Fwd: [BicycleDriving] Re: Why America can have better bicycling than Europe

[Kenneth O'Brien]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kenneth O'Brien <kob2...@mac.com>
Date: August 3, 2010 11:39:38 AM EDT
To: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock" <comandan...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [BicycleDriving] Re: Why America can have better bicycling than Europe

On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:17 AM, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock"<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 3, 5:36 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:

On Aug 3, 2010, at 8:26 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:

Once upon a time I thought bike lanes --well laid out the bike lanes--

No such beast.

Oh yes, some could be well laid out for the uninitiated. Or for kids

or something.

Not when you have the goal of designing a sensible reasonably safe shared travel corridor that promotes proper bicyclist behavior. You are incorrect. There is no such thing as a well laid out bike lane if you constrain yourself to approximately achieving this goal.

The worse possible person to throw a bikelane at would be a novice bicyclist. Bikelane's worst sin is the mis-education bikelanes promote. Novices will be the most susceptible to this mis-education.

Ken

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 3, 8:41 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:

We are not going to let the cyclists at the mercy of the reckless
drivers who claim the road is theirs, right?

"Bike lane or full lane" is the deal we have for the drivers.

[Kenneth O'Brien]

On Aug 3, 2010, at 1:49 PM, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock"<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 3, 8:41 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
>> Begin forwarded message:
>
> We are not going to let the cyclists at the mercy of the reckless
> drivers

Each and everyone of us who get near a public way in which a vehicle is being driven is at the mercy of reckless drivers.

That's why we need to find them and then either fix them or remove them from the population of drivers.

> who claim the road is theirs, right?

No wrong. The truly reckless are too few in number (and their population numbers are at least to some degree self limiting) such that they don't have enough power to claim something as big and important as the system of public ways.

>
> "Bike lane or full lane" is the deal we have for the drivers.
>

Sorry. Not a deal I will be signing on to. The primary thing I need as a bicyclist is legal access to roadway portion of public ways.

Ken

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 3, 11:01 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Aug 3, 2010, at 1:49 PM, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 8:41 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > We are not going to let the cyclists at the mercy of the reckless
> > drivers
>
> Each and everyone of us who get near a public way in which a vehicle is being driven is at the mercy of reckless drivers.

You don't prefer the scraps to the full lane, do you? The problem with
"riding to the right/left" is that you don't have your "turf," and
conflict erupts. They blow the horn, they pass you within inches, THEY
IGNORE YOU...

Give me a full lane over half lane all the time.

>
> That's why we need to find them and then either fix them or remove them from the population of drivers.

That ain't happening in America. There's such a big industry around
the automobile that even an idiot can drive. LANE DISCIPLINE is the
first thing you need to change in America. Slow traffic on the
right... SAFER CYCLING.

>
> > who claim the road is theirs, right?
>
> No wrong. The truly reckless are too few in number (and their population numbers are at least to some degree self limiting) such that they don't have enough power to claim something as big and important as the system of public ways.

If you are talking about America they ain't that few...

'It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on
Our Roads'

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/its-no-accident-the-real-story-behind-senseless-death-and-injury-on-our-roads/313110

Actually THEY ARE A MAJORITY, including those chatting on the phone
paying little attention to cyclists and pedestrians.

>
>
>
> > "Bike lane or full lane" is the deal we have for the drivers.
>
> Sorry. Not a deal I will be signing on to. The primary thing I need as a bicyclist is legal access to roadway portion of public ways.
>
> Ken

That's technical wording for having a fair share of the road? I'm all
for it.

[Kenneth O'Brien]

On Aug 3, 2010, at 2:39 PM, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock"<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You don't prefer the scraps to the full lane, do you? The problem with
"riding to the right/left" is that you don't have your "turf,"

I prefer a sound logical and proven system.

The idea of dedicated "turf," assigned by the vehicle type you are driving, can not be part of a sound logical system.

and
conflict erupts. They blow the horn,

I experience little of that. The occasional times it happens I ignore it.

they pass you within inches,

Has essentially never happened. 

But still what is a concern is a collision. I've had one of these with a motorist in about 40 years of ~daily riding in all kinds of roadway environments. This collision was not during a simple overtaking maneuver along a roadway leg.

THEY
IGNORE YOU...

That is impossible. I'm there on the roadway. As I mentioned I've been out there most days for the last 40 years or so.

Give me a full lane over half lane all the time.

Give me sound sensible rules of use. A sound sensible system if use will be all about integration with all other vehicle drivers.

That's why we need to find them and then either fix them or remove them from the population of drivers.

That ain't happening in America. There's such a big industry around
the automobile that even an idiot can drive.

Probably could be better. Probably working on this somewhere down the triage list of bicyclist advocacy efforts would be a good and useful thing. But probably existing enforcement against -recklessness-  not all that outrageously bad either. (BTW- over application of the concept 'reckless' in any enforcement advocacy effort probably would hurt not help target truly reckless drivers)

If you are talking about America they ain't that few...

Yes I'm mostly  talking about America because that is the place where I have studied the stats most closely and I have mist experience.  But I have enough Japan, Ireland, France, Italy experience to say they are approximately the same on this -reckless- driver issue.

'It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on
Our Roads'

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/its-no-accident-the-real-story-behind-senseless-death-and-injury-on-our-roads/313110

Actually THEY ARE A MAJORITY,

Reckless? Not possible. Overall safety numbers  are too good for that... Plus the distribution  profile of collision types are consistent with some more reasonable normal distribution of mostly reasonable driving behavior - not something legitimately classified as 'recklessness.'

including those chatting on the phone
paying little attention to cyclists and pedestrians.

Sorry. Not a deal I will be signing on to. The primary thing I need as a bicyclist is legal access to roadway portion of public ways.

Ken

That's technical wording for having a fair share of the road? I'm all
for it.

All drivers of vehicles need to have potential use of all of the roadway. That is what a sound system of use demands.

Kob

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 3, 1:12 pm, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Aug 3, 2010, at 2:39 PM, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You don't prefer the scraps to the full lane, do you? The problem with
> > "riding to the right/left" is that you don't have your "turf,"
>
> I prefer a sound logical and proven system.
>
> The idea of dedicated "turf," assigned by the vehicle type you are driving, can not be part of a sound logical system.
>
> > and
> > conflict erupts. They blow the horn,
>
> I experience little of that. The occasional times it happens I ignore it.
>
> > they pass you within inches,
>
> Has essentially never happened.
>
> But still what is a concern is a collision. I've had one of these with a motorist in about 40 years of ~daily riding in all kinds of roadway environments. This collision was not during a simple overtaking maneuver along a roadway leg.
>
> > THEY
> > IGNORE YOU...
>
> That is impossible. I'm there on the roadway. As I mentioned I've been out there most days for the last 40 years or so.
>
>
>
> > Give me a full lane over half lane all the time.
>
> Give me sound sensible rules of use. A sound sensible system if use will be all about integration with all other vehicle drivers.
>
>
>
> >> That's why we need to find them and then either fix them or remove them from the population of drivers.
>
> > That ain't happening in America. There's such a big industry around
> > the automobile that even an idiot can drive.
>
> Probably could be better. Probably working on this somewhere down the triage list of bicyclist advocacy efforts would be a good and useful thing. But probably existing enforcement against -recklessness-  not all that outrageously bad either. (BTW- over application of the concept 'reckless' in any enforcement advocacy effort probably would hurt not help target truly reckless drivers)
>
>
>
> > If you are talking about America they ain't that few...
>
> Yes I'm mostly  talking about America because that is the place where I have studied the stats most closely and I have mist experience.  But I have enough Japan, Ireland, France, Italy experience to say they are approximately the same on this -reckless- driver issue.
>
>
>
> > 'It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on
> > Our Roads'
>

> >http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/its-no-accident-the-real-story-...

