Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

[damyth]

NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
infrastructure.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709484/bike-infrastructure-hits-congressional-speed-bumps?ft=1&f=2

The report itself wasn't all that interesting, but in the comments
section, a purported civil engineer (JaredParker) "specializing in
traffic engineering and transportation" said this in response to
another comment:

"@Greg Smith (jatodog)

'Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for bikes, for both cyclists
and pedestrians. If you ever rode a bike more than a few hours a year,
you'd know that.'

Actually Greg, I'd like to see your data regarding cyclist and
pedestrian "dangers". I am Civil Engineer specializing in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. The data that the NHTSA has
released and data in studies that my company has conducted show that
sidewalks are, on average, actually much safer for cyclists, at a rate
of 60-75% less injuries and fatalities sustained by cyclists who use
the sidewalk vs. the road. To more appropriately address the issue of
cyclists and transportation, sidewalks could be converted into bike
lanes much more readily than attempting to dedicate lanes of road to
the cause, considering the easement and space is already there.
Asphalt overlays and striping to separate pedestrian and bike traffic
on the sidewalk is a very cost effective and safe alternative to
exposing bikers to traffic in most urban and suburban settings.
And by the way, I am an avid biker; and, I bike a minimum of 20 miles
per day, weather cooperating. And I use the sidewalk."

What the hell? Every driveway is a blind intersection. With civil
engineers "specializing in traffic engineering and transportation
planning" like this, who needs enemies?

[James]

Yup, I agree.

I guess if you ride very slowly, like at walking speed, the footpath
might be ok, but for most people who ride regularly, the footpath is not
an option. I'd like to see how long this civil eng. would survive at 40
km/h on the footpath.

--
JS.

[Dan O]

On Sep 22, 10:21 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> damyth wrote:
> > NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
> > infrastructure.

> >http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709484/bike-infrastructure-hits-cong...

Riding on the sidewalk introduces some profound hazards of its own,
but offers unique protections and conveniences as well. As long as
the rider is cognizant of the implications, sidewalks are a great
option to *include* in panoply of choices.

[Frank Krygowski]

Exactly. While there are times, places and people for which a sidewalk
might be a reasonable choice, in general they're much more dangerous
than using the road. I don't know where JaredParker got his data, but
the studies I'm familiar with all found sidewalks to be significantly
more dangerous than roads.

Also, it's likely that much of the problems come because sidewalk users
feel they're perfectly safe. They don't understand what the hazards
are, and they shut off their brains.

Unfortunately, there's no requirement for a "civil engineer specializing
in traffic engineering and transportation planning" to actually learn
anything about bicycling. Those guys, like almost everyone who has
anything to do with bicycling, feel that they already know everything.
Read a book? Take a course? Why, that would be a waste of time!

This explains straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only
lanes, bike lanes and sharrows in door zones, bike trails with blind
corners, and other travesties. It explains the delusion that "Any bike
facility is a good bike facility."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[damyth]

On Sep 23, 11:32 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> damyth wrote:
> > NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
> > infrastructure.

> >http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709484/bike-infrastructure-hits-cong...

I checked the NPR comments section again the JaredParker has posted
this additional nugget:
"@Brim Stone

'Separating bikes & cars guarantees bikes won't be seen at
intersections and people will needlessly die.'

I would contend the opposite as being true; separating fast moving
traffic from very slow moving cyclists greatly reduces the risk to the
cyclist. In the 1980's, the time span in which your "evidence" points
to; there were 70% less cyclists using road easements as compared to
2005-2010, where ridership has increased exponentially - primarily in
urban settings. Cyclists are now 85%"recreational riders", 15%"urban
commuters"- the setting has largely shifted from suburban to urban for
the vast majority of riders injury. That 15% is key. The point you
make regarding intersections is where to focus though, as studies of
which I've been a part show that between 60-65% of injuries and
fatalities occur at intersections. To address this issue, separating
traffic is ideal, and having clear rules for cyclists at intersections
is a must. In one of my recent projects in Boulder, CO-adjacent to US
HWY 36, separated bike lanes and adjacent sidewalks with bike lanes
are utilized, and the system works very well primarily because of the
visibility in intersections, and required stops at intersections for
cyclists."

This not only has piqued my interest, but has caused some alarm.
Anybody familiar with the project in Boulder that he's talking about?
I'm surprised LAB hasn't gotten involved to make sure this crank never
works on bike infrastructure again!

Incidentally, there is a civil engineer by the name of Jared Parker
with a profile on LinkedIn, so I don't think the poster is lying about
his job.

[James]

On Sep 24, 6:51 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> considered Thu, 22 Sep 2011

> 20:48:09 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
> >infrastructure.

> >http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709484/bike-infrastructure-hits-cong...

