent.
If every single one of the 5,000,000 residents of the greater Seattle area were to travel on the same point of the bike path at the same time, a single strobe would encounter 900 on-coming photosensetive epilleptics. Of those 900, How many would be receptive to the 4-8 hertz range? About 9 or so for 3 standard deviations. Of those 9, how many would be receptive that instance? 1 in a hundred? 1 in 10,000 due to a combination of speed/intensity/field of vision/duration? It would take years of this already ridiculous scenario for the odds to play out.
Sorry some people are irritated easily & try to bolster their claim of irritation with a made up "serious sounding" made up data, but the math of actual risk of seizure just doesn't pencil out as credible.
They could just say: "I don't like strobes on the path.The guy with the strobe is a d*ck." AND you know what? I'd agree. It's the bogus epilepsy claim I am taking issue with.
OP Tim: You got your wish...This is not a complaint thread. It's an epilepsy seizure risk thread.
You could have saved a lot of typing if you'd stated that in the first place because you sure made it look like you were defending bike path usage of strobes.
It's still rational to say that a practice that has no benefit shouldn't be allowed if there's a nonzero risk. Anything done a lot will lead to unlikely outcomes. For example, if you let a mylar helium balloon fly away, the chance of causing a power outage is about zero, yet there are literally hundreds of cases of this happening, including one time during a game at Dodger stadium. Low probability events happen, someone "wins" the lottery.
Looking into this a little , out of curiosity, I've come across claims that flashing red bike taillights have actually induced seizures, apparently the wavelength of red light actually is worse than white.
Last point is probability is a lot more complicated than you are acknowledging -- if millions of people take to using flashing strobes, events that are million to one probabilities will very likely occur somewhere. Your math may work at the individual level, but at the policy level, small risks of potentially catastrophic consequences need to be taken seriously.