>
> > Actually THEY ARE A MAJORITY,
>
> Reckless? Not possible. Overall safety numbers  are too good for that... Plus the distribution  profile of collision types are consistent with some more reasonable normal distribution of mostly reasonable driving behavior - not something legitimately classified as 'recklessness.'
>
> > including those chatting on the phone
> > paying little attention to cyclists and pedestrians.
>
> >> Sorry. Not a deal I will be signing on to. The primary thing I need as a bicyclist is legal access to roadway portion of public ways.
>
> >> Ken
>
> > That's technical wording for having a fair share of the road? I'm all
> > for it.
>
> All drivers of vehicles need to have potential use of all of the roadway. That is what a sound system of use demands.
>
> Kob
>
>

You don't need me in this forum. You are happy with the status quo,
aka "the scraps."

Only "European Man" understands me, but then says it's impossible.
Well, it doesn't have to be in America. America may be a lost cause
because not even our chaotic driving system is an issue.

But I know European drivers don't try to kill you over a finger. At
least not in Spain. Maybe in the Balkans.

[Serge Issakov]

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

But I know European drivers don't try to kill you over a finger. At
least not in Spain. Maybe in the Balkans.

How many people have been killed in the U.S. (or anywhere else) over a (presumably extended middle) finger?

And if a driver of a motor vehicle actually tries to kill a cyclist, he's probably going to  be successful, so I doubt there are many examples of "tried to kill cyclist but missed", so the number so killed is probably fairly close to the number that tried to kill.

Serge

 

[Kenneth O'Brien]

On Aug 3, 2010, at 7:41 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:

>
> You don't need me in this forum. You are happy with the status quo,
> aka "the scraps."

No. I'm not happy with the status quo.

But that doesn't mean I will help propagate a fairy tale about the majority of motorists being 'reckless'... or ask for facility design that is worse than status quo.

The worse status quo thing I'm most against is the false narrative that the roadways are too dangerous for bicyclists.

Ken

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

I had to play chicken to escape this beast from crushing me and still
he spit in my face. He wanted me out of the road because the sign said
to walk bike over bridge. Fuck him and the authorities that set up
such stupid regulation.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

The 99% of the American people who do NOT dare ride a bike on the road
probably agrees with me. People around here simply ride Walmart bikes
on sidewalks.

That's the other side of the coin in America: SUVs and cheap bikes on
sidewalks trying to survive.

[Serge Issakov]

How did you escape?  Did you jump off the bridge?  I suggest that if he was really trying to kill you, that would be your own escape.

Serge

[Kenneth O'Brien]

On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:04 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 3, 6:15 pm, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 2010, at 7:41 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You don't need me in this forum. You are happy with the status quo,
>>> aka "the scraps."
>>
>> No. I'm not happy with the status quo.
>>
>> But that doesn't mean I will help propagate a fairy tale about the majority of motorists being 'reckless'... or ask for facility design that is worse than status quo.
>>
>> The worse status quo thing I'm most against is the false narrative that the roadways are too dangerous for bicyclists.
>>
>> Ken
>
> The 99% of the American people who do NOT dare ride a bike on the road
> probably agrees with me.

Again, I suspect you over state the number.

But yes, when a solid majority in a democracy has something DEAD WRONG, that is a problem.

No always sure what the best way to proceed is when this is true. But I plan to stick with a couple of guidelines:

1) Don't become part of redefining DEAD WRONG as reasonable.

2) Don't design potentially dangerous systems using the technical ideas of people who are DEAD WRONG.

Ken

[Willie Hunt]

On Aug 3, 5:56 pm, Serge Issakov <serge.issa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And if a driver of a motor vehicle actually tries to kill a cyclist, he's

> Probably going to be successful, so I doubt there are many examples of

> "tried to kill cyclist but missed", so the number so killed is probably
> fairly close to the number that tried to kill.
>
> Serge

I agree with Serge on this, as it is certainly true. In Los Angeles,
there was a case a few years ago where it was totally obvious that a
cyclist was deliberately hit in an alley with the intention of death
and the automobile driver was successful. But even my dear friend in
Texas that is routinely harassed, run off the road, and has objects
throw at him, survives because the drivers are not really trying to
kill him, just teach him a lesson. That lesson being stay off MY
road! I’ve had my own run ends with drivers that willfully and
purposely ran me off the road and or did something extremely dangerous
to prove a point to me. The real point being that they are stupid,
reckless, and ignorant of the vehicle code, but still they are not
planning to kill.

However, the scary issue I have with motor vehicle driver these days
is not with very few that are being deliberately trying to prove a
point to me, but rather the few that are distracted and thus do not
see me at all. Texting is now a major problem, I feel much worse than
cell phone voice use, messing with the radio, yelling at the kids,
etc. I’ve had a handful of these situations over the past 2.5 years
and 20,000 miles of road cycling in Southern California like this one:

Wednesday (7/7/2010) just after sunrise I was on the Pacific Coast
Highway in Newport Beach riding at 25 MPH in the right lane about 6
feet from the parked cars. It was overcast and somewhat misty. Most of
the autos had their headlight on, but I notice a car approaching fast
in my lane without lights on. The car did not make any movement to the
left thus giving me more passing lateral distance. The adjacent lane
on the PCH (3 travel lanes in the same direction in light traffic
conditions) was empty. Within one second of impact, I veered to the
right and the car pass me with less than 2 feet of clearance at a
speed I’d guess to be over 65 MPH. The resulting blast wave sucked me
back a foot.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.628235,-117.952234&spn=0.007656,0.014119&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.628314,-117.952385&panoid=nzF6TKjutMk1xLC4fEW1ZA&cbp=12,307.15,,0,8.21

On Aug 3, 6:15 pm, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> No. I'm not happy with the status quo.
>
> But that doesn't mean I will help propagate a fairy tale about the majority of motorists being 'reckless'... or ask for facility design that is worse than status quo.
>
> The worse status quo thing I'm most against is the false narrative that the roadways are too dangerous for bicyclists.
>
> Ken

I agree with Ken on this. The bottom line is even in the least
hospitable places to ride in the USA, cycling is plenty safe enough
providing that the cyclists use reasonable vehicular cycling
techniques. Cyclists in downtown Manhattan survive just fine, and
they have to deal with swarms of cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians,
parked cars, etc every day and they are right there in the middle of
the motor vehicle traffic. Even in car crazy Southern California,
cyclists do just fine with 65 MPH traffic on multilane roads with
poorly designed bike lanes that are converted shoulders.

Do cyclists get killed in there areas? Sure, but if you look at the
number of cycling deaths compared with the huge number of cyclists and
cycling miles, it not at all what I would call dangerous, or at least
as most people define dangerous (meaning a 1% risk of death with a
year let’s say). However, I do feel for the avid cyclist putting in
6000 miles a year in these areas has a significant risk of death over
a lifetime, and that’s something that could be greatly improves by
fixing the major problems status quo.

Willie

[Serge Issakov]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Willie Hunt <willi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wednesday (7/7/2010) just after sunrise I was on the Pacific Coast
Highway in Newport Beach riding at 25 MPH in the right lane about 6
feet from the parked cars. It was overcast and somewhat misty. Most of
the autos had their headlight on, but I notice a car approaching fast
in my lane without lights on. The car did not make any movement to the
left thus giving me more passing lateral distance. The adjacent lane
on the PCH (3 travel lanes in the same direction in light traffic
conditions) was empty. Within one second of impact, I veered to the
right and the car pass me with less than 2 feet of clearance at a
speed I’d guess to be over 65 MPH. The resulting blast wave sucked me
back a foot.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.628235,-117.952234&spn=0.007656,0.014119&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.628314,-117.952385&panoid=nzF6TKjutMk1xLC4fEW1ZA&cbp=12,307.15,,0,8.21

 

How did you notice a 65 MPH car approaching from behind?  Did you just happen to turn around and look, did you hear it and turn around to look, or were you using a mirror and periodically checking it?

