Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Please don't help so much
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Frank Krygowski
Jun 26, 2012, 11:12:30 AM6/26/12
to
Duane wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 10:54 PM, thirty-six wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 1:52 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> raamman wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I'd prefer to give them some education.
>>>
>>> What's that old proverb? Give a man a bike lane, and he can ride where
>>> there are bike lanes. Give a man education, and he can ride anywhere.
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> stop the indoctrination and there is a free thinker! What are your
>> thoughts?
>
> My thoughts are that the implication here is that cyclists get hurt
> because they are uneducated. This puts all of the responsibility on the
> victim, assumes that the poster's ability to educate is sacrosanct and
> implies that by sheer knowledge the cyclist, if willing to allow
> themselves to be enlightened by the "acadamecian" can prevent someone
> recklessly propelling a 2000lb + piece of steel (probably while texting)
> from causing them harm.
You've got it, although I wouldn't state it in quite such absolute terms.
Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of
cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only
crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by
proper attention.)
So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be
at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another
brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused
crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal
vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding
outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a
central lane position in narrow lanes.
> Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to
> control the behavior of others is rubbish.
So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_
prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you
saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane.
> I think that what's needed is
> a combination of education, defensive riding and Dan's situational
> awareness.
Like many critics of cycling education, you're imagining (or pretending)
that Effective Cycling and Cycling Savvy classes omit defensive riding
and situational awareness. Like those other critics, you're dead wrong,
and I can't imagine what you think the courses are all about. Those
things are covered and rehearsed. In fact, they're the major points
covered.
> Add to that some safety controls in particularly dangerous
> areas and things start to work. Throw in a goodly helping of prosecuting
> idiots that risk the lives of those around them and then we will see
> some changes.
For the individual cyclist, the biggest and fastest change comes from
learning to deal with the world as it is. You can still continue to
work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to
ride with real competence, things become better right now.
As mentioned in http://vimeo.com/43603867 once you learn the simple
techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden,
the motorists seem to get much smarter.
You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted
bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go.
--
- Frank Krygowski
> On 06/22/2012 10:54 PM, thirty-six wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 1:52 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> raamman wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I'd prefer to give them some education.
>>>
>>> What's that old proverb? Give a man a bike lane, and he can ride where
>>> there are bike lanes. Give a man education, and he can ride anywhere.
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> stop the indoctrination and there is a free thinker! What are your
>> thoughts?
>
> My thoughts are that the implication here is that cyclists get hurt
> because they are uneducated. This puts all of the responsibility on the
> victim, assumes that the poster's ability to educate is sacrosanct and
> implies that by sheer knowledge the cyclist, if willing to allow
> themselves to be enlightened by the "acadamecian" can prevent someone
> recklessly propelling a 2000lb + piece of steel (probably while texting)
> from causing them harm.
You've got it, although I wouldn't state it in quite such absolute terms.
Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of
cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only
crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by
proper attention.)
So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be
at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another
brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused
crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal
vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding
outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a
central lane position in narrow lanes.
> Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to
> control the behavior of others is rubbish.
So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_
prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you
saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane.
> I think that what's needed is
> a combination of education, defensive riding and Dan's situational
> awareness.
Like many critics of cycling education, you're imagining (or pretending)
that Effective Cycling and Cycling Savvy classes omit defensive riding
and situational awareness. Like those other critics, you're dead wrong,
and I can't imagine what you think the courses are all about. Those
things are covered and rehearsed. In fact, they're the major points
covered.
> Add to that some safety controls in particularly dangerous
> areas and things start to work. Throw in a goodly helping of prosecuting
> idiots that risk the lives of those around them and then we will see
> some changes.
For the individual cyclist, the biggest and fastest change comes from
learning to deal with the world as it is. You can still continue to
work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to
ride with real competence, things become better right now.
As mentioned in http://vimeo.com/43603867 once you learn the simple
techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden,
the motorists seem to get much smarter.
You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted
bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Jun 26, 2012, 1:20:41 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
(Our hero.)
> Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of
> cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only
> crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by
> proper attention.)
>
> So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be
> at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another
> brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused
> crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal
> vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding
> outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a
> central lane position in narrow lanes.
>
We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of
constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using
your own selection of criteria.
> > Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to
> > control the behavior of others is rubbish.
>
> So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_
> prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you
> saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane.
>
Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next
lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't
going to mow you down in any case. (Are you saying there *was* room
for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?)
(I got a kick out of that anecdote, BTW: Frank pedaled a mile to the
store without incident - gasp! ;-)
> > I think that what's needed is
> > a combination of education, defensive riding and Dan's situational
> > awareness.
>
> Like many critics of cycling education, you're imagining (or pretending)
> that Effective Cycling and Cycling Savvy classes omit defensive riding
> and situational awareness. Like those other critics, you're dead wrong,
> and I can't imagine what you think the courses are all about. Those
> things are covered and rehearsed. In fact, they're the major points
> covered.
>
"Critics" of cycling education? Educate away. Knock yourself out.
Good for you and those it helps.
Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about
indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
Vehicular Cycling.
> > Add to that some safety controls in particularly dangerous
> > areas and things start to work. Throw in a goodly helping of prosecuting
> > idiots that risk the lives of those around them and then we will see
> > some changes.
>
> For the individual cyclist, the biggest and fastest change comes from
> learning to deal with the world as it is.
Wow, "deal with it as it is" is an ususual postion for activists.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.soc/msg/fa07a32bce1247c3
(long link, may have to reconstruct, but basically archive search
result for "dan o take the world as it comes"):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/a619160e8627818d/d258e1fe5acdad52?lnk=gst&q=dan+o+take+the+worl+as+it+comes#d258e1fe5acdad52
> You can still continue to
> work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
> really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to
> ride with real competence, things become better right now.
>
> As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867 once you learn the simple
that they check their hostility for reasonableness.
And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle
operator"? Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are
they doing on the road if they don't?? I know exactly how to play
Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* contraining. I want to Ride Bike!
> You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted
> bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go.
>
The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville
Father Knows Best days of yore. Pleasantville exists (I live there),
but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's
going to be more (and more) bike facilities. Learn to deal with it
and ride with *real* competence.
wrote:
> Duane wrote:
> > On 06/22/2012 10:54 PM, thirty-six wrote:
> >> On Jun 23, 1:52 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> raamman wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>> I'd prefer to give them some education.
>
> >>> What's that old proverb? Give a man a bike lane, and he can ride where
> >>> there are bike lanes. Give a man education, and he can ride anywhere.
>
>
> Duane wrote:
> > On 06/22/2012 10:54 PM, thirty-six wrote:
> >> On Jun 23, 1:52 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> raamman wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>> I'd prefer to give them some education.
>
> >>> What's that old proverb? Give a man a bike lane, and he can ride where
> >>> there are bike lanes. Give a man education, and he can ride anywhere.
>
>
> >> stop the indoctrination and there is a free thinker! What are your
> >> thoughts?
>
> > My thoughts are that the implication here is that cyclists get hurt
> > because they are uneducated. This puts all of the responsibility on the
> > victim, assumes that the poster's ability to educate is sacrosanct and
> > implies that by sheer knowledge the cyclist, if willing to allow
> > themselves to be enlightened by the "acadamecian" can prevent someone
> > recklessly propelling a 2000lb + piece of steel (probably while texting)
> > from causing them harm.
>
> You've got it, although I wouldn't state it in quite such absolute terms.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6c03b880509754e1
> >> thoughts?
>
> > My thoughts are that the implication here is that cyclists get hurt
> > because they are uneducated. This puts all of the responsibility on the
> > victim, assumes that the poster's ability to educate is sacrosanct and
> > implies that by sheer knowledge the cyclist, if willing to allow
> > themselves to be enlightened by the "acadamecian" can prevent someone
> > recklessly propelling a 2000lb + piece of steel (probably while texting)
> > from causing them harm.
>
> You've got it, although I wouldn't state it in quite such absolute terms.
>
(Our hero.)
> Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of
> cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only
> crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by
> proper attention.)
>
> So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be
> at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another
> brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused
> crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal
> vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding
> outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a
> central lane position in narrow lanes.
>
constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using
your own selection of criteria.
> > Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to
> > control the behavior of others is rubbish.
>
> So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_
> prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you
> saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane.
>
lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't
going to mow you down in any case. (Are you saying there *was* room
for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?)
(I got a kick out of that anecdote, BTW: Frank pedaled a mile to the
store without incident - gasp! ;-)
> > I think that what's needed is
> > a combination of education, defensive riding and Dan's situational
> > awareness.
>
> Like many critics of cycling education, you're imagining (or pretending)
> that Effective Cycling and Cycling Savvy classes omit defensive riding
> and situational awareness. Like those other critics, you're dead wrong,
> and I can't imagine what you think the courses are all about. Those
> things are covered and rehearsed. In fact, they're the major points
> covered.
>
Good for you and those it helps.
Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about
indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
Vehicular Cycling.
> > Add to that some safety controls in particularly dangerous
> > areas and things start to work. Throw in a goodly helping of prosecuting
> > idiots that risk the lives of those around them and then we will see
> > some changes.
>
> For the individual cyclist, the biggest and fastest change comes from
> learning to deal with the world as it is.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.soc/msg/fa07a32bce1247c3
(long link, may have to reconstruct, but basically archive search
result for "dan o take the world as it comes"):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/a619160e8627818d/d258e1fe5acdad52?lnk=gst&q=dan+o+take+the+worl+as+it+comes#d258e1fe5acdad52
> You can still continue to
> work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
> really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to
> ride with real competence, things become better right now.
>
> techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden,
> the motorists seem to get much smarter.
>
Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is
> the motorists seem to get much smarter.
>
that they check their hostility for reasonableness.
And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle
operator"? Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are
they doing on the road if they don't?? I know exactly how to play
Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* contraining. I want to Ride Bike!
> You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted
> bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go.
>
Father Knows Best days of yore. Pleasantville exists (I live there),
but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's
going to be more (and more) bike facilities. Learn to deal with it
and ride with *real* competence.
Duane
Jun 26, 2012, 2:19:20 PM6/26/12
to
this clown.
Had a nice ride yesterday, encountered hills and descents, traffic and
clear roads. Rode in a couple of kilometers of bike lanes and road on
100k of nice highways. Did another 15k on a beautiful bike path through
a forest. Didn't for a second feel that my right to the road was being
stolen from me. No one got killed. No one even got mildly
inconvenienced. A couple got annoyed but you probably know who they
were without telling you. Even saw a guy on a bent clipping along.
Didn't see anyone controlling anything or even thinking that they were.
Just a nice ride. Lots of people on bikes.
sms88
Jun 26, 2012, 2:21:56 PM6/26/12
to
On 6/26/2012 10:20 AM, Dan O wrote:
> Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about
> indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
> Vehicular Cycling.
Many of us had been trying to properly educate Frank for years, but
> Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about
> indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
> Vehicular Cycling.
finally realized that it was hopeless.
The bottom line is that if we want a future where bicycling is seen as a
viable alternative to driving then we need to look at places that this
has already occurred and see what they did to make it happen.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o>, which shows what happened
in the Netherlands, is a good start. A visit to a city like Beijing,
where I was earlier this month, is another good example. If cyclists had
to ride in the same lanes as vehicles they simply would not ride.
People that adhere to Frank's brand of cycling education do cycling a
great disservice. They are dooming the bicycle to be seen more as a toy
that as a viable means of transportation.
Fortunately, policymakers and governments pay no attention to Frank's
brand of cycling "education." Many areas of the U.S. are busy building
cycling infrastructure, and it's heavily used. San Francisco has seen a
71% increase in bicycling over the past five years, as a direct result
of improvements in the bicycling infrastructure, despite the fact that
San Francisco can be a challenging place to ride because of the
topography. "Perhaps the most telling statistic is the increase of
bicycle counts at locations with new bicycle infrastructure added this
year. In 2011, more than 17 miles of bike lanes were added to San
Francisco streets, including 2.5 miles of buffered bikeways. Bicycle
count locations with new bike lanes showed an especially large increase
in ridership. For example, Townsend Street had bike lanes striped in
2011 and showed a 54% increase in counts."
I was amazed to see a heavily used bicycle route in Santa Clara remove a
traffic lane in order to add a bike lane. Some motorists were upset, but
too bad.
Frank Krygowski
Jun 26, 2012, 4:19:34 PM6/26/12
to
Dan O wrote:
> On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of
>> cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only
>> crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by
>> proper attention.)
>>
>> So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be
>> at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another
>> brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused
>> crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal
>> vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding
>> outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a
>> central lane position in narrow lanes.
>>
>
> We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of
> constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using
> your own selection of criteria.
Seems to me that was a smarmy thing to say. Still no mirrors in your house?
> On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of
>> cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only
>> crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by
>> proper attention.)
>>
>> So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be
>> at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another
>> brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused
>> crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal
>> vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding
>> outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a
>> central lane position in narrow lanes.
>>
>
> We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of
> constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using
> your own selection of criteria.
>>> Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to
>>> control the behavior of others is rubbish.
>>
>> So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_
>> prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you
>> saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane.
>>
>
> Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next
> lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't
> going to mow you down in any case.
near the gutter. In doing so, he would have given me far less than
three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if
unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. See
http://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl
> (Are you saying there *was* room
> for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?)
not mean "so far right as to endanger yourself by possible sideswipes."