Serge

[Willie Hunt]

On Aug 4, 8:02 am, Serge Issakov <serge.issa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Willie Hunt <willie92...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wednesday (7/7/2010) just after sunrise I was on the Pacific Coast
> > Highway in Newport Beach riding at 25 MPH in the right lane about 6
> > feet from the parked cars. It was overcast and somewhat misty. Most of
> > the autos had their headlight on, but I notice a car approaching fast
> > in my lane without lights on. The car did not make any movement to the
> > left thus giving me more passing lateral distance. The adjacent lane
> > on the PCH (3 travel lanes in the same direction in light traffic
> > conditions) was empty. Within one second of impact, I veered to the
> > right and the car pass me with less than 2 feet of clearance at a
> > speed I’d guess to be over 65 MPH. The resulting blast wave sucked me
> > back a foot.
>

> >http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.628235,-117.952234&spn=0.007656...

>
> How did you notice a 65 MPH car approaching from behind?  Did you just
> happen to turn around and look, did you hear it and turn around to look, or
> were you using a mirror and periodically checking it?
>
> Serge

I was riding this bike:
http://ocwsatcentury.googlegroups.com/attach/089681d9de0b12b0/IMG_8758x.jpg?view=1&part=5
Although you cannot see the B&M Cyclestar mirror on the left handle
bar it is there:
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/mirrors.asp
I remove the stem and pop the mirror directly into the handle bar base
clamp.

It’s gives me an outstanding rear view right inline with my normal
horizontal plane of view. On this bike (and my other bents too) it’s
easier and faster to use the mirror that one in an automobile. When I
say that I “watch my rear view mirror like a hawk”, I should rephrase
that. I glace at my rear view mirror every second or 2 as part of my
normal scanning for anything from any direction that could intersect
my path. The rear view glace is normally not more than 20% of the
time.

However on this fine marine layer morning, I noticed this car without
lights in the fine mist. This immediately raises a red flag because
the driver is already violating the CA vehicle code: Raining =
headlights ON! Everything is drab gray, including this blue car. I’m
not too concerned at first because the car is a long way back, and I
have my ultra bright Cateye Opticube tail light blinking away:
http://www.cateye.com/en/product_detail/280
But I start watching this car much more closely as the approach speed
seems excessively fast. My lane position has not changed, nor my
speed of 25 MPH, as I notice that I’m squared off with the right side
of the car. In the next second or so, I realize that this car in not
moving over left at all, and I’m now looking at being hit about where
the right headlight is, so I cranked my wheel to the right and made a
significant move right laterally. And just as I’m trying to
straighten out my veering right, the car passes and I hit with the
blast wave of air. The disc rear is the reason I got suck laterally
back, but that was no concern as I’m well practiced with the disc
wheel being in gusty winds and passed by semi-tractor trucks.

The bottom line here is I have no way to know if the driver saw me or
not. If he did, was he playing a dangerous game or not? He certainly
was speeding excessively, no lights, in light mist, in a dimly lit
morning just after sunrise with a heavy overcast from the Pacific
marine layer. I do know that I was scared right as it happened, and I
was cursing a bit just after. I have close passes nearly everyday,
but I’m not scared at all. In fact I haven’t had a scare that on a
bike for long time, even with other close calls. Did my actions save
my life? Who knows, but I’m not willing to take the gamble. So, I
continue watch my rear view “like a hawk!”

Willie

[Kenneth O'Brien]

On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Willie Hunt <willi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Who knows, but I’m not willing to take the gamble. So, I
> continue watch my rear view “like a hawk!”
>

I don't gamble on what data and sound analysis says is almost sure to be a pointless waste.

If I'm not changing my lateral line I don't waste any scanning attention to my rear. I keep attention forward. I see that as understanding and playing the best odds.

Ken

[Willie Hunt]

I respect your choice to not "waste any scanning attention to the
rear", but there is no way you can prove that this is "the best odds"
in all situations. Just because you have ridden 40 years without
looking back and survived, does mean much statistically. Similar, I
recall several free soloists (rock climbers that climb without rope or
any protection) that have done that for decades without death, but I
also know a few that died doing it. Just like several cyclists here
in Southern California that were stuck from the rear and killed in the
last few years, and all of them had plain view of approaching traffic
from the rear, but none used mirrors. Could they have taken evasive
action if they saw the threat coming? Who knows, but clearly they did
not and they are not here anymore. It’s sobering to me to ride past
the memorials on the side of these roads, knowing at least partly what
happened.

So, to me, EVERYTHING around me is important. Yes, things in front
are normally the primary focus, but when I’m grinding up an 15% grade
at 4 MPH on a road with no side roads or drives, I’m more concerned
about the 60 MPH automobiles racing up behind me than what’s going on
in front of me for the next second, because I have hardly traveled the
length of my bike in one second, but the car has traveled 88 feet.

Willie


On Aug 4, 9:03 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:

[Kenneth O'Brien]

On Aug 4, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Willie Hunt <willi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I respect your choice to not "waste any scanning attention to the
> rear", but there is no way you can prove that this is "the best odds"
> in all situations.

You are getting philosophical when you start with thus "proof" stuff.

What I can and have done us make a sound data and logical based argument, also bringing in the basic physiological make up of humans, that shows why attention to the rear is a waste and better directed forward at all times when you are holding your lateral line.

Like the 'bright clothing' arguments... Sorry, you-all are just rubbing your rabbit's foot and chanting incantations.

At least with the 'bright clothing' chant it is hard to see how you can hurt yourself with that.

But with the 'waste attention where it is not needed, when it is not needed' chant..... the worry and anxiety and wasted mental processing energy directed at something so unlikely, something so unlikely to be evaluated properly, something so unlikely to have an effective avoidance maneuver for if it is really about to happen. Possible trouble with that all that wasted attention and worry.

Yes, any crazy-assed shit might happen to me some day. But there is a reason such things get assigned the technical designation of "crazy-assed shit"... They are so unlikely.

Ken

[Willie Hunt]

You justify your “one sized fits all” argument on the basic
physiological make up of humans. “the worry and anxiety and wasted

mental processing energy directed at something so unlikely, something
so unlikely to be evaluated properly, something so unlikely to have an

effective avoidance maneuver for if it is really about to happen” is
strictly your opinion and may apply exactly to you, many others, the
vast majority (I do not know). But I do know that “wasted mental
processing” is not a waste for me, nor does it stress me out. In fact
the opposite is true. If I do not watch what’s going on behind me
then I get stressed out.

I find evaluating what going on behind a recumbent high racer bicycle
to be a snap. For a decade in Indiana, I used a helmet mirror on a
standard upright bicycle, but never found it to be anything nearly
like using a large handle bar mirror on a bent ride. It’s night and
day difference. Certainly it’s not as good as turning your head all
the way around, but damn, it’s close enough!

I also disagree that it is unlikely that there is an effective
avoidance maneuver for threats from the rear. Sure, in some cases
there’s not much of anything to do, but in my experience, I have
avoided collisions with the motor vehicle by taking evasive action
before the vehicle was in front of me. I assume you deal with right
hooks on occasion by making a hard right along with the automobile?
Would it not be more useful to know that the car is about to make a
right hook before it is in front of you?

I deal with this about once a month. A car is speeding up behind me
with engine revving, but I can see the car is pitching forward just as
the engine goes quiet. The car is braking quickly but still going
quite fast. The car’s lateral position will not hit me, so no worry
there, but since I see there is a place for a right turn just in front
of me, I plan to stop short, because I saw the potential for a right
hook in the mirror. Sure enough, the car passes me up, cranks the
wheel and turns right across my path. But because I saw it coming
before the car was in front of me, I have the option to brake hard
before having to turn right hard. I have found that normally just
braking is sufficient to avoid having to turn with the car and so I
can miss the car’s back end and continue on my normal course.

The reason this happens with regularity around Orange County, is the
roads I travel often have traffic moving in excess of 50 MPH, the
drivers are impatient, they speed excessively, they cram on their
brakes at almost every turn, stop sign or traffic light, and they
assume cyclists are stationary objects. They never expect a cyclist
to be doing 20, 30 and certainly not over 40 MPH. So, the “high
speed” right hook is just something I have to deal with, and I’d much
rather deal with it with a second or 2 of advanced warning than have
to deal with it when the car is right next to me. Because I brake
hard, their assumption that I’m stationary works out about right, and
they clear me. To me it’s easy to do and it’s only about once a
month that it happens that I have to take evasive action.