Specifically, the law says a cyclist is allowed to ride further left
if the lane is too narrow to share.
So he waited a few seconds, then went around completely in the other
lane when it cleared. No problem, no hassle.
So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
cyclists' rights to the road?
> Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about
> indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
> Vehicular Cycling.
tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
teaching.
I suppose there may be teachers that accept any work as good enough, or
teachers that never tell about better ways of doing things. (My
students did tell me of one prof who gave an A to anyone who attended
his class. Fortunately, it was a far-less-than-essential liberal arts
class.) Personally, I think that's irresponsible and counterproductive,
and especially so when it involves the possibility of personal injury.
So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to endorse the riding style you've
espoused - riding drunk, riding at night without lights, riding
wrong-way, zooming at random on and off sidewalks, doing stunts in
traffic and purposely angering motorists.
>> You can still continue to
>> work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
>> really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to
>> ride with real competence, things become better right now.
>>
>> As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867 once you learn the simple
>> techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden,
>> the motorists seem to get much smarter.
>>
>
> Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is
> that they check their hostility for reasonableness.
>
> And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle
> operator"? Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are
> they doing on the road if they don't??
class. It's apparent you've never looked at crash data. You've never
been asked "So what side of the road are bikes supposed to ride on?"
> I know exactly how to play
> Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* contraining. I want to Ride Bike!
14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>> You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted
>> bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go.
>>
>
> The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville
> Father Knows Best days of yore.
comfortable riding in the world of today.
> Pleasantville exists (I live there),
> but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's
> going to be more (and more) bike facilities. Learn to deal with it
> and ride with *real* competence.
cycling instructors. They are discussing exactly that problem: What
are we to teach students about weird bike facilities, now that they're
popping up and grossly complicating traffic interactions? What if the
bike lane is in the door zone, and the cops are waiting to give tickets
for leaving that lane? What if the supposedly protected cycle track has
them riding downhill toward an intersection where they'll be hidden from
motorists until too late? What if the bike lane is to the right of the
right turn only lane, and motorists are getting hostile because they've
merged out of it to go straight?
Yep, it's a problem. Of course, the "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility" crowd doesn't even recognize there is a problem. They think
as long as it's painted green (or is it blue?) it must be safe.
And here you are, defending their work.
--
- Frank Krygowski
thirty-six
Jun 26, 2012, 7:57:02 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 26, 9:19 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
:
> > Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next
> > lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't
> > going to mow you down in any case.
>
> He would probably have attempted to pass had I squeezed over and ridden
> near the gutter.
That is the normal procedure to encourage someone following to pass.
One should only do this if one is prepared to stop as it gives the
rider no room to maneuver.
> In doing so, he would have given me far less than
> three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if
> unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
> him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl
might be wise if one is holding up a following road-user for a
considerable time. Consider whether the elapsed time is getting
excessive and pull over and stop if necessary.
>
> So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
> seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
> cyclists' rights to the road?
>
> > Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about
> > indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
> > Vehicular Cycling.
>
> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
> teaching.
That's lecturing. Teaching helps learning. They are different.
wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
:
> > Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next
> > lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't
> > going to mow you down in any case.
>
> He would probably have attempted to pass had I squeezed over and ridden
> near the gutter.
One should only do this if one is prepared to stop as it gives the
rider no room to maneuver.
> In doing so, he would have given me far less than
> three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if
> unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
>
> > (Are you saying there *was* room
> > for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?)
>
> I _was_ as far right as practicable. In my state, "practicable" does
> not mean "so far right as to endanger yourself by possible sideswipes."
> Specifically, the law says a cyclist is allowed to ride further left
> if the lane is too narrow to share.
>
> So he waited a few seconds, then went around completely in the other
> lane when it cleared. No problem, no hassle.
When there is another lane, there is no need to pull over, but it
> > (Are you saying there *was* room
> > for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?)
>
> I _was_ as far right as practicable. In my state, "practicable" does
> not mean "so far right as to endanger yourself by possible sideswipes."
> Specifically, the law says a cyclist is allowed to ride further left
> if the lane is too narrow to share.
>
> So he waited a few seconds, then went around completely in the other
> lane when it cleared. No problem, no hassle.
might be wise if one is holding up a following road-user for a
considerable time. Consider whether the elapsed time is getting
excessive and pull over and stop if necessary.
>
> So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
> seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
> cyclists' rights to the road?
>
> > Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about
> > indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
> > Vehicular Cycling.
>
> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
> teaching.
>
> I suppose there may be teachers that accept any work as good enough, or
> teachers that never tell about better ways of doing things. (My
> students did tell me of one prof who gave an A to anyone who attended
> his class. Fortunately, it was a far-less-than-essential liberal arts
> class.) Personally, I think that's irresponsible and counterproductive,
> and especially so when it involves the possibility of personal injury.
>
> So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to endorse the riding style you've
> espoused - riding drunk, riding at night without lights, riding
> wrong-way, zooming at random on and off sidewalks, doing stunts in
> traffic and purposely angering motorists.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You can still continue to
> >> work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
> >> really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to
> >> ride with real competence, things become better right now.
>
> >> As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867once you learn the simple
> I suppose there may be teachers that accept any work as good enough, or
> teachers that never tell about better ways of doing things. (My
> students did tell me of one prof who gave an A to anyone who attended
> his class. Fortunately, it was a far-less-than-essential liberal arts
> class.) Personally, I think that's irresponsible and counterproductive,
> and especially so when it involves the possibility of personal injury.
>
> So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to endorse the riding style you've
> espoused - riding drunk, riding at night without lights, riding
> wrong-way, zooming at random on and off sidewalks, doing stunts in
> traffic and purposely angering motorists.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You can still continue to
> >> work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
> >> really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to
> >> ride with real competence, things become better right now.
>
Frank Krygowski
Jun 26, 2012, 11:05:40 PM6/26/12
to
thirty-six wrote:
>
>>
>> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
>> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
>> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
>> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
>> teaching.
>
> That's lecturing. Teaching helps learning. They are different.
It's not necessarily lecturing. I taught lots of laboratory sessions,
>
>>
>> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
>> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
>> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
>> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
>> teaching.
>
> That's lecturing. Teaching helps learning. They are different.
including (for just one example) machine shop fundamentals. There are a
surprising number of people who don't understand how to handle a hacksaw
or file. Not much lecturing involved in showing how.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Jun 27, 2012, 12:23:48 AM6/27/12
to
On Jun 26, 1:19 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
(Unctuous: Characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere
earnestness.)
> >>> Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to
> >>> control the behavior of others is rubbish.
>
> >> So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_
> >> prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you
> >> saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane.
>
> > Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next
> > lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't
> > going to mow you down in any case.
>
> He would probably have attempted to pass had I squeezed over...
Did I suggest any sort of squeezing? And you say "probably". You
think someone who patiently and cooperatively follows until safe to
change lanes and pass would have dangerously risked sideswiping you if
it looked feasible? Earth to Frank: The sideswipe is still feasible
even if you hog the lane.
> ... and ridden
of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic
density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if
there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous
complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum.
> > (Are you saying there *was* room
> > for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?)
>
> I _was_ as far right as practicable. In my state, "practicable" does
> not mean "so far right as to endanger yourself by possible sideswipes."
Dude, you can be sideswiped whereever you postion yourself.
> Specifically, the law says a cyclist is allowed to ride further left
> if the lane is too narrow to share.
>
Practicable: Capable of being done, effected, or executed; feasible
> So he waited a few seconds, then went around completely in the other
> lane when it cleared. No problem, no hassle.
>
Sure, and that's how it ought to be. Doesn't demonstrate in any way,
shape, or form that he would have risked sideswiping had you not
"taken control" of the situation for both of you.
> So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
> seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
> cyclists' rights to the road?
>
I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking
about a cooperative stance. And there are situations where taking the
lane makes sense. And this may be one of them. I was just saying,
"Yes, your lane postition did not prevent him sideswiping you."
Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the
hardware store or wherever. I think you just prefer this route -
maybe in part because it's the most direct - but maybe also because
you like controlling things.
> > Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about
> > indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
> > Vehicular Cycling.
>
> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
> teaching.
>
"Wrong", "correctly", ("properly") - hmm... that's the attitidue we
see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply
your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone
else.
And re; "shaming" and "blaming" - I wasn't referring to your work in
the classroom.
> I suppose there may be teachers that accept any work as good enough, or
> teachers that never tell about better ways of doing things. (My
> students did tell me of one prof who gave an A to anyone who attended
> his class.
Did he have a canoe? ;-)
> Fortunately, it was a far-less-than-essential liberal arts
> class.)
And *you* and your classes were superior, of course.
> Personally, I think that's irresponsible and counterproductive,
> and especially so when it involves the possibility of personal injury.
>
Anything's possible. But yeah, safety is serious business.
> So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to endorse the riding style you've
> espoused - riding drunk, riding at night without lights, riding
> wrong-way, zooming at random on and off sidewalks, doing stunts in
> traffic and purposely angering motorists.
>
Did I ask for your endorsement?
>
>
> >> You can still continue to
> >> work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
> >> really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to
> >> ride with real competence, things become better right now.
>
> >> As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867once you learn the simple
yourself out. Good for you and those it helps. But get off my back.
> > I know exactly how to play
> > Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* con[s]training. I want to Ride Bike!
> >> You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted
> >> bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go.
>
> > The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville
> > Father Knows Best days of yore.
>
> Dan, you're losing track of the discussion. I'm the guy who's
> comfortable riding in the world of today.
>
... except for those new-fangled facilities.
> > Pleasantville exists (I live there),
> > but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's
> > going to be more (and more) bike facilities. Learn to deal with it
> > and ride with *real* competence.
>
> There are very serious discussions taking place as we speak among
> cycling instructors.
Tantalizing! ;-)
> They are discussing exactly that problem: What
> are we to teach students about weird bike facilities, now that they're
> popping up and grossly complicating traffic interactions?
How about situational awareness. Problem? You can't teach good
sense.
> What if the
> bike lane is in the door zone, and the cops are waiting to give tickets
> for leaving that lane?
Absurd scenario. (Bring it on - I'll be there with bells on just for
the fun.)
> What if the supposedly protected cycle track has
> them riding downhill toward an intersection where they'll be hidden from
> motorists until too late?
Situational awareness vs. blithe "doing as directed" and leave my
safety up to someone else.
> What if the bike lane is to the right of the
> right turn only lane, and motorists are getting hostile because they've
> merged out of it to go straight?
>
Unreasonable hostility.
> Yep, it's a problem. Of course, the "Any bike facility is a good bike
> facility" crowd doesn't even recognize there is a problem. They think
> as long as it's painted green (or is it blue?) it must be safe.
>
> And here you are, defending their work.
>
You have completely contrived that position and ascribed it to me.
wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of
> >> cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only
> >> crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by
> >> proper attention.)
>
> >> So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be
> >> at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another
> >> brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused
> >> crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal
> >> vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding
> >> outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a
> >> central lane position in narrow lanes.
>
> > We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of
> > constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using
> > your own selection of criteria.
>
> Seems to me that was a smarmy thing to say. Still no mirrors in your house?
>
Smarmy: Oily; Gushingly or unctuously flattering.
> > On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of
> >> cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only
> >> crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by
> >> proper attention.)
>
> >> So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be
> >> at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another
> >> brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused
> >> crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal
> >> vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding
> >> outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a
> >> central lane position in narrow lanes.
>
> > We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of
> > constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using
> > your own selection of criteria.
>
> Seems to me that was a smarmy thing to say. Still no mirrors in your house?
>
(Unctuous: Characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere
earnestness.)
> >>> Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to
> >>> control the behavior of others is rubbish.
>
> >> So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_
> >> prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you
> >> saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane.
>
> > Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next
> > lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't
> > going to mow you down in any case.
>
Did I suggest any sort of squeezing? And you say "probably". You
think someone who patiently and cooperatively follows until safe to
change lanes and pass would have dangerously risked sideswiping you if
it looked feasible? Earth to Frank: The sideswipe is still feasible
even if you hog the lane.
> ... and ridden
> near the gutter. In doing so, he would have given me far less than
> three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if
> unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
> him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl
>
It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition
> three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if
> unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
> him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl
>
of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic
density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if
there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous
complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum.
> > (Are you saying there *was* room
> > for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?)
>
> I _was_ as far right as practicable. In my state, "practicable" does
> not mean "so far right as to endanger yourself by possible sideswipes."
> Specifically, the law says a cyclist is allowed to ride further left
> if the lane is too narrow to share.
>
> So he waited a few seconds, then went around completely in the other
> lane when it cleared. No problem, no hassle.
>
shape, or form that he would have risked sideswiping had you not
"taken control" of the situation for both of you.
> So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
> seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
> cyclists' rights to the road?
>
about a cooperative stance. And there are situations where taking the
lane makes sense. And this may be one of them. I was just saying,
"Yes, your lane postition did not prevent him sideswiping you."
Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the
hardware store or wherever. I think you just prefer this route -
maybe in part because it's the most direct - but maybe also because
you like controlling things.
> > Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about
> > indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
> > Vehicular Cycling.
>
> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
> teaching.
>
see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply
your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone
else.
And re; "shaming" and "blaming" - I wasn't referring to your work in
the classroom.
> I suppose there may be teachers that accept any work as good enough, or
> teachers that never tell about better ways of doing things. (My
> students did tell me of one prof who gave an A to anyone who attended
> his class.
> Fortunately, it was a far-less-than-essential liberal arts
> class.)
> Personally, I think that's irresponsible and counterproductive,
> and especially so when it involves the possibility of personal injury.
>
> So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to endorse the riding style you've
> espoused - riding drunk, riding at night without lights, riding
> wrong-way, zooming at random on and off sidewalks, doing stunts in
> traffic and purposely angering motorists.
>
>
>
> >> You can still continue to
> >> work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
> >> really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to
> >> ride with real competence, things become better right now.
>
> >> techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden,
> >> the motorists seem to get much smarter.
>
> > Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is
> > that they check their hostility for reasonableness.
>
> > And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle
> > operator"? Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are
> > they doing on the road if they don't??
>
> "Who doesn't know how to do that?" It's apparent you've never taught a
> class. It's apparent you've never looked at crash data. You've never
> been asked "So what side of the road are bikes supposed to ride on?"
>
Idiots - too many of them blithe as well. Educate away. Knock
> >> the motorists seem to get much smarter.
>
> > Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is
> > that they check their hostility for reasonableness.
>
> > And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle
> > operator"? Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are
> > they doing on the road if they don't??
>
> "Who doesn't know how to do that?" It's apparent you've never taught a
> class. It's apparent you've never looked at crash data. You've never
> been asked "So what side of the road are bikes supposed to ride on?"
>
yourself out. Good for you and those it helps. But get off my back.
> > I know exactly how to play
>
> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>
Smarmy supercilious judgmental.
> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>
> >> You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted
> >> bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go.
>
> > The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville
> > Father Knows Best days of yore.
>
> Dan, you're losing track of the discussion. I'm the guy who's
> comfortable riding in the world of today.
>
> > Pleasantville exists (I live there),
> > but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's
> > going to be more (and more) bike facilities. Learn to deal with it
> > and ride with *real* competence.
>
> There are very serious discussions taking place as we speak among
> cycling instructors.
> They are discussing exactly that problem: What
> are we to teach students about weird bike facilities, now that they're
> popping up and grossly complicating traffic interactions?
sense.
> What if the
> bike lane is in the door zone, and the cops are waiting to give tickets
> for leaving that lane?
the fun.)
> What if the supposedly protected cycle track has
> them riding downhill toward an intersection where they'll be hidden from
> motorists until too late?
safety up to someone else.
> What if the bike lane is to the right of the
> right turn only lane, and motorists are getting hostile because they've
> merged out of it to go straight?
>
> Yep, it's a problem. Of course, the "Any bike facility is a good bike
> facility" crowd doesn't even recognize there is a problem. They think
> as long as it's painted green (or is it blue?) it must be safe.
>
> And here you are, defending their work.
>
Frank Krygowski
Jun 27, 2012, 11:07:49 AM6/27/12
to
explained to him the benefit of riding centered in a too-narrow lane, he
and his wife were on their tandem, vacationing near New York's Finger
Lakes. They were riding a narrow, high traffic highway (their only
choice) and kept getting passed by inches. It was scary.
The guy said to his wife "Frank says the thing to do in this situation
is to take the lane, to prevent them from passing until it's safe. Do
you want to try it?" His wife nervously agreed.
He told me it "completely transformed the ride." Motorists coming from
behind waited to pass until it was safe. Nobody squeezed by. Nobody
honked horns. They understood, they were courteous and they passed with
plenty of safe clearance.
I learned the same lesson long before that. Apparently, Dan, you have
still not learned.
And a minor point: If you are lane-centered and someone does pass too
closely, you've got several feet of escape room to your right. If
you're in the gutter and someone passes too closely, that option doesn't
exist.
>
>> ... and ridden
>> near the gutter. In doing so, he would have given me far less than
>> three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if
>> unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
>> him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl
>>
>
> It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition
> of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic
> density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if
> there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous
> complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum.
might say the graphics at http://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl assume good
pavement. Curbs, drain gates, debris, potholes etc. require riding
further left. If a person doesn't, out of excess submissiveness, those
factors can cause a serious backfire.
>
>> So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
>> seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
>> cyclists' rights to the road?
>>
>
> I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking
> about a cooperative stance.
cooperatively standing by the side of the road until all the cars are
gone?
> And there are situations where taking the
> lane makes sense. And this may be one of them.
> I was just saying,
> "Yes, your lane postition did not prevent him sideswiping you."
passed in the next lane, when somehow I didn't notice him approaching
and failed to move right to avoid it. That would be the traffic
equivalent of a sucker punch, and would be blatant assault. Very, very
few motorists will ever attempt that on a public road with others
observing.
> Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the
> hardware store or wherever.
that store, I can go roughly two miles out of my way by riding either
north or south to use the next crossing of the interstate, then ride
roads nearly as busy to complete the trip. But why would I do that? To
avoid delaying a pickup driver by a few seconds? Are you really
submissive enough to consider that?
>> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
>> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
>> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
>> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
>> teaching.
>>
>
> "Wrong", "correctly", ("properly") - hmm... that's the attitidue we
> see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply
> your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone
> else.
circles: "Golly, whatever you think is right, Danny, is fine! There
are two sides to every story, everyone is entitled to their own opinion,
there is no such thing as right or wrong, and I'll give your paper a
gold star even though half your answers on the arithmetic test were, um,
different from the answer key."
You've been advocating practices like stunt riding in or around traffic,
you've bragged about riding drunk, you've told about riding at night
without lights, you've defended zooming on and off sidewalks at high
speed. The data's pretty clear that those things are big contributors
to bad, often fatal, crashes. But you still take offense if someone
suggests those are wrong.
>>> I know exactly how to play
>>> Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* con[s]training. I want to Ride Bike!
>>
>> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
>> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>>
>
> Smarmy supercilious judgmental.
And BTW, stop giving yourself a free pass on your own blatant insults.
Buy a damned mirror and set it in front of your computer before
complaining about what you perceive as a lack of perfect diplomacy.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Jun 27, 2012, 1:55:43 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
Anecdotal heresay. But if it works for them, swell. I am all about
riding any way you want as long as it doesn't unreasonably impose on
anybody else
> I learned the same lesson long before that. Apparently, Dan, you have
> still not learned.
>
Apparently.
> And a minor point: If you are lane-centered and someone does pass too
> closely, you've got several feet of escape room to your right. If
> you're in the gutter and someone passes too closely, that option doesn't
> exist.
>
I am all about having room to maneuver, but absolutely hold my line
while being passed. It's up to the person doing the passing to
position themselves relative to me. Maneuvering while being passed is
dangerous (and useless).
>
>
> >> ... and ridden
> >> near the gutter. In doing so, he would have given me far less than
> >> three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if
> >> unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
> >> him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl
>
> > It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition
> > of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic
> > density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if
> > there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous
> > complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum.
>
> You've listed lots of reasons for moving left even in a wider lane. One
> might say the graphics athttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpklassume good
professor.
>
>
> >> So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
> >> seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
> >> cyclists' rights to the road?
>
> > I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking
> > about a cooperative stance.
>
> A "cooperative stance" in a lane too narrow to share? Would that be
> cooperatively standing by the side of the road until all the cars are
> gone?
>
No, it would be riding as far out of the way as practicable. Even if
the lane is too narrow to share with a passing car, this reduces how
far and how long they have to leave the lane to safely pass, and how
fast they have to go to do it.
> > And there are situations where taking the
> > lane makes sense. And this may be one of them.
>
> It absolutely was.
>
You're the expert :-)
> > I was just saying,
> > "Yes, your lane postition did not prevent him sideswiping you."
>
> False...
True.
> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
> ... as he
*that* road. 30,000?
> > Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the
> > hardware store or wherever.
>
> Of course it's not the only route! Instead of riding directly west to
> that store, I can go roughly two miles out of my way by riding either
> north or south to use the next crossing of the interstate, then ride
> roads nearly as busy to complete the trip. But why would I do that? To
> avoid delaying a pickup driver by a few seconds? Are you really
> submissive enough to consider that?
>
I think it's plain enough, professor, that I am not the submissive
type.
And as for alternate routes. I won't presume to know your area, but
by keeping all my options open and being not only willing but eager to
leave the road at times, I find really interesting and fun routes
almost everywhere that practically or *completely* eliminate having to
deal with traffic. (Traffic sucks.) But I think you kind of get off
on dealing with traffic.
> >> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
> >> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
> >> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
> >> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
> >> teaching.
>
> > "Wrong", "correctly", ("properly") - hmm... that's the attitidue we
> > see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply
> > your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone
> > else.
>
> And by contrast, we might adopt the attitude so fashionable in many
> circles: "Golly, whatever you think is right, Danny, is fine!
Live and let live, Frankie.
> There
> are two sides to every story...
Aren't there?
> ... everyone is entitled to their own opinion...
Aren't they?
> ... there is no such thing as right or wrong...
That's a pretty assinine thing to say, but who decides what's right
and what's wrong, professor?
> ... and I'll give your paper a
> You've been advocating practices like stunt riding in or around traffic,
> you've bragged about riding drunk, you've told about riding at night
> without lights, you've defended zooming on and off sidewalks at high
> speed. The data's pretty clear that those things are big contributors
> to bad, often fatal, crashes. But you still take offense if someone
> suggests those are wrong.
>
What do you mean, "Advocating"? I advocate those activities only for
myself - cognizant of the risks, considerate of the reasonable
interests of others.
(I'll bet your love life is *really* something ;-)
> >>> I know exactly how to play
> >>> Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* con[s]training. I want to Ride Bike!
>
> >> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
> >> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>
> > Smarmy supercilious judgmental.
>
> No, accurate.
>
"Accurate"? Got data on alignment of 14 year-olds with what I do?
Let's see it. And what should it tell me?
> And BTW, stop giving yourself a free pass on your own blatant insults.
F... ;-)
> Buy a damned mirror and set it in front of your computer before
> complaining about what you perceive as a lack of perfect diplomacy.
>
Perfect.
riding any way you want as long as it doesn't unreasonably impose on
anybody else
> I learned the same lesson long before that. Apparently, Dan, you have
> still not learned.
>
> And a minor point: If you are lane-centered and someone does pass too
> closely, you've got several feet of escape room to your right. If
> you're in the gutter and someone passes too closely, that option doesn't
> exist.
>
while being passed. It's up to the person doing the passing to
position themselves relative to me. Maneuvering while being passed is
dangerous (and useless).
>
>
> >> ... and ridden
> >> near the gutter. In doing so, he would have given me far less than
> >> three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if
> >> unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
> >> him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl
>
> > It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition
> > of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic
> > density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if
> > there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous
> > complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum.
>
> You've listed lots of reasons for moving left even in a wider lane. One
> pavement. Curbs, drain gates, debris, potholes etc. require riding
> further left. If a person doesn't, out of excess submissiveness, those
> factors can cause a serious backfire.
>
So you're saying it's advisable to avoid hazards? Brilliant,
> further left. If a person doesn't, out of excess submissiveness, those
> factors can cause a serious backfire.
>
professor.
>
>
> >> So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
> >> seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
> >> cyclists' rights to the road?
>
> > I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking
> > about a cooperative stance.
>
> A "cooperative stance" in a lane too narrow to share? Would that be
> cooperatively standing by the side of the road until all the cars are
> gone?
>
the lane is too narrow to share with a passing car, this reduces how
far and how long they have to leave the lane to safely pass, and how
fast they have to go to do it.
> > And there are situations where taking the
> > lane makes sense. And this may be one of them.
>
> It absolutely was.
>
> > I was just saying,
> > "Yes, your lane postition did not prevent him sideswiping you."
>
True.
> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
> ... as he
> passed in the next lane, when somehow I didn't notice him approaching
> and failed to move right to avoid it. That would be the traffic
> equivalent of a sucker punch, and would be blatant assault. Very, very
> few motorists will ever attempt that on a public road with others
> observing.
>
Yes, very few. How many cars did you say use that road daily? Just
> and failed to move right to avoid it. That would be the traffic
> equivalent of a sucker punch, and would be blatant assault. Very, very
> few motorists will ever attempt that on a public road with others
> observing.
>
*that* road. 30,000?
> > Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the
> > hardware store or wherever.
>
> Of course it's not the only route! Instead of riding directly west to
> that store, I can go roughly two miles out of my way by riding either
> north or south to use the next crossing of the interstate, then ride
> roads nearly as busy to complete the trip. But why would I do that? To
> avoid delaying a pickup driver by a few seconds? Are you really
> submissive enough to consider that?
>
type.
And as for alternate routes. I won't presume to know your area, but
by keeping all my options open and being not only willing but eager to
leave the road at times, I find really interesting and fun routes
almost everywhere that practically or *completely* eliminate having to
deal with traffic. (Traffic sucks.) But I think you kind of get off
on dealing with traffic.
> >> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
> >> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
> >> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
> >> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
> >> teaching.
>
> > "Wrong", "correctly", ("properly") - hmm... that's the attitidue we
> > see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply
> > your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone
> > else.
>
> And by contrast, we might adopt the attitude so fashionable in many
> circles: "Golly, whatever you think is right, Danny, is fine!
> There
> are two sides to every story...
Aren't there?
> ... everyone is entitled to their own opinion...
Aren't they?