Willie

On Aug 4, 10:08 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:

[Serge Issakov]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Kenneth O'Brien <kob2...@mac.com> wrote:

But with the 'waste attention where it is not needed, when it is not needed' chant..... the worry and anxiety and wasted mental processing energy directed at something so unlikely, something so unlikely to be evaluated properly, something so unlikely to have an effective avoidance maneuver for if it is really about to happen. Possible trouble with that all that wasted attention and worry.

Use of the term "wasted attention" here implies that driving in general, and bicycle driving in particular, requires so much attention to be paid "where it is needed" ahead, that "wasting" attention is a very bad thing to be avoided at all costs, no matter the potential benefit, which is malarkey, and is arguably bad education.

The attention required to be spent looking ahead to be safe is not beyond our capacity, nor near our capacity, if you're operating appropriately.   I mean, a door zone or wrong-way cyclist or no-light-at-night cyclist arguably does have to use his entire attention capacity glued ahead constantly, and even that may not be enough.  That's why I, for one, don't ride like that.

But for any competent/experienced cyclist who is positioned appropriately with respect to potential hazards ahead, the amount of attention required to focus ahead should be well below his or her capacity.  In other words, such a cyclist should have plenty of leftover attention capacity, that can be allocated in short spurts of a fraction of a second to a full second or two (depending on circumstances), at least every few seconds, to look at one's watch, check the speedometer, glance back to see what gear you're in, glance at scenery, and, yes, take a glance in the rear view mirror occasionally.

There is also a certain amount of compounding benefit with mirror use too.  The mirror enables positioning in accordance with the presence of faster same direction traffic.  Instead of picking a given line (say, the "KOB line", if you will) that is reasonably safe assuming faster same direction traffic is present even when it's not, a mirror allows for riding significantly further left than the "KOB line" during gaps in faster same direction traffic, which are often significantly long periods.  Being further left, which mirror use enables, reduces further the need to pay attention ahead as much, as long, as often, because it buys you a more space and time from right side hazards, and arguably makes you more conspicuous.  When faster traffic is present, you move right to the KOB line, from which the demands to look ahead are arguably higher (because you're closer to right side pull-out hazards, etc.), but mirror glances are not as useful/beneficial either.

If you look at the overall odds of any given cyclist being hit from behind, it's of course very low.  But if you look at the odds of a cyclist who rides appropriately and reasonably, he or she can nearly eliminate the odds of being hit by cross traffic up ahead.  That means is that if he's going to be hit, such an above average skilled/experienced cyclist is much more likely to be hit from behind than is a less skilled/experienced "average" cyclist.  That's why I'm interested in reducing the odds of that kind of crash too.

In short, the costs of monitoring to the rear with a mirror are practically nil.  The potential benefit is infinite.  You do the math.

Serge

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Playing chicken before overwhelming superiority sometimes pays off. Or
perhaps he was emboldened by me playing chicken.

I wasn't in the mood that day to tame the beast, just escape and go on
with my girlfriend who witnessed everything.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

I'm actually overstating the number, since the share of commuters by
bike is 0.4%.

But you should never trust the sheep to be right, such as in the case
of religion or Chavez in Venezuela.

[Serge Issakov]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:36 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> But yes, when a solid majority in a democracy has something DEAD WRONG, that is a problem.
>
> No always sure what the best way to proceed is when this is true. But I plan to stick with a couple of guidelines:
>
> 1) Don't become part of redefining DEAD WRONG as reasonable.
>
> 2) Don't design potentially dangerous systems using the technical ideas of people who are DEAD WRONG.
>
> Ken

I'm actually overstating the number, since the share of commuters by
bike is 0.4%.

But you should never trust the sheep to be right, such as in the case
of religion or Chavez in Venezuela.

Which takes us back to Ken's points.

Why become part of redefining WRONG (what the sheep believe is right) as reasonable?

Why promote the design of systems using the WRONG ideas of the sheep?

Serge

 

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 4, 9:03 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Willie Hunt <willie92...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Who knows, but I’m not willing to take the gamble.  So, I
> > continue watch my rear view “like a hawk!”
>
> I don't gamble on what data and sound  analysis says is almost sure to be a pointless waste.
>
> If I'm not changing my lateral line I don't waste any scanning attention to my rear. I keep attention forward. I see that as understanding and playing the best odds.
>
> Ken

See, that's a mistake. In the jungle you must keep your eyes open for
every possible predator, including those coming from above. (Say a
bottle thrown from an overpass).

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Those who "thrive in danger" would love to bike in a place like
this...

On Aug 4, 10:41 am, Cully J <ccar...@new.rr.com> wrote:

> Even if you commute on a dual suspension mountain bike, those streets
> are awful! Yet more proof that the automobile has destroyed the urban
> landscape!
>
> Cullen

If Afghanistan we can expect the Humvees and tanks to put potholes
everywhere, thus it must be a magnificent place to go mountain biking.
The IED's leave extra deep obstacles.

[Kenneth O'Brien]

The 99% of the American people who do NOT dare ride a bike on the road

probably agrees with me.

I'm actually overstating the number, since the share of commuters by
bike is 0.4%.

Look that over. You just mixed two different things. 1) Americans who don't dare ride a bike on the roadway and 2) commuting share by bike. You do realize that is two entirely different things, yes? And you realize if you jump around like that you can't make any kind of sensible point, yes?

But you should never trust the sheep to be right, such as in the case
of religion or Chavez in Venezuela.

Sorry. You lost me on that one. Point?

Ken

[Kenneth O'Brien]

>
> See, that's a mistake. In the jungle you must keep your eyes open for
> every possible predator, including those coming from above. (Say a
> bottle thrown from an overpass).
>

Serge and Mr. Hunt, please note this. This helps make my point.

I think there is only a very minor difference between your style of riding that continually wastes attention and mental evaluation to things behind you, with His Highness's need to continually scan for things falling from the sky above.

Ken

[Kenneth O'Brien]

On Aug 4, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Willie Hunt wrote:

> You justify your “one sized fits all” argument

Actually you have that exactly backwards. My way of looking at it incorporates the varying capabilities of the public.

Few to no drivers have the Kreskin/Uri Gellar-like mental/psychic powers to can first: divine that someone approaching behind is either a homicidal maniac or so outrageously incompetent that they have missed seeing a predictable visible bicyclist in the road ahead along a roadway leg; then second: can Obiwan-Kenobi-predict exactly which last instant emergency response will avoid this menace; and finally: can Maverick/Goose/Top-Gun perform that maneuver in the blink of an eye.

Because the full population of drivers includes a wide spread, I want to build into the system - and build into education about the system - the margin represented by everybody devoting all their attention forward whenever they can. I don't want everybody doing 360 degree continual scans (or as His Highness would have it, maybe - 4pi steradian continual scans [since I suspect he might want me to continually scan for volcanic eruptions at my feet as well as bottles from above.]) I don't want folks in the full population of drivers/bicyclists tricked into thinking they are Kreskin, Uri Gellar, Obiwan Kenobi or Maverick. I want them to recognize that often, they are just Gus... not very bright... not at the top of their (or most anybody else's) physical game... and they need all the margin we can give them - Meaning devoting their attention where it is needed when it is needed only.

>But I do know that “wasted mental
>processing” is not a waste for me, nor does it stress me out. In fact
>the opposite is true. If I do not watch what’s going on behind me
>then I get stressed out.

There is a difference between the bliss of injecting heroin, and not stressing/fatiguing your your physical capabilities - especially during a task in a potentially dangerous system that needs you neither stressed/fatigued nor blissed out on an opiate.

I recognize it is hard to get past the idea that you have little or no power to protect yourself from the homicidal maniac or the truly grossly incompetent. But I recommend you and Serge get past the illusion you can control such a thing. recognizing this is liberating and likely will help your (and everybody else's, because you are not wasting your attention where it is not needed, and you therefore represent less of a hazard for the rest of us) safety level.