> ... there is no such thing as right or wrong...
That's a pretty assinine thing to say, but who decides what's right
and what's wrong, professor?
> ... and I'll give your paper a
> gold star even though half your answers on the arithmetic test were, um,
> different from the answer key."
>
We're not discussing mathematics here, dickhead.
> different from the answer key."
>
> You've been advocating practices like stunt riding in or around traffic,
> you've bragged about riding drunk, you've told about riding at night
> without lights, you've defended zooming on and off sidewalks at high
> speed. The data's pretty clear that those things are big contributors
> to bad, often fatal, crashes. But you still take offense if someone
> suggests those are wrong.
>
myself - cognizant of the risks, considerate of the reasonable
interests of others.
(I'll bet your love life is *really* something ;-)
> >>> I know exactly how to play
> >>> Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* con[s]training. I want to Ride Bike!
>
> >> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
> >> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>
> > Smarmy supercilious judgmental.
>
> No, accurate.
>
Let's see it. And what should it tell me?
> And BTW, stop giving yourself a free pass on your own blatant insults.
> Buy a damned mirror and set it in front of your computer before
> complaining about what you perceive as a lack of perfect diplomacy.
>
Frank Krygowski
Jun 27, 2012, 4:39:34 PM6/27/12
to
Dan O wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Dan O wrote:
>>> By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
>>>> him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl
>>
>>> It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition
>>> of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic
>>> density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if
>>> there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous
>>> complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum.
>>
>> You've listed lots of reasons for moving left even in a wider lane. One
>> might say the graphics athttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpklassume good
>> pavement. Curbs, drain gates, debris, potholes etc. require riding
>> further left. If a person doesn't, out of excess submissiveness, those
>> factors can cause a serious backfire.
>>
>
> So you're saying it's advisable to avoid hazards? Brilliant,
> professor.
Oh, that was pretty obvious, although you seemed to have it somewhat
> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Dan O wrote:
>>> By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
>>>> him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl
>>
>>> It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition
>>> of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic
>>> density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if
>>> there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous
>>> complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum.
>>
>> You've listed lots of reasons for moving left even in a wider lane. One
>> might say the graphics athttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpklassume good
>> pavement. Curbs, drain gates, debris, potholes etc. require riding
>> further left. If a person doesn't, out of excess submissiveness, those
>> factors can cause a serious backfire.
>>
>
> So you're saying it's advisable to avoid hazards? Brilliant,
> professor.
backward. Sometimes it seems necessary to explain the obvious to you.
>>>> So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
>>>> seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
>>>> cyclists' rights to the road?
>>
>>> I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking
>>> about a cooperative stance.
>>
>> A "cooperative stance" in a lane too narrow to share? Would that be
>> cooperatively standing by the side of the road until all the cars are
>> gone?
>>
>
> No, it would be riding as far out of the way as practicable. Even if
> the lane is too narrow to share with a passing car, this reduces how
> far and how long they have to leave the lane to safely pass, and how
> fast they have to go to do it.
practicable" was what my friend was trying to do (even though I'd say,
and he'd now say, it was not safely practicable). In doing that, he and
his wife were subjected to unreasonable risk by many motorists who did
not wait to safely pass. When they moved to lane center, that stopped.
I learned the same thing years prior. I still recall the rainy ride on
the narrow highway with tractor trailers passing a friend and me, when I
made the definite (and scary) decision to ride dead center in a ten foot
lane instead of at the rough edge of the pavement. Yes, it was scary
when we heard the first semi hit his brakes. But he and all subsequent
drivers waited until it was safe to pass, instead squeezing by with
inches of clearance plus water spray, as the previous truckers had done.
Maybe you need to watch this:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/
>>> And there are situations where taking the
>>> lane makes sense. And this may be one of them.
>>
>> It absolutely was.
>
> You're the expert :-)
do the curriculum work, report on my activities, turn in evaluations of
my performance, and pass the certification tests. I was asked to do
that based on my 100% on a qualifying written test and observed
expertise on the road. I have been asked, and agreed, to teach, write
and consult on related matters. And I was the only cyclist present
during this incident in question, observing what actually happened. So
yes, you're actually correct; I am the expert.
You might now think about your qualifications. What, exactly, have you
done?
>> Very, very
>> few motorists will ever attempt [assault] on a public road with others
>> observing.
>>
>
> Yes, very few. How many cars did you say use that road daily? Just
> *that* road. 30,000?
Roughly. And I've been riding it for 32 years now, with not one
>>
>
> Yes, very few. How many cars did you say use that road daily? Just
> *that* road. 30,000?
incident of assault, despite your fears.
>
>>> Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the
>>> hardware store or wherever.
>>
>> Of course it's not the only route! Instead of riding directly west to
>> that store, I can go roughly two miles out of my way by riding either
>> north or south to use the next crossing of the interstate, then ride
>> roads nearly as busy to complete the trip. But why would I do that? To
>> avoid delaying a pickup driver by a few seconds? Are you really
>> submissive enough to consider that?
>
> by keeping all my options open and being not only willing but eager to
> leave the road at times, I find really interesting and fun routes
> almost everywhere that practically or *completely* eliminate having to
> deal with traffic. (Traffic sucks.)
You missed a major clue. There is a freeway perpendicular to the road I
> leave the road at times, I find really interesting and fun routes
> almost everywhere that practically or *completely* eliminate having to
> deal with traffic. (Traffic sucks.)
used. There is NO way across that freeway except the road I used, one
about a mile north and one about a mile south - unless you want to
scuttle with your bike through a large culvert about half a mile south,
and hope the water doesn't rise. I prefer to make use of my right to
the road.
> But I think you kind of get off on dealing with traffic.
>
>>>> Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
>>>> tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
>>>> correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
>>>> specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
>>>> teaching.
>>
>>> "Wrong", "correctly", ("properly") - hmm... that's the attitidue we
>>> see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply
>>> your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone
>>> else.
>>
>> And by contrast, we might adopt the attitude so fashionable in many
>> circles: "Golly, whatever you think is right, Danny, is fine!
>
> Live and let live, Frankie.
>
>> There
>> are two sides to every story...
>
> Aren't there?
Does the sun rise in the west, Dan? Does 2 + 2 = 10,000? Was Paul
Revere the first president of the United States of America? And should
a two foot wide bicyclist try to allow an 8.5 foot wide truck pass him
within a ten foot lane?
Some things are flat wrong, even when examined with the softest standards.
>
>> ... everyone is entitled to their own opinion...
>
> Aren't they?
>
>> ... there is no such thing as right or wrong...
>
> That's a pretty assinine thing to say, but who decides what's right
> and what's wrong, professor?
>
>> ... and I'll give your paper a
>> gold star even though half your answers on the arithmetic test were, um,
>> different from the answer key."
>>
>
> We're not discussing mathematics here, dickhead.
perfectly diplomatic with everyone!
But "wrong" is not merely a mathematical concept. Some things are flat
wrong, whether you can understand that or not.
>> You've been advocating practices like stunt riding in or around traffic,
>> you've bragged about riding drunk, you've told about riding at night
>> without lights, you've defended zooming on and off sidewalks at high
>> speed. The data's pretty clear that those things are big contributors
>> to bad, often fatal, crashes. But you still take offense if someone
>> suggests those are wrong.
>>
>
> What do you mean, "Advocating"? I advocate those activities only for
> myself - cognizant of the risks, considerate of the reasonable
> interests of others.
>
> (I'll bet your love life is *really* something ;-)
>
>>>>> I know exactly how to play
>>>>> Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* con[s]training. I want to Ride Bike!
>>
>>>> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
>>>> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>>
>>> Smarmy supercilious judgmental.
wheelies without lights and bragging about it. And who then pretend
they know enough about competent cycling to argue online.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Jun 27, 2012, 6:07:23 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 1:39 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> >> There are two sides to every story...
>
> > Aren't there?
>
> Are there?
>
> Does the sun rise in the west, Dan?
Ever been to Venus, professor?
wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> > wrote:
<snip>
> Dan O wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> There are two sides to every story...
>
> > Aren't there?
>
> Are there?
>
> Does the sun rise in the west, Dan?
Wes Groleau
Jun 27, 2012, 9:04:49 PM6/27/12
to
On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
>
> Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
> a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
>
> Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
> a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
irrational as expecting them all to attack you.
¹or bikers
--
Wes Groleau
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns
it, and finds himself no wiser than before ... He is full of
murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having
come by their ignorance the hard way.
— Kurt Vonnegut
Wes Groleau
Jun 27, 2012, 9:10:26 PM6/27/12
to
--
Wes Groleau
“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined.”
— David Hume, age 37
“There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it.”
— Becky Groleau, age 4
Duane
Jun 28, 2012, 8:40:15 AM6/28/12
to
On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
>>
>> Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
>> a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
>
> Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
> irrational as expecting them all to attack you.
>
> ¹or bikers
>
As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
> On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
>>
>> Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
>> a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
>
> Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
> irrational as expecting them all to attack you.
>
> ¹or bikers
>
it's because it was deliberate. Accidents are accidents. Thinking that
you can control that is ridiculous.
Some accidents are criminal, like when the driver is texting or falling
asleep, but there is not usually any intent. The best you can do is
make yourself visible and your intentions obvious.
Dan O
Jun 28, 2012, 1:14:43 PM6/28/12
to
cycling spiel off of, and selectively dodge my argument (even though
I'm not certified to argue... and apparently a drunk :-)
Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
supposed to, which was my point.
Dan O
Jun 28, 2012, 1:29:09 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 27, 1:39 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
<snip>
>
> > ... And as for alternate routes. I won't presume to know your area, but
> > by keeping all my options open and being not only willing but eager to
> > leave the road at times, I find really interesting and fun routes
> > almost everywhere that practically or *completely* eliminate having to
> > deal with traffic. (Traffic sucks.)
>
> You missed a major clue. There is a freeway perpendicular to the road I
> used. There is NO way across that freeway except the road I used, one
> about a mile north and one about a mile south - unless you want to
> scuttle with your bike through a large culvert about half a mile south,
> and hope the water doesn't rise. I prefer to make use of my right to
> the road.
>
I didn't miss that. I know about crossing freeways and such things.
I cross a freeway and a river at least twice a day.
"scuttle: to run hastily" (Hmmm.. )
Anyway, the culvert sounds intriguing. I'll bet there are *lots* of
other neat things between point A and point B that "legitimate vehicle
operators" don't get to experience. (Ride Bike!) Nothing wrong with
hopping onto a main road to use the overpass - I just don't parade
down the main road all the way along with all the sorry cagers who
have no better option. If I got off on directing and controlling
traffic, I guess I might prefer that route, though.
<snip>
wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
<snip>
>
> > ... And as for alternate routes. I won't presume to know your area, but
> > by keeping all my options open and being not only willing but eager to
> > leave the road at times, I find really interesting and fun routes
> > almost everywhere that practically or *completely* eliminate having to
> > deal with traffic. (Traffic sucks.)
>
> You missed a major clue. There is a freeway perpendicular to the road I
> used. There is NO way across that freeway except the road I used, one
> about a mile north and one about a mile south - unless you want to
> scuttle with your bike through a large culvert about half a mile south,
> and hope the water doesn't rise. I prefer to make use of my right to
> the road.
>
I cross a freeway and a river at least twice a day.
"scuttle: to run hastily" (Hmmm.. )
Anyway, the culvert sounds intriguing. I'll bet there are *lots* of
other neat things between point A and point B that "legitimate vehicle
operators" don't get to experience. (Ride Bike!) Nothing wrong with
hopping onto a main road to use the overpass - I just don't parade
down the main road all the way along with all the sorry cagers who
have no better option. If I got off on directing and controlling
traffic, I guess I might prefer that route, though.
<snip>
Duane
Jun 28, 2012, 1:35:31 PM6/28/12
to
On 06/28/2012 01:14 PM, Dan O wrote:
> On Jun 28, 5:40 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>> On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>
>>> On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
>>
>>>> Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
>>>> a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
>>
>>> Expecting driversš to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
> On Jun 28, 5:40 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>> On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>
>>> On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
>>
>>>> Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
>>>> a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
>>
>>> irrational as expecting them all to attack you.
>>
>>> šor bikers
>>
>>
>> As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
>> it's because it was deliberate. Accidents are accidents. Thinking that
>> you can control that is ridiculous.
>>
>> Some accidents are criminal, like when the driver is texting or falling
>> asleep, but there is not usually any intent. The best you can do is
>> make yourself visible and your intentions obvious.
>
> Dude! You're giving Frank a tangent to play his nutty vehicular
> cycling spiel off of, and selectively dodge my argument (even though
> I'm not certified to argue... and apparently a drunk :-)
Fuck him.
>> As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
>> it's because it was deliberate. Accidents are accidents. Thinking that
>> you can control that is ridiculous.
>>
>> Some accidents are criminal, like when the driver is texting or falling
>> asleep, but there is not usually any intent. The best you can do is
>> make yourself visible and your intentions obvious.
>
> Dude! You're giving Frank a tangent to play his nutty vehicular
> cycling spiel off of, and selectively dodge my argument (even though
> I'm not certified to argue... and apparently a drunk :-)
> Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
> supposed to, which was my point.
ticks me off. You have to be ready to deal with the other guy doing the
unexpected. This is defensive driving/cycling.