I suspect your lack of respect for the " targeted/focused attention where it is needed when it is needed" idea goes a long way towards explaining why you don't understand you do your students a great injustice when you refuse to educate them that bikelanes are a bad idea.

Ken

[Serge Issakov]

I can't speak for Mr. Hunt, but the difference between my style and a style that "must keep your eyes open for every possible predator" is enormous.

If you don't use a mirror, then one of the factors you must consider when deciding where to ride, especially in lanes wide enough to be shared, is the accommodation of faster same direction traffic, even when such traffic is not present (because you have no way of knowing if any gap is short or long or very long, unless you're constantly turning your head to find out).   If you do use a mirror, then you can choose where to ride without regard to faster same direction traffic, during long and very long gaps of no same direction traffic.

If you prefer to ride in a manner that accommodates faster traffic even when it's not present, fine, but please don't characterize traffic cycling as being so dangerous that constant attention must be given to what's ahead, such that one can't even afford to occasionally glance in a rear view mirror.

Serge

Serge

[Kenneth O'Brien]

On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:34 PM, Serge Issakov wrote:

>
> I can't speak for Mr. Hunt, but the difference between my style and a style that "must keep your eyes open for every possible predator" is enormous.
>
> If you don't use a mirror, then one of the factors you must consider when deciding where to ride, especially in lanes wide enough to be shared, is the accommodation of faster same direction traffic, even when such traffic is not present (because you have no way of knowing if any gap is short or long or very long, unless you're constantly turning your head to find out). If you do use a mirror, then you can choose where to ride without regard to faster same direction traffic,

I would then choose that lateral position no matter what faster same direction traffic condition may be, if that was what was needed for safety due to something up ahead.

Same direction traffic is partially the reason why I'm always -somewhere- within normal travel. Beyond that, my lateral line is chosen - at all times - as a function of conditions and configurations I see ahead of me.

>
> If you prefer to ride in a manner that accommodates faster traffic even when it's not present, fine, but please don't characterize traffic cycling as being so dangerous that constant attention must be given to what's ahead, such that one can't even afford to occasionally glance in a rear view mirror.

I didn't characterize it as 'so dangerous' ... I characterized it as inferior to some degree... for everybody. Compared to an average American bicyclist, the impact from this last-vestage-fear-of-the-rear element in your -Serge's- riding safety probably is pretty small.

KOB

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 4, 6:17 pm, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>> The 99% of the American people who do NOT dare ride a bike on the road
> >>> probably agrees with me.
>
> > I'm actually overstating the number, since the share of commuters by
> > bike is 0.4%.
>
> Look that over. You just mixed two different things. 1) Americans who don't dare ride a bike on the roadway and 2) commuting share by bike. You do realize that is two entirely different things, yes? And you realize if you jump around like that you can't make any kind of sensible point, yes?

I do not care about training cyclists looking for fun, performance or
whatever on a bike. They don't care about others either. That's a
hobby. The revolution is for the SUB (Sport Utility Bike).

>
>
>
> > But you should never trust the sheep to be right, such as in the case
> > of religion or Chavez in Venezuela.
>
> Sorry. You lost me on that one. Point?
>
> Ken

People are happy with whatever you throw at them. Case in point is the
fancy MIXED PATH around here that has sucked up so much money and yet
it only goes for a mile. People are happy with it. I cite the dangers
of mixing cyclists, dogs and kids, blinding lights, etc, and they
still reply the same mantra: "People are happy with it."

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

You are wrong. I'm just laying before you the greatest model for
survival under any conditions: THE JUNGLE. I forgot to mention the
dangers from below, the potholes that make you fall while you pay too
much attention to the beasts behind the wheel.

Actually 100% of your energy should be concentrated on riding the
bike, not watching your back.

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

The problem is cyclists are the easiest target for road rage. And
there's a lot of it out there. Luckily most of the time it doesn't
lead to a bloody incident, but just to spoiling the day for the
cyclist.

(I quote)

Ranking No. 1 was Orlando, Fla., of all places.

"Yes, Orlando, home of the Magic Kingdom and mandated happiness," the
Men's Health article on the survey said. "Who knows? Maybe living in
Goofyville wears thin after 35 years."

Following Orlando were St. Petersburg, Fla.; Detroit; Baltimore;
Nashville; Wilmington, Del.; Miami; Memphis; Jacksonville; and St.
Louis.

But what about Los Angeles with its freeway traffic jams and high-
pressure lifestyles? They're way down at No. 36.

And how about New York City, where the rush is constant, the crowds
are crushing, and the high rents, small spaces and busy schedules can
make for plenty of stress? The Big Apple isn't even in the top 50.
They come in at No. 57.

http://cbs2chicago.com/watercooler/chicago.11th.angriest.2.1834103.html

***

NYC which is known as the "asphalt jungle" is down at #50. The Deep
Jungle is elsewhere.

I think we should bring the National Guard out (or back from Iraq and
Afghanistan).

[Kenneth O'Brien]

On Aug 5, 2010, at 10:22 AM, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock"<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 4, 6:17 pm, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> The 99% of the American people who do NOT dare ride a bike on the road
>>>>> probably agrees with me.
>>
>>> I'm actually overstating the number, since the share of commuters by
>>> bike is 0.4%.
>>
>> Look that over. You just mixed two different things. 1) Americans who don't dare ride a bike on the roadway and 2) commuting share by bike. You do realize that is two entirely different things, yes? And you realize if you jump around like that you can't make any kind of sensible point, yes?
>
> I do not care about training cyclists looking for fun, performance or
> whatever on a bike. They don't care about others either. That's a
> hobby. The revolution is for the SUB (Sport Utility Bike)
>>
>>

OK. But the commuting share isn't at whatever it is because 1 minus that number fraction of the public wouldn't DARE ride their bike on the road. There is a million and one things that add up to commute share.

Ken

[Kenneth O'Brien]

The problem is cyclists are the easiest target for road rage. And
there's a lot of it out there.

Not my experience ever, anywhere.

Luckily most of the time it doesn't
lead to a bloody incident,

Plus it is rare to start with.

but just to spoiling the day for the
cyclist.

I can't think of a day spoiled for me by it,  looking back at least a few years of memory. Can't call up any example at all at the moment. So even if it has happened and I'm forgetting, it at least demonstrates that rage-ruined days don't have any significant part to play in my life.

Ken

[Willie Hunt]

On Aug 4, 6:20 pm, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
> > See, that's a mistake. In the jungle you must keep your eyes open for
> > every possible predator, including those coming from above. (Say a
> > bottle thrown from an overpass).
>
> Serge and Mr. Hunt, please note this. This helps make my point.
>
> I think there is only a very minor difference between your style of riding that continually wastes attention and mental evaluation to things behind you, with His Highness's need to continually scan for things falling from the sky above.
>
> Ken

Ken, His Highness is JOKING! But, there are some places I ride where
plant limbs are rather low and so watching out for low clearance is an
issue.

On Aug 4, 7:05 pm, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Willie Hunt wrote:
>
> > You justify your “one sized fits all” argument
>
> Actually you have that exactly backwards. My way of looking at it incorporates the varying capabilities of the public.

> …..- the margin represented by everybody devoting all their attention forward whenever they can …..
>

Hmm, I think I have it forward if I understand you. You are saying
that EVERYONE riding a bicycle should not look back unless lateral
movement is needed. That’s “one size fits all” in my book.

>
> Because the full population of drivers includes a wide spread, I want to build into the system - and build into education about the system - the margin represented by everybody devoting all their attention forward whenever they can. I don't want everybody doing 360 degree continual scans (or as His Highness would have it, maybe - 4pi steradian continual scans [since I suspect he might want me to continually scan for volcanic eruptions at my feet as well as bottles from above.])

Now we are talking about something different. An education system for
the masses vs. how you, I, or Serge drive our bicycles. I’m not a
bicycle educator, unless you count that I’ve taught my 8 year old
daughter to ride and we are working on looking out for cars before
blurting out into the street, but she years away from “bicycle
driving”. I have no intention of becoming a bicycle educator either,
given the HUGE disagreement among the “experts”, and the fact that
most cyclists “know how to ride” and thus do not want any help. That
would be like telling the masses of auto drivers that they need to
take a special driving class because they do not know how to drive a
car. Most people are extremely naive about their skills for cycling
or auto driving, but they refuse to acknowledge this fact.

But given that you practice what you preach, I fully understand if you
want to minimize the sensory overload. Some people seem incapable of
having more than tunnel vision driving a car, so if that’s all you can
expect, then it make perfect sense not to try and teach them more than
they can handle. Again, I say this is you version of “one size fits
all” bicycle education, and seriously I do respect that.

> Few to no drivers have the Kreskin/Uri Gellar-like mental/psychic powers to can first: divine that someone approaching behind is either a homicidal maniac or so outrageously incompetent that they have missed seeing a predictable visible bicyclist in the road ahead along a roadway leg; then second: can Obiwan-Kenobi-predict exactly which last instant emergency response will avoid this menace; and finally: can Maverick/Goose/Top-Gun perform that maneuver in the blink of an eye.

True, but occasionally looking back to position yourself for faster
traffic behind does not require “Kreskin/Uri Gellar-like mental/
psychic powers”, just a fraction of a second observation. Are there
cars behind me or not?

> I don't want folks in the full population of drivers/bicyclists tricked into thinking they are Kreskin, Uri Gellar, Obiwan Kenobi or Maverick. I want them to recognize that often, they are just Gus... not very bright... not at the top of their (or most anybody else's) physical game... and they need all the margin we can give them - Meaning devoting their attention where it is needed when it is needed only.
>

Again, we are talking about educating the masses, not how 3 people
ride.

> I recognize it is hard to get past the idea that you have little or no power to protect yourself from the homicidal maniac or the truly grossly incompetent. But I recommend you and Serge get past the illusion you can control such a thing. recognizing this is liberating and likely will help your (and everybody else's, because you are not wasting your attention where it is not needed, and you therefore represent less of a hazard for the rest of us) safety level.
>

I do not need to protect myself from homicidal maniacs. There are not
enough of them to matter. Even the truly grossly incompetent are
extremely rare, because they have already crashed into something
else. I’m only defending myself against the distracted driver and or
the one that is making poor and or dangerous driving choices around
me. You can tell me that I cannot control this either, but my skills
and reactions to threats from the rear over the decades have shown
that I have escaped a number of event unscathed whereas without the
evasive maneuvers the result almost certain would have been severe
injury or death.

I do not understand why you think that threats from the front can be
mitigated, but not ones from the rear. Do you think a threat from the
side can be mitigated? I used to have that problem in Indiana about
once a year, as some “redneck” in a pickup truck would pull up beside
me, match speed and then squeeze me off the road. Fortunately, every
time it happened to me, I was able to exit off onto the grass. If I
had held my line my handle bar would hit the truck side and I’d
certainly crash. Friends of mine in Indiana got seriously hurt this
way. These auto drivers really would deliberately hit cyclists from
the side, and there were plenty of crashes that resulted.

> I suspect your lack of respect for the " targeted/focused attention where it is needed when it is needed" idea goes a long way towards explaining why you don't understand you do your students a great injustice when you refuse to educate them that bikelanes are a bad idea.
>
> Ken

Bikelanes? Where did bikelanes come into this discussion? I recall
Serge is against bikelanes. I was duped into thinking they were
generally useful until I started road riding in Southern California
(we did not have any bikelanes in Indiana where I rode), but then
learned that most of them are poorly designed and do not meet
standards. I’m slowly being brainwashed to believe that ALL bikelanes
are extremely evil creatures of death and destruction :), but I’m not
quite their yet! I just need to spend more time this forum to
complete the job.

Seriously though, I find bikelanes a double edge sword around Southern
California. I use them extensively, because they are where I would
ride if the bikelane stripe was not there. Cities like Irvine have
designed them into wide, multilane, high visibility, limited access,
major roads, and they build the bikelanes to standards, and they
street sweep them once a week. So, if I treat the bikelane and the
right most travel lane as one lane, and I position myself so I can
share this enormously wide lane with my 50+ MPH motor vehicle
neighbors, I have no issue being in the bikelane for the vast
stretches between intersections. But, clearly, that means I have to
do more lateral movement at each intersection, or to get around any
possible hazard in the bikelane. Thus the mirror is helpful for
increased need for lateral movement.

This leads to “proper” lane positioning, which I wanted to get some
discussion going on. I posted this before but it got buried in the
“impede” verbose discussion:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since we have beat to death the definition of "impede" and you still
cannot agree, how about working on the definition of "proper" in
regards to "proper lane positioning"?
What first comes to my mind is something like “proper attire
required”. Do we need the fashion police to figure this out? When I
look up “proper” I get:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proper
Which does not help, because there are many definitions and they are
all vague.

I ask because it's not as obvious as many on this group seem to think
it is. Everyone seems to have there own twist on it. Serge made up
a
comprehensive list of the factors for proper lane positioning, but
did
not come up with a rule set on how to apply them. Ken minimizes
lateral movement. Most everyone here avoids bike lanes and shoulders
like the plague. Some say screw the FTR laws, others try to at least
make some attempt to abide by them. Some share the lane when
possible, some don’t. Some maximize view distance in front and
behind. The list goes on and on, but no clear rule set is defined.

Being an engineer, it occurred to me that the use of the term
“proper”
is half baked. What you really mean is “optimum” as in “optimum lane
positioning”. This makes the task a “simple” matter of defining a
figure of merit. And this figure of merit can be quantifiable if
numerical measurement can be made. For example, I think what most
are eluding optimum cyclist safety. Safety can be defined as death,
injury, and mechanical damage rates for given lane positioning.
Weights can be assigned, with an extremely large weight placed on
death, heavy on severe injury, significant on minor injury or tire
blowout, light on a dented rim, minimal on a slow leak flat tire or
getting soaking wet (may be more if in cold climate). Of course,
there are many parameters than can be thrown into the mix, and I
personally use others besides safety. So how do you define your
figure of merit?

I cycled for decades and never really thought about it, until 2.5
years ago when I got back into road cycling in car crazy Orange
County. What I had done in rural Indiana, was clearly insufficient
for the complex and busy intersections and roads of a huge
metropolis. At first I did not want to deal with it and cowered to
bike lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian turns, and bike paths. Now, I
generally go anywhere, on any road, but there are still a few places,
I will not venture like onto a busy 65 MPH Freeway where I have to
cross travel lanes for example. However, now that I’m really
starting
to learn what “vehicular cycling” or “bicycle driving” really means,
I
realize that this journey is just beginning.

Willie

[Kenneth O'Brien]

>
> Bikelanes? Where did bikelanes come into this discussion? ...

> Now we are talking about something different. An education system for
> the masses vs. how you, I, or Serge drive our bicycles. I’m not a
> bicycle educator, unless you count that I’ve taught my 8 year old
> daughter to ride and we are working on looking out for cars before
> blurting out into the street, but she years away from “bicycle
> driving”.

Oops. Somewhere along the line I started confusing your name with a
poster from Texas. If there have been a couple of other inexplicable
things I said directed at you... that probably came from my mix-up/
screw-up of your name. Sorry about that.

>
> Ken, His Highness is JOKING! But, there are some places I ride where
> plant limbs are rather low and so watching out for low clearance is an
> issue.

No. I don't buy that. As far as I can see, all his contributions are
of the "all drivers are reckless... the roads are a nightmare of
constant danger for bicyclists" type postings. This is right up there
with bikelanes as major mis-education that ought to be fought by
bicyclist advocates.