Frank Krygowski
Jun 28, 2012, 2:00:37 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 8:40 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>
> > On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
>
> >> Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
> >> a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
>
> > Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
> > irrational as expecting them all to attack you.
>
> > ¹or bikers
>
> As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
> it's because it was deliberate. Accidents are accidents. Thinking that
> you can control that is ridiculous.
That's pretty simplistic, and ignores much that's well known to
> On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>
> > On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...
>
> >> Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
> >> a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?
>
> > Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
> > irrational as expecting them all to attack you.
>
> > ¹or bikers
>
> As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
> it's because it was deliberate. Accidents are accidents. Thinking that
> you can control that is ridiculous.
competent cyclists.
The present case in point has covered that, but here it is again: If
you're in (say) an 10 foot lane and you have (say) an 8 foot wide
truck approaching from behind, you have two choices. One is to meekly
ride at the extreme edge of the lane, hoping that there won't be a
pothole to throw you or a twitch from the truck driver just as he's
brushing your elbow. If either of those (or a number of other things
happen), you'll be sideswiped. Most people would call that an
"accident," I think.
Your other choice is to realize there's no way the truck can safely
pass you without moving left. So you position yourself at or near
lane center, to make it obvious to the trucker that he'll have to
change lanes. When he does that, you will have prevented an accident,
or at least the strong possibility of one. You'll have done that by
using your legal right to the road - something I, for one, do not want
to lose.
Again, here's a site explaining the benefits of leftward lane
position. (Duane won't read this because he kill files people to whom
he loses arguments, so perhaps someone else should point it out to
him.)
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/
BTW, I notice that the "Skulk in the gutter" crowd never seems to cite
sources to justify their point of view. Why is that?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Jun 28, 2012, 2:18:36 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 1:35 pm, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 01:14 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> > Dude! You're giving Frank a tangent to play his nutty vehicular
> > cycling spiel off of, and selectively dodge my argument (even though
> > I'm not certified to argue... and apparently a drunk :-)
>
> Fuck him.
Are we supposed to be impressed by that verbal thuggery? (And aren't
> On 06/28/2012 01:14 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> > Dude! You're giving Frank a tangent to play his nutty vehicular
> > cycling spiel off of, and selectively dodge my argument (even though
> > I'm not certified to argue... and apparently a drunk :-)
>
> Fuck him.
you worried Dan's going to chide you for being less than perfectly
kind?)
>
> > Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
> > supposed to, which was my point.
>
> That's also my point. The idea that you are controlling things is what
> ticks me off.
have no control at all, that the world operates at random, and that
you're completely at the mercy of others' unthinking whims.
Most people that try riding as legitimate vehicle operators soon
discard such hand-wringing.
See http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/ for
example.
> You have to be ready to deal with the other guy doing the
> unexpected. This is defensive driving/cycling.
in a way that discourages the other guy from doing dangerous things.
I think that's more important than trying for ninja-like defenses
against random dangerous behavior.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom $herman (-_-)
Jun 28, 2012, 8:22:22 PM6/28/12
to
On 6/28/2012 12:14 PM, Dan O wrote:
> Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
> supposed to, which was my point.
As you know, it is a wonderful feeling to take the mirrors off, and
> Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
> supposed to, which was my point.
trust that everyone around you will behave well.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!
Dan O
Jun 28, 2012, 11:36:59 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 5:22 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
[Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]
Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 6/28/2012 12:14 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> > Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
> > supposed to, which was my point.
>
> As you know, it is a wonderful feeling to take the mirrors off, and
> trust that everyone around you will behave well.
>
Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.
> On 6/28/2012 12:14 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> > Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
> > supposed to, which was my point.
>
> As you know, it is a wonderful feeling to take the mirrors off, and
> trust that everyone around you will behave well.
>
[Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]
Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.
Tom $herman (-_-)
Jun 29, 2012, 12:25:12 AM6/29/12
to
Dan O
Jun 29, 2012, 12:47:48 AM6/29/12
to
>
> BTW, I notice that the "Skulk in the gutter" crowd never seems to cite
> sources to justify their point of view. Why is that?
>
Frank, I get the idea of communicating your need for road space to
> BTW, I notice that the "Skulk in the gutter" crowd never seems to cite
> sources to justify their point of view. Why is that?
>
other operators, and I *do* position myself well into the lane (for
room to maneuver but also 'cause it's cleaner and usually smoother).
I also understand the idea of "controlling" the lane. But when faster
traffic approaches from behind, notices* me, and wants to pass, it
makes more sense to me to show a cooperative "I'll give and you give"
attitude, rather than a controlling "you don't know what you're doing"
attitude. Cagers are pissed off enough as it is. You said yourself
they dislike us simply because we're there. Why exacerbate it by
being as "there" as you possibly can.
(* On the hopefully remote chance that they don't notice me, I sure as
hell don't want to happen to be in their path. I understand you
mostly like to ride in fair weather. Visibility and whether you are
noticed at all may become a much greater consideration when you ride a
lot in all conditions and live in the jet stream of the Mighty
Pacific.)
I get that your precious vehicular cycling principles are great way to
go for some people. They don't work for me; they would take the life
out of what Ride Bike! is to me (everybody read the Charlie Sheen
piece in RS a while back, right? ;-)
There's a huge middle ground between hogging the lane and "skulking in
the gutter". I think a competent bicyclist can have a diverse and
dynamic repetoire.
Duane
Jun 29, 2012, 8:22:19 AM6/29/12
to
On 06/29/2012 12:47 AM, Dan O wrote:
> There's a huge middle ground between hogging the lane and "skulking in
> the gutter". I think a competent bicyclist can have a diverse and
> dynamic repetoire.
Not on planet Boolean where everything is black OR white. Remember, on
> There's a huge middle ground between hogging the lane and "skulking in
> the gutter". I think a competent bicyclist can have a diverse and
> dynamic repetoire.
that planet, it's a mortal sin to say "it depends."
Frank Krygowski
Jun 29, 2012, 10:49:19 AM6/29/12
to
Dan O wrote:
> On Jun 28, 11:00 am, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Again, here's a site explaining the benefits of leftward lane
>> position. (Duane won't read this because he kill files people to whom
>> he loses arguments, so perhaps someone else should point it out to
>> him.)http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with...
>>
>> BTW, I notice that the "Skulk in the gutter" crowd never seems to cite
>> sources to justify their point of view. Why is that?
Let me repeat the question: Why is that?
> On Jun 28, 11:00 am, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Again, here's a site explaining the benefits of leftward lane
>> position. (Duane won't read this because he kill files people to whom
>> he loses arguments, so perhaps someone else should point it out to
>> him.)http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with...
>>
>> BTW, I notice that the "Skulk in the gutter" crowd never seems to cite
>> sources to justify their point of view. Why is that?
> Frank, I get the idea of communicating your need for road space to
> other operators, and I *do* position myself well into the lane (for
> room to maneuver but also 'cause it's cleaner and usually smoother).
> I also understand the idea of "controlling" the lane. But when faster
> traffic approaches from behind, notices* me, and wants to pass, it
> makes more sense to me to show a cooperative "I'll give and you give"
> attitude, rather than a controlling "you don't know what you're doing"
> attitude.
can be conveyed by the road position of the cyclist. It's easy to show
a motorist "There's not enough room for you to squeeze by in your
truck." But "You don't know what you're doing"? I doubt that many
motorists ever see that as the message.
Come to think of it, the only motorists who might interpret a cyclist's
more centered lane position that way would be the ones thinking they
could squeeze their wide vehicles through a narrow space without
subjecting the cyclist to excessive risk; and those do not, in fact,
know what they are doing.
> Cagers are pissed off enough as it is. You said yourself
> they dislike us simply because we're there. Why exacerbate it by
> being as "there" as you possibly can.
grates, gravel, etc.; to avoid being forced into the door zone... do I
really need to go on?
Again: I have a _legal_ right to safe travel, and my state (as with
many) specifically grants me the right to take a centered lane position
when the lane is too narrow to share. You, apparently, think I should
cede that right and risk crashing or worse for the convenience of a
passing cager. No matter how highly you think of yourself, that's both
wimpy and anti-cyclist.
> I get that your precious vehicular cycling principles are great way to
> go for some people. They don't work for me; they would take the life
> out of what Ride Bike! is to me (everybody read the Charlie Sheen
> piece in RS a while back, right? ;-)
Charlie Sheen, or emulates his personal style with a cycling style.
But most cyclists have no idea whether vehicular cycling principles
would work for them. As someone said, "It's not that vehicular cycling
has been tried and found to be too difficult; it's that vehicular
cycling has been assumed too difficult, and not even tried."
Yet those who do try it find it simply works.
http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Jun 29, 2012, 1:36:00 PM6/29/12
to
On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>
> ... do I
> really need to go on?
>
It appears to be a compulsion.
> > (... [have you] read the Charlie Sheen
> > piece in RS a while back... ? ;-)
anything...
> But most cyclists have no idea whether vehicular cycling principles
> would work for them. As someone said, "It's not that vehicular cycling
> has been tried and found to be too difficult; it's that vehicular
> cycling has been assumed too difficult, and not even tried."
>
> Yet those who do try it find it simply works.
>
> http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/
>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/ae2b5b68964b3370
wrote:
<snip>
>
> ... do I
> really need to go on?
>
> > (... [have you] read the Charlie Sheen
> > piece in RS a while back... ? ;-)
>
> As you might expect, I feel little in common with a person who admires
> Charlie Sheen, or emulates his personal style with a cycling style.
>
I'll take that as a "no"; but if you refuse to read or learn
> As you might expect, I feel little in common with a person who admires
> Charlie Sheen, or emulates his personal style with a cycling style.
>
anything...
> But most cyclists have no idea whether vehicular cycling principles
> would work for them. As someone said, "It's not that vehicular cycling
> has been tried and found to be too difficult; it's that vehicular
> cycling has been assumed too difficult, and not even tried."
>
> Yet those who do try it find it simply works.
>
> http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/
>
raamman
Jun 30, 2012, 8:30:28 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 27, 4:39 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
when conditions are bad. if you squeeze over the driver has less
mental focus on you; and you are hidden by him to other vehicles
following him; they might naturally drive closer to the curb then you
get tagged.
if you check and see the line up behind getting a bit long then pull
over let them go by look a bit sheepish and say thanks- helps keeps
the nasty comments down. Im usually really easy going mild mannered -
but I can get really ticked off sometimes- and whatever happens next
ain t worth it.
one rule does not apply to all circumstances
things depend on where you are and local conditions-a difference in
the closing speed between you and other traffic is important to be
aware of- if the guy is risking getting slammed from behind because
you decide to drift out as he approaches is not a wise action, you
risk aggravating the driver;but by being out already your safe zone is
curbside.
I come back at night from long rides sometimes, I tend to ride in the
middle of the lane on the hump, avoiding roadkill, debris, potholes
and pooling water ; when a vehicle approaches I move over as his
headlights help illuminate the road better- I can be fairly confident
he has seen me and by moving over he can see I am not wanting to
encumber or challenge his passage- this is psychological manipulation.
out in the backroads, no witnesses, anything can happen- play it safe
reduce the chance having to deal with some nut.
wrote:
> > >>> I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking
> >>> about a cooperative stance.
>
> >> A "cooperative stance" in a lane too narrow to share? Would that be
> >> cooperatively standing by the side of the road until all the cars are
> >> gone?
>
> > No, it would be riding as far out of the way as practicable. Even if
> > the lane is too narrow to share with a passing car, this reduces how
> > far and how long they have to leave the lane to safely pass, and how
> > fast they have to go to do it.
>
> Dan, you still don't get it. Riding "as far out of the way as
> practicable" was what my friend was trying to do (even though I'd say,
> and he'd now say, it was not safely practicable). In doing that, he and
> his wife were subjected to unreasonable risk by many motorists who did
> not wait to safely pass. When they moved to lane center, that stopped.
>
> I learned the same thing years prior. I still recall the rainy ride on
> the narrow highway with tractor trailers passing a friend and me, when I
> made the definite (and scary) decision to ride dead center in a ten foot
> lane instead of at the rough edge of the pavement. Yes, it was scary
> when we heard the first semi hit his brakes. But he and all subsequent
> drivers waited until it was safe to pass, instead squeezing by with
> inches of clearance plus water spray, as the previous truckers had done.
>
>
yes. perhaps the best thing to do, risky to initiate but it does work
> >>> about a cooperative stance.
>
> >> A "cooperative stance" in a lane too narrow to share? Would that be
> >> cooperatively standing by the side of the road until all the cars are
> >> gone?
>
> > No, it would be riding as far out of the way as practicable. Even if
> > the lane is too narrow to share with a passing car, this reduces how
> > far and how long they have to leave the lane to safely pass, and how
> > fast they have to go to do it.
>
> Dan, you still don't get it. Riding "as far out of the way as
> practicable" was what my friend was trying to do (even though I'd say,
> and he'd now say, it was not safely practicable). In doing that, he and
> his wife were subjected to unreasonable risk by many motorists who did
> not wait to safely pass. When they moved to lane center, that stopped.
>
> I learned the same thing years prior. I still recall the rainy ride on
> the narrow highway with tractor trailers passing a friend and me, when I
> made the definite (and scary) decision to ride dead center in a ten foot
> lane instead of at the rough edge of the pavement. Yes, it was scary
> when we heard the first semi hit his brakes. But he and all subsequent
> drivers waited until it was safe to pass, instead squeezing by with
> inches of clearance plus water spray, as the previous truckers had done.