> > Actually you have that exactly backwards. My way of looking at it incorporates the varying capabilities of the public.
> > …..- the margin represented by everybody devoting all their attention forward whenever they can …..
>
> Hmm, I think I have it forward if I understand you. You are saying
> that EVERYONE riding a bicycle should not look back unless lateral
> movement is needed. That’s “one size fits all” in my book.

I don't think we do understand each other's use of this phrase. You
clearly meant to use it in a disparaging way. For me a disparaging use
of that phrase would imply pushing a narrowly defined, overly
technical, very very rare in the population skill way of operating - A
way that only a very very small (maybe non-existent) segment of the
public could ever manage.

But good traffic rules are designed to be the exact opposite. Perhaps
it could be called one-size-fits-all.... But only in the sense that
the behavior we should promote with respect to red lights and STOP
sign is one-size-fits-all.

> But given that you practice what you preach, I fully understand if you
> want to minimize the sensory overload. Some people seem incapable of
> having more than tunnel vision driving a car,

This is a negative sounding disparaging way to describe the traffic
system's greatest strength. It isn't 'tunnel vision'. It is attention
focused where it is needed when it is needed, consistent with
essentially the full range of population distribution of human
capabilities.

> > Few to no drivers have the Kreskin/Uri Gellar-like mental/psychic powers to can first: divine that someone approaching behind is either a homicidal maniac or so outrageously
>>incompetent that they have missed seeing a predictable visible bicyclist in the road ahead along a roadway leg; then second: can Obiwan-Kenobi-predict exactly which last instant
>>emergency response will avoid this menace; and finally: can Maverick/Goose/Top-Gun perform that maneuver in the blink of an eye.
>
> True, but occasionally looking back to position yourself for faster
> traffic behind does not require “Kreskin/Uri Gellar-like mental/
> psychic powers”, just a fraction of a second observation. Are there
> cars behind me or not?

I'm on a shared public roadway. It is likely most of the time a
motorized user will be somewhere behind me. I know this; don't need to
look to check that. However, knowing the exact precise details of what
the motorist behind me is doing? I do not need to know that when I am
holding a good predictable lateral line.

> I do not need to protect myself from homicidal maniacs. There are not
> enough of them to matter. Even the truly grossly incompetent are
> extremely rare, because they have already crashed into something
> else. I’m only defending myself against the distracted driver and or
> the one that is making poor and or dangerous driving choices around
> me.

The distracted or semi-distracted will be trouble at more taxing
situations like when they show up at an intersections ahead. Their
mistakes are often slow to develop and somewhat telegraphed.

Only the grossly incompetent are capable of running you down during
the simple along-the-roadway-leg overtaking of a visible predictable
bicyclist who maintains a lateral line somewhere in normal travel lane
at all times.

>You can tell me that I cannot control this either, but my skills
> and reactions to threats from the rear over the decades have shown
> that I have escaped a number of event unscathed whereas without the
> evasive maneuvers the result almost certain would have been severe
> injury or death.
>
> I do not understand why you think that threats from the front can be
> mitigated, but not ones from the rear.

They are easier to spot, they can be prepared for and handled much
earlier. The most common ones are surface conditions and configuration
shifts and traffic pattern shifts developing within the normal
operating ranges of the roadway and accepted behavior. The forward
facing human basic physical make-up teamed with focused viewing
+processing capabilities means this is the only place you be able to
do this to the quality level needed without quickly fatiguing your
sense and semi-auto processing function.

>Do you think a threat from the
> side can be mitigated? I used to have that problem in Indiana about
> once a year, as some “redneck” in a pickup truck would pull up beside
> me, match speed and then squeeze me off the road.

That is assault and the police needed to have been brought into those
situation.

I ride a lot - and often in rural locations. Never experienced such
an assault.

Most right hooks are mitigated by lateral line I get to early when I
see intersections. This same line always tends to make the rare
remaining beginnings of a right hook develop much much slower with the
vehicle overtaking telegraphing early in a manner I can spot with my
forward facing peripheral view. Anything short of a homicidal maniac
assault (which has zero defense) similar to what you describe above,
I'm guessing will develop something along these slow motion lines, and
can be spotted in you front facing peripheral view.

KOB

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 5, 7:59 am, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:

Yeah, but the big factor is F-E-A-R.

I had job just TWO miles away, and I just hesitated to do it. I also
hesitate to do that distance in any other direction.

The big hope is the new Velib program coming to Miami Beach, and
rescuing the reputation of the cyclist. H-O-P-E-F-U-L-L-Y.

Around here, people just ride crappy bikes on the sidewalk, and the
occasional pro cyclists darting by on weekends.

[Kenneth O'Brien]

>
> Yeah, but the big factor is F-E-A-R.

The big factor in what? However, whatever you are talking about
specifically here:

Something well larger than 1% of the population dares to ride their
bicycles on roadways

Fear is nowhere near the primary explanation of work commute share
being whatever number it happens to be.

>
> I had job just TWO miles away, and I just hesitated to do it. I also
> hesitate to do that distance in any other direction.

Your fairy tale unreal estimate of the level of danger posed by
roadway bicycling does sound like it might explain your personal
anecdotal story, yes... if you are being honest with yourself and us
in your emails.

Here is some help for you: Your mis perception is just that: a mis
perception. I think there are a bunch of links and resources that
Serge has put up on this list that will help you to see that, if you
work your way through them.

>
> The big hope is the new Velib program coming to Miami Beach,

What is Velib? Thanks.

Ken

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

You seem able to manage RAGE better than the Wise Tibetan Monkey.
Maybe this is a DIFFERENT jungle.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 5, 8:28 am, Willie Hunt <willie92...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 6:20 pm, Kenneth O'Brien <kob22...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > See, that's a mistake. In the jungle you must keep your eyes open for
> > > every possible predator, including those coming from above. (Say a
> > > bottle thrown from an overpass).
>
> > Serge and Mr. Hunt, please note this. This helps make my point.
>
> > I think there is only a very minor difference between your style of riding that continually wastes attention and mental evaluation to things behind you, with His Highness's need to continually scan for things falling from the sky above.
>
> > Ken
>
> Ken, His Highness is JOKING!  But, there are some places I ride where
> plant limbs are rather low and so watching out for low clearance is an
> issue.

We were canoeing, and my girlfriend said, "Those kids we'll be
throwing something." And they did as we passed under the overpass.
When they are bored try not to be around.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Parisian style bike sharing idea also coming to London. It would put
6,000 bike in the streets of London and 1,000 in Miami Beach. It goes
by a different name here.

http://www.decobike.com/index.php

[John Forester]

It was just remarked, with respect to the small American cyclo-commuting
share: "Yeah, but the big factor is F-E-A-R."

Despite the correction offered after that statement, I have long
believed that the major factor in American bicycle affairs is
exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic. That's what drives the
whole business, with environmentalists exaggerating the effect of that
fear and with motorists' fanning of that fear for their own convenience.

However, just because that fear has a very strong effect in reducing
road cycling does not mean that providing facilities that reduce that
fear will produce a transportationally significant increase in bicycle
transportation. Those who oppose motor transport believe, rather
naturally, that a large proportion of the population has much the same
beliefs as do the anti-motorists, for, after all, aren't these things
self-evident? Therefore, the anti-motorists believe that there exists a
large reservoir of motorists who would switch from motor transport to
bicycle transport if only the fear were removed. However, that belief is
no more than a superstition because such a transportationally
significant transfer from motor to bicycle transport has not occurred
anywhere.

There is plenty of evidence from those of us who don't have an
exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic. Simply through
practical experience we have discovered the numerous factors that
determine the best travel mode for any trip; we have discovered the
limitations of bicycle transport. Without the fear of traffic, we can
choose what's best from the full range of circumstances. Some of us are
in situations in which many of our trip purposes can be well served by
bicycle; some of us are not in such situations. And it is evident that
one of the major factors, one that may well tip the balance toward
cycling, is the sheer joy of cycling. That joy makes the difference
between wanting to go by bicycle and being too lazy to go by bicycle.
Therefore, I am willing to suggest, that the proportion of bicycle
transportation done by enthusiastic vehicular cyclists is considerably
more than the proportion that would be made by the general public if the
fear of same-direction traffic were removed.

In short, there are good reasons why the provision of facilities that
markedly reduce the exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic do
not, in modern America, produce a transportationally significant switch
from motor to bicycle transport.

--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

The sheep believe driving is normal and riding a bike is funny. Chavez
himself is a funny revolutionary having OIL to promote his revolution.

Of all places the "revolution" is happening in Curitiba...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRD3l3rlMpo

The sheep adapt to survive. They were with Hitler. They voted for
Bush, and forgot it was all a lie. They are with Castro, riding crappy
bikes and installing mowing motors on them...

But they are also the "Proles" and are the only hope. They can be
smart if the system wants.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Notice though GIVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE LANE TO CYCLISTS does not
include facilities, but rather RESPECT for the cyclist. How can you
share something (a traffic lane in this case) with a beast that can
crush you with or without intention? Have the roaring SUV keep its
distance and things can only improve.

Some people can even get a thrill out of bullfighting traffic, but the
majority are simply unwilling to face the beast...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DN9wE76Aik&feature=related

Yes, the beast is DEADLY AND UNPREDICTABLE!

[Michael Graff]

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:11, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

How can you
share something (a traffic lane in this case) with a beast that can
crush you with or without intention?

Indeed, how can a car, or even a large SUV, share a traffic lane with an 18-wheeler?  Same problem, same answer.

[John Forester]

I understand that there is a rule here prohibiting ad hominem remarks.
However, when a contributor joins purely to be hidden, impolite, and
nasty, and to purvey superstitious nonsense that is not part of this
group's subject matter, it seems to me that the rule has already been
broken by someone who, as a result, deserves the most critical of ad
hominem castigation. Whatever human being hides behind this Tibetan
monkeyness should have the grace to refrain from any further
contributions. You are destroying the group. Of course, that may well be
your intention. But it appears to me that there must exist some means of
excluding you and suchlike you. Does anyone on this list know of such a
mechanism?

On 8/6/2010 11:11 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote nasty nonsense.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 6, 2:16 pm, John Forester <fores...@johnforester.com> wrote:
> I understand that there is a rule here prohibiting ad hominem remarks.
> However, when a contributor joins purely to be hidden, impolite, and
> nasty, and to purvey superstitious nonsense that is not part of this
> group's subject matter, it seems to me that the rule has already been
> broken by someone who, as a result, deserves the most critical of ad
> hominem castigation. Whatever human being hides behind this Tibetan
> monkeyness should have the grace to refrain from any further
> contributions. You are destroying the group. Of course, that may well be
> your intention. But it appears to me that there must exist some means of
> excluding you and suchlike you. Does anyone on this list know of such a
> mechanism?

If that is not ad hominem then it is ad simian.

For you to realize to how ridiculous is your system of fear and
intimidation... takes a monkey. They intimidate you so you abandon
your bicycle and drive an SUV, which is a gorilla solution.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

You can share the same road but not the same lane. Our body is rather
fragile compared to an SUV, which is wider than standard width for a
car.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 6, 7:41 pm, Jens Müller <usenet-03-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote:
> Am 03.08.2010 02:39, schrieb His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of
> the Movement of Tantra-Hammock:
>
> > Our curse could be our blessing. The sprawl that killed our
> > communities may be an opportunity for a different kind of bicycling
> > than Europe: FAST BIKING. Our streets are better and wider, so IF WE
> > GET A TRAFFIC LANE we really could go places far and away.
>
> Ah, like in Berlin. But what do you mean by "GET A TRAFFIC LANE"? Are
> there no traffic lanes in your wide streets?

Oh I meant TAKE THE LANE. There's no other solution for America where
SUVs are wider and bicycles are very low in the food chain (often
below cats and dogs).

What's the approach in Berlin?

[Kalle Mustonen]

If you are reading the list via e-mail client, you can spam-filter the
monkey out.

For example in gmail web-client: Click "Create a filter"...


I just added a monkey filter, which is kind of a pity cause I think
the brother has some potential.
Shame that he chooses to be SUV-mans little friend, cherishing the
fear culture designed to keep lower class road users out the way of
the SUV-man.

Kalle

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 7, 12:05 am, Kalle Mustonen <kalle.musto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you are reading the list via e-mail client, you can spam-filter the
> monkey out.
>
> For example in gmail web-client: Click "Create a filter"...
>
> I just added a monkey filter, which is kind of a pity cause I think
> the brother has some potential.
> Shame that he chooses to be SUV-mans little friend, cherishing the
> fear culture designed to keep lower class road users out the way of
> the SUV-man.

The gorilla (aka SUV-man) keeps the mundane monkeys down if they are
disorganized. It actually denies democracy and it feeds our wildest
and basest instincts, even though the efforts of the establishment to
look civilized.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

On Aug 7, 12:05 am, Kalle Mustonen <kalle.musto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you are reading the list via e-mail client, you can spam-filter the
> monkey out.
>
> For example in gmail web-client: Click "Create a filter"...
>
> I just added a monkey filter, which is kind of a pity cause I think
> the brother has some potential.
> Shame that he chooses to be SUV-mans little friend, cherishing the
> fear culture designed to keep lower class road users out the way of
> the SUV-man.
>
> Kalle

And I've placed so much faith in you being the European-Man, a sort of
civilized homo sapiens, unselfish enough to reach out across the
Atlantic and illuminate us with your wisdom.

OK, fuck Europe, we look for wisdom elsewhere. They are badly
overcrowded and are selfish monkeys that think their Paradise can be
sustained in isolation from the jungle. Well, then they complain about
having too much immigration, but they are not clever enough to put two
and two together.

The revolution must be aimed at the South where the injustices are
multiplied by 100 and the source of immigration is. And it will not be
motorized.

[Bob Sutterfield]

Yes, this is clearly a troll, thus we should not feed it.  Oddly, most trolls brag about their exploits, but I'm unable so far to find the thread bragging about this one.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

Funny, this is the same strategy I follow with the lion: DO NOT FEED
THE BEAST, RIDE A BIKE!

[Whareagle]

(Good Lord...)

Sent from my iPhone

> --
> To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
> Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
>
> To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
>
> Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
> Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
> Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
> Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock]

"In some ways, in fact, modern America (as well as other Western
cultures) is more conforming that many other cultures."

FREEDOM! What a wonderful word! Seldom found in the real world,
though, not even in the so-called "democratic nations" of the West.
Take the FREEDOM TO RIDE A BICYCLE and do something for your own
health and the health of the planet, which is pitiful. No, the sheep
that participate in the democratic process are seldom interested in
such affairs. They are driven to drive and give no thought to the
heroes riding a bike and risking their lives on the road. They rather
CONFORM to the herd than be creative. The BLACK SHEEP must be punished
and ostracized...

"The interesting thing about America is that it's a culture that, on
the surface, values freedom and diversity. Conformity is seldom
treated as a positive value in America, yet, beneath the surface,
there is often a pressure to conform to political, religious or
societal norms. In some ways, in fact, modern America (as well as
other Western cultures) is more conforming that many other cultures.
This is due largely to the mass media, which allows millions of people
to instantly see the same images. Ironically, many people, especially
teenagers and young people, who are trying desperately to rebel end up
conforming in their very attempt at rebellion. By getting tattoos,
piercings, or following the latest trends in music or clothes, they
end up conforming to their peer group.

The problem with conformity is that you are basically giving up any
personal responsibility in regard to the rules you are following. Some
obvious examples in history where this had tragic consequences are
Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and America during the years of
slavery."

http://www.helium.com/items/395217-why-our-society-values-conformity

[Bob Boyce]

I can't filter the Tibetan Monkey's nonsense. I've tried "create a filter"--it doesn't work. Help.
   This has become a waste of time.
Bob B.
Lincoln, NE

[Serge Issakov]

My apologies. I've been on vacation in the eastern Sierras with no
access, so I missed the sudden spike. Thankfully Bob took care of it.

Serge