>
>
when conditions are bad. if you squeeze over the driver has less
mental focus on you; and you are hidden by him to other vehicles
following him; they might naturally drive closer to the curb then you
get tagged.
if you check and see the line up behind getting a bit long then pull
over let them go by look a bit sheepish and say thanks- helps keeps
the nasty comments down. Im usually really easy going mild mannered -
but I can get really ticked off sometimes- and whatever happens next
ain t worth it.
one rule does not apply to all circumstances
things depend on where you are and local conditions-a difference in
the closing speed between you and other traffic is important to be
aware of- if the guy is risking getting slammed from behind because
you decide to drift out as he approaches is not a wise action, you
risk aggravating the driver;but by being out already your safe zone is
curbside.
I come back at night from long rides sometimes, I tend to ride in the
middle of the lane on the hump, avoiding roadkill, debris, potholes
and pooling water ; when a vehicle approaches I move over as his
headlights help illuminate the road better- I can be fairly confident
he has seen me and by moving over he can see I am not wanting to
encumber or challenge his passage- this is psychological manipulation.
out in the backroads, no witnesses, anything can happen- play it safe
reduce the chance having to deal with some nut.
raamman
Jun 30, 2012, 8:49:19 PM6/30/12
to
the difference is accident or deliberate murder- you are correct in my
opinion but you have to know your battleground- we have a lot of dump
truck drivers out here now; they are worked pretty hard; many are
foriegners, so they don t have the same traffic instincts we who grow
up here- it makes a crucial difference in the way they drive. they
habitually run red lights at top speed while loaded. and yes they t
bone and kill as you might expect. cops must be paid-off by the
developers or I don t understand why they don t enforce simple speed
limits to begin with- but this is what happens. have to be really
careful some places- because if you get mushed its not like your word
against his- it's his word only.
raamman
Jun 30, 2012, 8:53:02 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 28, 11:36 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.
> [Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]
> Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.
gumball rally !
>
> Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.
> [Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]
> Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.
(saw that in the theaters when I was a kid and got the dvd for my
kids- I liked Zoltan, the mad Hungarian)
Dan O
Jun 30, 2012, 11:49:35 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 27, 1:39 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>
> But "wrong" is not merely a mathematical concept. Some things are flat
> wrong, whether you can understand that or not.
>
<snip>
>
> >>>> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
> >>>> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>
> >>> Smarmy supercilious judgmental.
>
> I'm judgmental against drunks...
"There is no good on earth; and sin is but a name. Come, devil; for to
thee is this world given."
wrote:
<snip>
>
> But "wrong" is not merely a mathematical concept. Some things are flat
> wrong, whether you can understand that or not.
>
>
> >>>> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
> >>>> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>
> >>> Smarmy supercilious judgmental.
>
"There is no good on earth; and sin is but a name. Come, devil; for to
thee is this world given."
thirty-six
Jul 1, 2012, 4:24:09 PM7/1/12
to
On Jul 1, 4:49 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 1:39 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > But "wrong" is not merely a mathematical concept. Some things are flat
> > wrong, whether you can understand that or not.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > >>>> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
> > >>>> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>
> > >>> Smarmy supercilious judgmental.
>
> > I'm judgmental
Isn't he just? ??
> On Jun 27, 1:39 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > But "wrong" is not merely a mathematical concept. Some things are flat
> > wrong, whether you can understand that or not.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > >>>> Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
> > >>>> 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.
>
> > >>> Smarmy supercilious judgmental.
>
> > I'm judgmental
Frank Krygowski
Jul 1, 2012, 4:26:40 PM7/1/12
to
Dan O wrote:
> On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> ... do I
>> really need to go on?
>>
>
> It appears to be a compulsion.
I was answering a direct question you asked. If you don't want answers,
> On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> ... do I
>> really need to go on?
>>
>
> It appears to be a compulsion.
Dan, don't ask questions.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Tom $herman (-_-)
Jul 1, 2012, 5:59:05 PM7/1/12
to
Tom $herman (-_-)
Jul 1, 2012, 6:02:29 PM7/1/12
to
And why would the developers care if the truckers are ticketed? The
driver generally pays the fine(s), including those for being overweight,
and the developer, general contractor, etc do not have to pay the
trucking companies any more (since they are paid by mileage and weight
hauled).
Frank Krygowski
Jul 1, 2012, 6:02:49 PM7/1/12
to
Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
> On 7/1/2012 3:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Dan O wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... do I
>>>> really need to go on?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It appears to be a compulsion.
>>
>> I was answering a direct question you asked. If you don't want answers,
>> Dan, don't ask questions.
>>
> Someone needs to make a "Frank & Dan" cartoon series. :)
:-) Until then, we'll have to get by with Frank & Fred, at
> On 7/1/2012 3:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Dan O wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... do I
>>>> really need to go on?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It appears to be a compulsion.
>>
>> I was answering a direct question you asked. If you don't want answers,
>> Dan, don't ask questions.
>>
> Someone needs to make a "Frank & Dan" cartoon series. :)
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Jul 1, 2012, 8:34:08 PM7/1/12
to
"You said yourself* they dislike us simply because we're there. Why
exacerbate it by being as "there" as you possibly can."
... questioning the lane taker rationale of conspicuity - not gutters
and potholes and storm drains and debris and door zones and...
(whatever else you were asking if you need to go on with). Those
aren't reasons to be "there" - to assert your presence. I had already
stipulated those sorts of reason for positioning yourself away from
the road edge, before you mentioned or began droning on about them.
(* You of course snipped without indication the preface "You yourself
said... ", because of course you *did* say that, but it's an
inconvenient slip WRT to your argument.)
And while I seem compelled to jump your shit and dog you incessantly
and somewhat rabidly, you *do* seem compelled to go on and on and on
hammering the same talking point as some kind of divine Krygowskian
truth.
Frank Krygowski
Jul 1, 2012, 9:44:44 PM7/1/12
to
Dan O wrote:
> On Jul 1, 1:26 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>> Dan O wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> ... do I
>>>> really need to go on?
>>
>>> It appears to be a compulsion.
>>
>> I was answering a direct question you asked. If you don't want answers,
>> Dan, don't ask questions.
>>
>
> It was a rhetorical question:
And I answered it. If you don't want answers from me (or you don't want
> On Jul 1, 1:26 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>> Dan O wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> ... do I
>>>> really need to go on?
>>
>>> It appears to be a compulsion.
>>
>> I was answering a direct question you asked. If you don't want answers,
>> Dan, don't ask questions.
>>
>
> It was a rhetorical question:
to give me an opportunity to deliver my message) you should use a
different rhetorical device.
>
> "You said yourself* they dislike us simply because we're there. Why
> exacerbate it by being as "there" as you possibly can."
> (* You of course snipped without indication the preface "You yourself
> said... ", because of course you *did* say that...
I'm flattered that you seem to be saving so many things I say. However,
the irritation of an occasional cager does not compel me to move to a
road position which is less safe.
Now, Dan, let me tell you how I spent the last couple days. I attended
a Cycling Savvy class in a distant city, along with about 15 or so other
cyclists. Most of us were actually cycling instructors certified by the
League of American Bicyclists, in this class either to check out the
different teaching techniques, or as a step toward CS teaching
credentials (since the LAB has gone so counterproductive). There were a
few cyclists who were less expert, and one very nice lady who was
positively timid about riding. She was afraid she'd fall during the
emergency maneuver practice (quick stops, quick turns, rock dodges
etc.). She was _very_ afraid of riding in a major U.S. city on things
like five lane, one-way roads with freeway on ramps and off ramps. She
wasn't very comfortable riding those streets in a group, and nearly
terrified of doing it solo. (Much of the class consisted of solo
students practicing riding through complicated intersections, one at a
time.)
By the end of the day, this timid lady (sixty-something and wife of one
of my friends) was riding with confidence on roads most of my club
members would avoid like the plague. She was riding lane centered for
safety, just as we were all doing. And she was confident partly because
- guess what? - not a single motorist gave any of us any hassle all day
long. Even when cars had to wait behind the slowest cyclist claiming a
narrow lane on an uphill (with other cars passing in lanes on both the
left and on the right, to enter a freeway) not one horn honk was heard
all day. Motorists waited until it was clear, then changed lanes and
proceeded.
In other words, your feared incidents didn't come to pass.
Now, in the classroom session before the on-bike exercises, one person
did say something like "But if we do that, won't the drivers be
offended?" The instructors answered "Why would you care?" IOW, you
wouldn't seriously put their feelings above your safety and your right
to the road, would you?
If you would, I'd say you need to be a little tougher. Say, as tough as
that slight, retirement-aged woman who learned so much confidence in
this class.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Jul 1, 2012, 10:14:09 PM7/1/12
to
On Jul 1, 6:44 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 1:26 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dan O wrote:
> >>> On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> ... do I
> >>>> really need to go on?
>
> >>> It appears to be a compulsion.
>
> >> I was answering a direct question you asked. If you don't want answers,
> >> Dan, don't ask questions.
>
> > It was a rhetorical question:
>
> And I answered it. If you don't want answers from me (or you don't want
> to give me an opportunity to deliver my message) you should use a
> different rhetorical device.
>
No, you completely missed the point of positioning for presence, and
> Dan O wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 1:26 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dan O wrote:
> >>> On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> ... do I
> >>>> really need to go on?
>
> >>> It appears to be a compulsion.
>
> >> I was answering a direct question you asked. If you don't want answers,
> >> Dan, don't ask questions.
>
> > It was a rhetorical question:
>
> And I answered it. If you don't want answers from me (or you don't want
> to give me an opportunity to deliver my message) you should use a
> different rhetorical device.
>
went on and on lecturing me on stuff that I had already stipulated.
>
>
> > "You said yourself* they dislike us simply because we're there. Why
> > exacerbate it by being as "there" as you possibly can."
> > (* You of course snipped without indication the preface "You yourself
> > said... ", because of course you *did* say that...
>
> I'm flattered that you seem to be saving so many things I say.
> However,
> the irritation of an occasional cager does not compel me to move to a
> road position which is less safe.
>
safe road position? Never any compromise or trade-off?
people it suits.
> In other words, your feared incidents didn't come to pass.
>
that I'm a 'fraidy cat.)
> Now, in the classroom session before the on-bike exercises, one person
> did say something like "But if we do that, won't the drivers be
> offended?" The instructors answered "Why would you care?" IOW, you
> wouldn't seriously put their feelings above your safety and your right
> to the road, would you?
>
> If you would, I'd say you need to be a little tougher. Say, as tough as
> that slight, retirement-aged woman who learned so much confidence in
> this class.
>
falls impotent.
Tom $herman (-_-)
Jul 1, 2012, 10:45:46 PM7/1/12
to
On 7/1/2012 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> [...]
Out of curiosity, which city?
CS classes are pretty rare on the ground - hopefully that will not be
the case in a couple of years. <http://cyclingsavvy.org/course-calendar/>
> [...]
> Now, Dan, let me tell you how I spent the last couple days. I attended
> a Cycling Savvy class in a distant city,[...]
Out of curiosity, which city?
CS classes are pretty rare on the ground - hopefully that will not be
the case in a couple of years. <http://cyclingsavvy.org/course-calendar/>
Jym Dyer
Jul 2, 2012, 12:19:15 AM7/2/12
to
> Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are
> the fault of cyclists.
=v= Studies based on police reports do, but these are subject
to the known and documented effects of observer bias and, in
the case of fatalities, survivor bias.
=v= Under our system of justice, the at-fault "determination"
in police reports, based on cursory investigation, are not
the final word. There is a justice system for that, but the
stats from that are hard to come by since they are deferred
to settlements whose terms are usually not public knowledge.
<_Jym_>
> the fault of cyclists.
=v= Studies based on police reports do, but these are subject
to the known and documented effects of observer bias and, in
the case of fatalities, survivor bias.
=v= Under our system of justice, the at-fault "determination"
in police reports, based on cursory investigation, are not
the final word. There is a justice system for that, but the
stats from that are hard to come by since they are deferred
to settlements whose terms are usually not public knowledge.
<_Jym_>
Frank Krygowski
Jul 1, 2012, 11:41:57 PM7/1/12
to
On Jul 1, 10:45 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
Early Saturday morning I rode to breakfast at a friend's house, past
cars smashed by huge fallen trees, through major intersections with no
traffic lights and motorists negotiating their way, avoiding the
remains of one building's tile roof all in shards on the road...
Mother Nature was being really nasty. But impressive.
> CS classes are pretty rare on the ground - hopefully that will not be
> the case in a couple of years. <http://cyclingsavvy.org/course-calendar/>
It's a good program. The computer animations and videos are
absolutely top quality, and most used in class are available online.
The on-road experiences really help people who aren't yet comfortable
in traffic. And the folks attending were a lot of fun, very
pleasant.
I think if you compare a good bicycling class against any other thing
a cyclist might spend money on, you'll get more long-term pleasure and
satisfaction out of taking the class.
- Frank Krygowski
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 7/1/2012 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Now, Dan, let me tell you how I spent the last couple days. I attended
> > a Cycling Savvy class in a distant city,[...]
>
> Out of curiosity, which city?
Columbus, Ohio, just after that massive storm system moved through.
> On 7/1/2012 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Now, Dan, let me tell you how I spent the last couple days. I attended
> > a Cycling Savvy class in a distant city,[...]
>
> Out of curiosity, which city?
Early Saturday morning I rode to breakfast at a friend's house, past
cars smashed by huge fallen trees, through major intersections with no
traffic lights and motorists negotiating their way, avoiding the
remains of one building's tile roof all in shards on the road...
Mother Nature was being really nasty. But impressive.
> CS classes are pretty rare on the ground - hopefully that will not be
> the case in a couple of years. <http://cyclingsavvy.org/course-calendar/>
absolutely top quality, and most used in class are available online.
The on-road experiences really help people who aren't yet comfortable
in traffic. And the folks attending were a lot of fun, very
pleasant.
I think if you compare a good bicycling class against any other thing
a cyclist might spend money on, you'll get more long-term pleasure and
satisfaction out of taking the class.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom $herman (-_-)
Jul 2, 2012, 1:11:06 AM7/2/12
to
On 7/1/2012 10:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Jul 1, 10:45 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 7/1/2012 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Now, Dan, let me tell you how I spent the last couple days. I attended
>>> a Cycling Savvy class in a distant city,[...]
>>
>> Out of curiosity, which city?
>
> Columbus, Ohio, just after that massive storm system moved through.
>
By distant, I was thinking Orlando or St. Louis.
> On Jul 1, 10:45 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 7/1/2012 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Now, Dan, let me tell you how I spent the last couple days. I attended
>>> a Cycling Savvy class in a distant city,[...]
>>
>> Out of curiosity, which city?
>
> Columbus, Ohio, just after that massive storm system moved through.
>
> Early Saturday morning I rode to breakfast at a friend's house, past
> cars smashed by huge fallen trees, through major intersections with no
> traffic lights and motorists negotiating their way, avoiding the
> remains of one building's tile roof all in shards on the road...
> Mother Nature was being really nasty. But impressive.
>
>> CS classes are pretty rare on the ground - hopefully that will not be
>> the case in a couple of years. <http://cyclingsavvy.org/course-calendar/>
>
> It's a good program. The computer animations and videos are
> absolutely top quality, and most used in class are available online.
> The on-road experiences really help people who aren't yet comfortable
> in traffic. And the folks attending were a lot of fun, very
> pleasant.
>
> I think if you compare a good bicycling class against any other thing
> a cyclist might spend money on, you'll get more long-term pleasure and
> satisfaction out of taking the class.
a decent bit. And scare oneself silly at least a couple of times. ;)
Dan O
Jul 2, 2012, 1:27:37 AM7/2/12
to
> I think if you compare a good bicycling class against any other thing
> a cyclist might spend money on, you'll get more long-term pleasure and
> satisfaction out of taking the class.
>
"I know you are but what am I?"
> a cyclist might spend money on, you'll get more long-term pleasure and
> satisfaction out of taking the class.
>
Opinion is one thing (and everybody's entitled to theirs); but you
extend your opinion and values to presume what *other* people will
find most pleasurable and satisfying of *all* the things in the whole
world that they might spend money on. Incredible.
If the class was ten bucks (lunch included), I'm sure I'd get far more
long-term pleasure and satisfaction out of - just an example OTTOMH -
an LP from the used record store.
How much is that class anyway? How much did it cost to "transport"
you and your bike to the class? How much was your latest copy of that
book? Holy crap! The things I could buy...
That said, I consistently say that's great for those whom it suits.
My opinion and values are mine alone and nothing more significant.
Tom $herman (-_-)
Jul 2, 2012, 2:10:03 AM7/2/12
to
On 7/2/2012 12:27 AM, Dan O wrote:
> How much is that class anyway?
$60 for 9½ hours.
> How much is that class anyway?
<http://cyclingsavvy.org/2012/06/spots-still-available-for-columbus-oh-class/>
raamman
Jul 2, 2012, 9:33:54 AM7/2/12
to
On Jul 1, 6:02 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
gta ontario
>
> - Show quoted text -
there is a fair bit of collusion between developers and local politics
here- pretty disgustingly blantant sometimes. the drivers have managed
to shut down inspection stations by themselves on more than one
occaision- they just swarmed and parked to make a point. from what I
understand the gravel yards are responsible for ensuring loads leaving
are properly scaled. regardless, the dump trucks tend to be pretty
reckless. I regularily see them blowing though red lights at
intersections, sometimes with horns blaring. I have no other
explanation why cops arent doing any proper enforcement to prevent
such. last thurs or friday I saw one had plowed into the back of a bob
tail tractor on the highway it hit the wall and burst into flames. don
t know what exactly happened but one thing seemed pretty clear the
dump truck was following way too close at speed.
my overall point is though truck drivers might be seen as better than
your average bear in terms of safety, that is not absolute due to
other factors
gta ontario
>
> And why would the developers care if the truckers are ticketed? The
> driver generally pays the fine(s), including those for being overweight,
> and the developer, general contractor, etc do not have to pay the
> trucking companies any more (since they are paid by mileage and weight
> hauled).
>
> --
> Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
> Post Free or Die!- Hide quoted text -
> And why would the developers care if the truckers are ticketed? The
> driver generally pays the fine(s), including those for being overweight,
> and the developer, general contractor, etc do not have to pay the
> trucking companies any more (since they are paid by mileage and weight
> hauled).
>
> --
> Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
>
> - Show quoted text -
there is a fair bit of collusion between developers and local politics
here- pretty disgustingly blantant sometimes. the drivers have managed
to shut down inspection stations by themselves on more than one
occaision- they just swarmed and parked to make a point. from what I
understand the gravel yards are responsible for ensuring loads leaving
are properly scaled. regardless, the dump trucks tend to be pretty
reckless. I regularily see them blowing though red lights at
intersections, sometimes with horns blaring. I have no other
explanation why cops arent doing any proper enforcement to prevent
such. last thurs or friday I saw one had plowed into the back of a bob
tail tractor on the highway it hit the wall and burst into flames. don
t know what exactly happened but one thing seemed pretty clear the
dump truck was following way too close at speed.
my overall point is though truck drivers might be seen as better than
your average bear in terms of safety, that is not absolute due to
other factors
Frank Krygowski
Jul 2, 2012, 11:23:28 AM7/2/12
to
Dan O wrote:
> On Jul 1, 8:41 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> I think if you compare a good bicycling class against any other thing
>> a cyclist might spend money on, you'll get more long-term pleasure and
>> satisfaction out of taking the class.
>>
>
> "I know you are but what am I?"
Sheesh. This marks the first time I've gotten that remark from anybody
> On Jul 1, 8:41 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> I think if you compare a good bicycling class against any other thing
>> a cyclist might spend money on, you'll get more long-term pleasure and
>> satisfaction out of taking the class.
>>
>
> "I know you are but what am I?"
over age 12.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Jul 2, 2012, 11:43:09 AM7/2/12
to
raamman wrote:
> On Jul 1, 6:02 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>>
>> Where is here (no need to be more specific than province/state)?
>
>
> gta ontario
>>
>> And why would the developers care if the truckers are ticketed? The
>> driver generally pays the fine(s), including those for being overweight,
>> and the developer, general contractor, etc do not have to pay the
>> trucking companies any more (since they are paid by mileage and weight
>> hauled).
>>
>> --
>> T榦 Sherm泄 - 42.435731衹, 83.985007訖
> On Jul 1, 6:02 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>>
>> Where is here (no need to be more specific than province/state)?
>
>
> gta ontario
>>
>> And why would the developers care if the truckers are ticketed? The
>> driver generally pays the fine(s), including those for being overweight,
>> and the developer, general contractor, etc do not have to pay the
>> trucking companies any more (since they are paid by mileage and weight
>> hauled).
>>
>> --
>> Post Free or Die!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> there is a fair bit of collusion between developers and local politics
> here- pretty disgustingly blantant sometimes. the drivers have managed
> to shut down inspection stations by themselves on more than one
> occaision- they just swarmed and parked to make a point. from what I
> understand the gravel yards are responsible for ensuring loads leaving
> are properly scaled. regardless, the dump trucks tend to be pretty
> reckless. I regularily see them blowing though red lights at
> intersections, sometimes with horns blaring. I have no other
> explanation why cops arent doing any proper enforcement to prevent
> such. last thurs or friday I saw one had plowed into the back of a bob
> tail tractor on the highway it hit the wall and burst into flames. don
> t know what exactly happened but one thing seemed pretty clear the
> dump truck was following way too close at speed.
Seems like a letter to the editor might be in order, at least! If you
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> there is a fair bit of collusion between developers and local politics
> here- pretty disgustingly blantant sometimes. the drivers have managed
> to shut down inspection stations by themselves on more than one
> occaision- they just swarmed and parked to make a point. from what I
> understand the gravel yards are responsible for ensuring loads leaving
> are properly scaled. regardless, the dump trucks tend to be pretty
> reckless. I regularily see them blowing though red lights at
> intersections, sometimes with horns blaring. I have no other
> explanation why cops arent doing any proper enforcement to prevent
> such. last thurs or friday I saw one had plowed into the back of a bob
> tail tractor on the highway it hit the wall and burst into flames. don
> t know what exactly happened but one thing seemed pretty clear the
> dump truck was following way too close at speed.
can get friends to write as well, you may be able to affect a change.
> my overall point is though truck drivers might be seen as better than
> your average bear in terms of safety, that is not absolute due to
> other factors
very different in their behavior. I think that may be true. I've never
ever been hassled by anyone driving a semi-trailer rig, but I have
occasionally gotten grief from large dump trucks.
The most memorable case was when I was riding on a narrow (probably 9'
lanes) two lane frequently used as a cut-through by truckers wanting to
avoid main roads. Despite keeping up with other traffic in front of me
due to traffic lights, the dump truck driver behind me blared his horn
several times.
So I shrugged my shoulders and shook my head, and kept my lane position.
Eventually he passed and went on his miserable way.
--
- Frank Krygowski
raamman
Jul 2, 2012, 1:44:20 PM7/2/12
to
On Jul 2, 11:43 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
local mayor here. my critical online letters to were quickly removed
or edited out, so I leave them to their own devices. besides the cops
here are pretty freaking useless
(we had neightbours who were very loud regularily and smoking dope; it
was too much and filtering into our apartment with little kids so I
called the cops, they did nothing, a sgt even showed up agreed that
the hallway stank of dope but took MY name and info down in his little
book before leaving, didn t even knock on the neighbours door
I am not going to say what I did as a result)
> > my overall point is though truck drivers might be seen as better than
> > your average bear in terms of safety, that is not absolute due to
> > other factors
>
> I've heard people say that local truckers and long haul truckers are
> very different in their behavior. I think that may be true. I've never
> ever been hassled by anyone driving a semi-trailer rig, but I have
> occasionally gotten grief from large dump trucks.
>
Im actually working as a local driver now, picking up and delivering
loads the long haulers run to the terminal. The bulk/tankers I would
say are probabally the best; a look at the rig being driven is a good
indication of the drivers ability.
> The most memorable case was when I was riding on a narrow (probably 9'
> lanes) two lane frequently used as a cut-through by truckers wanting to
> avoid main roads. Despite keeping up with other traffic in front of me
> due to traffic lights, the dump truck driver behind me blared his horn
> several times.
>
> So I shrugged my shoulders and shook my head, and kept my lane position.
> Eventually he passed and went on his miserable way.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski-
blaring of the horn is a measure of comfort, it tells you you are
seen, it attracts attention to you so there are witnesses if anyone
else is present.
Of course the smartest thing to do is to avoid confrontation; shiot
happens just forget about it, do something and it might go the wrong
way then a forgettable incident becomes a lifelong regret. I try to
avoid confrontation as much as possible, it's like russian roulette,
keep taking chances and one day you'll win/lose. Of couse you were
absolutely right in your actions above and I do the same things too-
but before that try to avoid getting into such situations, eg altering
a known dangerous route, or timing the travel on the narrow section so
as to interfere with the least amount of traffic etc.
wrote:
> raamman wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 6:02 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> > $southslope.net"> wrote:
>
> >> Where is here (no need to be more specific than province/state)?
>
> > gta ontario
>
> >> And why would the developers care if the truckers are ticketed? The
> >> driver generally pays the fine(s), including those for being overweight,
> >> and the developer, general contractor, etc do not have to pay the
> >> trucking companies any more (since they are paid by mileage and weight
> >> hauled).
>
> >> --
> > On Jul 1, 6:02 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> > $southslope.net"> wrote:
>
> >> Where is here (no need to be more specific than province/state)?
>
> > gta ontario
>
> >> And why would the developers care if the truckers are ticketed? The
> >> driver generally pays the fine(s), including those for being overweight,
> >> and the developer, general contractor, etc do not have to pay the
> >> trucking companies any more (since they are paid by mileage and weight
> >> hauled).
>
> >> --
> >> Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
> >> Post Free or Die!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > there is a fair bit of collusion between developers and local politics
> > here- pretty disgustingly blantant sometimes. the drivers have managed
> > to shut down inspection stations by themselves on more than one
> > occaision- they just swarmed and parked to make a point. from what I
> > understand the gravel yards are responsible for ensuring loads leaving
> > are properly scaled. regardless, the dump trucks tend to be pretty
> > reckless. I regularily see them blowing though red lights at
> > intersections, sometimes with horns blaring. I have no other
> > explanation why cops arent doing any proper enforcement to prevent
> > such. last thurs or friday I saw one had plowed into the back of a bob
> > tail tractor on the highway it hit the wall and burst into flames. don
> > t know what exactly happened but one thing seemed pretty clear the
> > dump truck was following way too close at speed.
>
> Seems like a letter to the editor might be in order, at least! If you
> can get friends to write as well, you may be able to affect a change.
>
the local paper is very much front and center with the developers and
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > there is a fair bit of collusion between developers and local politics
> > here- pretty disgustingly blantant sometimes. the drivers have managed
> > to shut down inspection stations by themselves on more than one
> > occaision- they just swarmed and parked to make a point. from what I
> > understand the gravel yards are responsible for ensuring loads leaving
> > are properly scaled. regardless, the dump trucks tend to be pretty
> > reckless. I regularily see them blowing though red lights at
> > intersections, sometimes with horns blaring. I have no other
> > explanation why cops arent doing any proper enforcement to prevent
> > such. last thurs or friday I saw one had plowed into the back of a bob
> > tail tractor on the highway it hit the wall and burst into flames. don
> > t know what exactly happened but one thing seemed pretty clear the
> > dump truck was following way too close at speed.
>
> Seems like a letter to the editor might be in order, at least! If you
> can get friends to write as well, you may be able to affect a change.
>
local mayor here. my critical online letters to were quickly removed
or edited out, so I leave them to their own devices. besides the cops
here are pretty freaking useless
(we had neightbours who were very loud regularily and smoking dope; it
was too much and filtering into our apartment with little kids so I
called the cops, they did nothing, a sgt even showed up agreed that
the hallway stank of dope but took MY name and info down in his little
book before leaving, didn t even knock on the neighbours door
I am not going to say what I did as a result)
> > my overall point is though truck drivers might be seen as better than
> > your average bear in terms of safety, that is not absolute due to
> > other factors
>
> I've heard people say that local truckers and long haul truckers are
> very different in their behavior. I think that may be true. I've never
> ever been hassled by anyone driving a semi-trailer rig, but I have
> occasionally gotten grief from large dump trucks.
>
loads the long haulers run to the terminal. The bulk/tankers I would
say are probabally the best; a look at the rig being driven is a good
indication of the drivers ability.
> The most memorable case was when I was riding on a narrow (probably 9'
> lanes) two lane frequently used as a cut-through by truckers wanting to
> avoid main roads. Despite keeping up with other traffic in front of me
> due to traffic lights, the dump truck driver behind me blared his horn
> several times.
>
> So I shrugged my shoulders and shook my head, and kept my lane position.
> Eventually he passed and went on his miserable way.
>
> --
blaring of the horn is a measure of comfort, it tells you you are
seen, it attracts attention to you so there are witnesses if anyone
else is present.
Of course the smartest thing to do is to avoid confrontation; shiot
happens just forget about it, do something and it might go the wrong
way then a forgettable incident becomes a lifelong regret. I try to
avoid confrontation as much as possible, it's like russian roulette,
keep taking chances and one day you'll win/lose. Of couse you were
absolutely right in your actions above and I do the same things too-
but before that try to avoid getting into such situations, eg altering
a known dangerous route, or timing the travel on the narrow section so
as to interfere with the least amount of traffic etc.
Tom $herman (-_-)
Jul 2, 2012, 9:58:20 PM7/2/12
to
On 7/2/2012 12:44 PM, raamman wrote:
> Im actually working as a local driver now, picking up and delivering
> loads the long haulers run to the terminal. The bulk/tankers I would
> say are probabally the best; a look at the rig being driven is a good
> indication of the drivers ability.
Here in the US, you need a special endorsement in addition to a Class A
> Im actually working as a local driver now, picking up and delivering
> loads the long haulers run to the terminal. The bulk/tankers I would
> say are probabally the best; a look at the rig being driven is a good
> indication of the drivers ability.
CDL to drive a tanker truck (or even a flat-bed with a 1,000 gallon or
more water tank strapped on). Have only seen one bad tanker-truck
driver - "Motor Propane" truck on the North-South Freeway in Milwaukee
whose driver was acting like he was in "Duel".
Wes Groleau
Jul 2, 2012, 11:13:33 PM7/2/12
to
On 07-02-2012 01:27, Dan O wrote:
> On Jul 1, 8:41 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> I think if you compare a good bicycling class against any other thing
>> a cyclist might spend money on, you'll get more long-term pleasure and
>> satisfaction out of taking the class.
>
> On Jul 1, 8:41 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> I think if you compare a good bicycling class against any other thing
>> a cyclist might spend money on, you'll get more long-term pleasure and
>> satisfaction out of taking the class.
>
> Opinion is one thing (and everybody's entitled to theirs); but you
> extend your opinion and values to presume what *other* people will
> find most pleasurable and satisfying of *all* the things in the whole
> world that they might spend money on. Incredible.
The opinion he expressed (doesn't "I think" indicate _opinion_?) is that
> extend your opinion and values to presume what *other* people will
> find most pleasurable and satisfying of *all* the things in the whole
> world that they might spend money on. Incredible.
he thinks they will ...
Must we never recommend anything to anyone when there's a chance it
might offend Dan O. ?
--
Wes Groleau
“Brigham Young agrees to confine himself to one woman,
if every member of Congress will do the same.”
— Weekly Republican, 1869
Wes Groleau
Jul 2, 2012, 11:22:26 PM7/2/12
to
On 07-02-2012 11:43, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> I've heard people say that local truckers and long haul truckers are
> very different in their behavior. I think that may be true. I've never
> ever been hassled by anyone driving a semi-trailer rig, but I have
> occasionally gotten grief from large dump trucks.
The only person that ever honked at me was the semi-driver I recently
> I've heard people say that local truckers and long haul truckers are
> very different in their behavior. I think that may be true. I've never
> ever been hassled by anyone driving a semi-trailer rig, but I have
> occasionally gotten grief from large dump trucks.
mentioned. I have been yelled at two or three times by ignorant people
in passenger cars. But for the most part, motorists are reasonable.
The most common expression of displeasure seems to be flooring it when
they finally get the chance to pass. I just shake my head in amazement.
After all, it doesn't punish me one iota, but they have to pay for the
gas they wasted. :-)
> The most memorable case was when I was riding on a narrow (probably 9'
> lanes) two lane frequently used as a cut-through by truckers wanting to
> avoid main roads. Despite keeping up with other traffic in front of me
> due to traffic lights, the dump truck driver behind me blared his horn
> several times.
>
> So I shrugged my shoulders and shook my head, and kept my lane position.
> Eventually he passed and went on his miserable way.
lose sleep wondering what I intend to do with the picture. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
“Ideas are more powerful than guns,
We would not let our enemies have guns;
why should we let them have ideas?”
— Jozef Stalin
Tom $herman (-_-)
Jul 3, 2012, 12:27:08 AM7/3/12
to
On 7/2/2012 10:22 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> The only person that ever honked at me was the semi-driver I recently
> mentioned. I have been yelled at two or three times by ignorant people
> in passenger cars. But for the most part, motorists are reasonable.
When I am on the scooter and come upon road cyclists, I am tempted to
> The only person that ever honked at me was the semi-driver I recently
> mentioned. I have been yelled at two or three times by ignorant people
> in passenger cars. But for the most part, motorists are reasonable.
slow down and ask if they want to do some motor-pacing. :)
> The most common expression of displeasure seems to be flooring it when
> they finally get the chance to pass. I just shake my head in amazement.
> After all, it doesn't punish me one iota, but they have to pay for the
> gas they wasted. :-)
running excessively rich and dumping unburned fuel out the exhaust when
opening the throttle quickly. In addition, large throttle openings
reduce pumping losses.
Frank Krygowski
Jul 3, 2012, 11:00:21 AM7/3/12
to
Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 07-02-2012 11:43, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> I've heard people say that local truckers and long haul truckers are
>> very different in their behavior. I think that may be true. I've never
>> ever been hassled by anyone driving a semi-trailer rig, but I have
>> occasionally gotten grief from large dump trucks.
>
> The only person that ever honked at me was the semi-driver I recently
> mentioned. I have been yelled at two or three times by ignorant people
> in passenger cars. But for the most part, motorists are reasonable.
> The most common expression of displeasure seems to be flooring it when
> they finally get the chance to pass. I just shake my head in amazement.
> After all, it doesn't punish me one iota, but they have to pay for the
> gas they wasted. :-)
>
>> The most memorable case was when I was riding on a narrow (probably 9'
>> lanes) two lane frequently used as a cut-through by truckers wanting to
>> avoid main roads. Despite keeping up with other traffic in front of me
>> due to traffic lights, the dump truck driver behind me blared his horn
>> several times.
>>
>> So I shrugged my shoulders and shook my head, and kept my lane position.
>> Eventually he passed and went on his miserable way.
>
> I would have pulled out my cell phone and photographed him. Let him lose
> sleep wondering what I intend to do with the picture. :-)
Before cell phone cameras, there were two times I recall when I, or my
> On 07-02-2012 11:43, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> I've heard people say that local truckers and long haul truckers are
>> very different in their behavior. I think that may be true. I've never
>> ever been hassled by anyone driving a semi-trailer rig, but I have
>> occasionally gotten grief from large dump trucks.
>
> The only person that ever honked at me was the semi-driver I recently
> mentioned. I have been yelled at two or three times by ignorant people
> in passenger cars. But for the most part, motorists are reasonable.
> The most common expression of displeasure seems to be flooring it when
> they finally get the chance to pass. I just shake my head in amazement.
> After all, it doesn't punish me one iota, but they have to pay for the
> gas they wasted. :-)
>
>> The most memorable case was when I was riding on a narrow (probably 9'
>> lanes) two lane frequently used as a cut-through by truckers wanting to
>> avoid main roads. Despite keeping up with other traffic in front of me
>> due to traffic lights, the dump truck driver behind me blared his horn
>> several times.
>>
>> So I shrugged my shoulders and shook my head, and kept my lane position.
>> Eventually he passed and went on his miserable way.
>
> I would have pulled out my cell phone and photographed him. Let him lose
> sleep wondering what I intend to do with the picture. :-)
wife on the back of our tandem, turned around and very obviously read
out loud, repeatedly, the license plate number of a car that was
aggressively tailgating our bike. Both times the drivers backed off.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Message has been deleted
Wes Groleau
Jul 4, 2012, 12:33:18 AM7/4/12
to
On 07-03-2012 13:59, Phil W Lee wrote:
> In London, the Metropolitan Police even have a contact website where
> you can report bad driving and present video evidence, which they will
> act on. Drivers are gradually learning that they can no longer regard
> the absence of a police officer on the scene as a reliable indication
> that their behaviour won't be viewed by one later, in glorious HD
> video. Some have been prosecuted, and a number of vehicles seized, as
> a result of this. It is helpful "pour encourager les autres".
We had a discussion here about one such prosecution. Several of us
noted that although the driver merited severe penalties, it would not be
surprising for the cyclist to have been cited for violations he
performed earlier in the video. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
— G. K. Chesterton
> In London, the Metropolitan Police even have a contact website where
> you can report bad driving and present video evidence, which they will
> act on. Drivers are gradually learning that they can no longer regard
> the absence of a police officer on the scene as a reliable indication
> that their behaviour won't be viewed by one later, in glorious HD
> video. Some have been prosecuted, and a number of vehicles seized, as
> a result of this. It is helpful "pour encourager les autres".
We had a discussion here about one such prosecution. Several of us
noted that although the driver merited severe penalties, it would not be
surprising for the cyclist to have been cited for violations he
performed earlier in the video. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
— G. K. Chesterton
Message has been deleted
Wes Groleau
Jul 4, 2012, 9:20:20 PM7/4/12
to
On 07-04-2012 14:20, Phil W Lee wrote:
> You do not have to present any evidence to them that incriminates
> yourself, but it is another positive aspect of recording rides that it
At least not in USA. But I didn't claim you do. I merely pointed out
that the video they posted in their justified indignation DID
incriminate the victim to a small extent.
> does encourage better riding. If a rider does something stupid in the
> moments before a driver does (even if the two incidents are completely
> unrelated), it makes it more difficult to use the video as evidence.
Well, it may be that they edited out their poor behavior in the copy
they showed the police. But since thy displayed it to the whole world,
I sort of doubt it.
Doesn't mitigate what the driver did in the least, though. Running stop
signs, and going straight in a turn lane without even looking did not in
any way contribute to the collision that happened a couple of minutes later.
(Well, I suppose that driver might have insanely thought he was teaching
them a lesson, but I doubt it.)
--
Wes Groleau
Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.
> You do not have to present any evidence to them that incriminates
> yourself, but it is another positive aspect of recording rides that it
At least not in USA. But I didn't claim you do. I merely pointed out
that the video they posted in their justified indignation DID
incriminate the victim to a small extent.
> does encourage better riding. If a rider does something stupid in the
> moments before a driver does (even if the two incidents are completely
> unrelated), it makes it more difficult to use the video as evidence.
Well, it may be that they edited out their poor behavior in the copy
they showed the police. But since thy displayed it to the whole world,
I sort of doubt it.
Doesn't mitigate what the driver did in the least, though. Running stop
signs, and going straight in a turn lane without even looking did not in
any way contribute to the collision that happened a couple of minutes later.
(Well, I suppose that driver might have insanely thought he was teaching
them a lesson, but I doubt it.)
--
Wes Groleau
Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.
0 new messages