> They arrive at those figures by excluding all collisions at junctions,
> claiming that those are not really footway incidents.
> The poor dumb idiots are too thick to realise that by putting cycle
> traffic on the footway, you multiply the number of junctions, which
> are the danger points.
>
> That civil engineer needs a refund on the stats module of his degree,
> since he clearly missed the most important part, which is to use the
> appropriate stats, not the irrelevant ones.
>
> Until he learns that, I hope that chartered status will continue to
> evade him.

Considering some of the engineered road solutions around Melbourne,
road traffic civil engineers need a swift kick in the goolies!

--
JS.

[Barry]

> To address this issue, separating
> traffic is ideal, and having clear rules for cyclists at intersections
> is a must. In one of my recent projects in Boulder, CO-adjacent to US
> HWY 36, separated bike lanes and adjacent sidewalks with bike lanes
> are utilized, and the system works very well primarily because of the
> visibility in intersections, and required stops at intersections for
> cyclists.

On a local bike path every intersection is posted with a STOP sign and "WALK
BIKE ACROSS INTERSECTION". Of course nobody does that, it would be
ridiculous. So assuming those signs somehow ensure safety is a big mistake.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Barry:

>On a local bike path every intersection is posted with a STOP sign and "WALK
>BIKE ACROSS INTERSECTION". Of course nobody does that, it would be
>ridiculous. So assuming those signs somehow ensure safety is a big mistake.
>

I've been riding a bike path between Pleasantville and Somers
Point NJ intermittently for what must be at least 10 years.

It has those signs. Erected at a cost of what? $250 per sign?

Been looking, but I've never, ever seen anybody stop and walk
their bike across any intersection....

My guess is that lawyers were involved.
--
PeteCresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

damyth wrote:
>
>
> This not only has piqued my interest, but has caused some alarm.
> Anybody familiar with the project in Boulder that he's talking about?
> I'm surprised LAB hasn't gotten involved to make sure this crank never
> works on bike infrastructure again!

LAB prevent bad bike infrastructure? You're joking, I hope - or I wish.

There's been considerable discussion on a certain (closed) LAB list
about LAB's "Bicycle Friendly Communities." Those include many
communities with door zone bike lanes, with mandatory bike lane laws,
with mandatory helmet laws, and now even with laws that require
bicyclists to yield to ALL vehicles! (Those are apparently Chicago and
Flagstaff, both rated Silver Level by LAB.)

LAB apparently believes one can't ride safely without a bike lane
stripe. They claim to be pro-education, but give far greater priority
to facilities. And they apparently believe any bike facility is a good
bike facility. Don't look for help there as long as Andy Clarke is in
charge.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[David Scheidt]

Frank Krygowski <frkrygo...@geemail.com> wrote:
:with mandatory helmet laws, and now even with laws that require

:bicyclists to yield to ALL vehicles! (Those are apparently Chicago and
:Flagstaff, both rated Silver Level by LAB.)

Please provide a citation to the statute that requires that in
Illinois.


--
Movable type was evidently a fad. --Amanda Walker

[Dan O]

On Sep 23, 2:51 pm, "Barry" <Ba...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > To address this issue, separating
> > traffic is ideal, and having clear rules for cyclists at intersections
> > is a must. In one of my recent projects in Boulder, CO-adjacent to US
> > HWY 36, separated bike lanes and adjacent sidewalks with bike lanes
> > are utilized, and the system works very well primarily because of the
> > visibility in intersections, and required stops at intersections for
> > cyclists.
>
> On a local bike path every intersection is posted with a STOP sign and "WALK
> BIKE ACROSS INTERSECTION". Of course nobody does that, it would be
> ridiculous.

Ridiculous? Which - the stopping? Or the walking across. If you're
going to stop your bike and then start over again, is it *that* much
*more* ridiculous to dismount while you're at it and push your bike a
few feet before starting up again?

(No, I wouldn't do it, either - but then, nor would I necessarily
stop :-)

Should it be assumed that all "path" users will be competent to leave
the path and ride onto the road, or even aware they are leaving the
isolation of the path and entering the realm of motor vehicle
traffic? Might not traffic engineers expect users of a "path"
exclusive to non-motorized traffic may tend to be the sort less
prepared to mix with motor vehicles? Admittedly it would be the
responsibility of users (or the user's parent or guardian) to ensure
that they were competent to handle whatever hazards lie along the
path, but we know this isn't universally provided, the isolated "path"
*does* seem to confer safety from motor vehicles, and society does try
to provide for anticipated contingencies.

A bike "path" should never lead users into motor vehicle traffic
except where there is no way around it, and in those cases it makes
sense to *adamantly* caution path users of the sudden drastic change
in isolation from motor vehicle traffic.

If there are many "Stops" on the path that are not on the adjacent
road, a bicyclist would be exempt from mandatory use, I believe, (at
least around here) because the mandatory use law specifies something
about, "suitable for use at reasonable speeds".

I might word the sign differently - something like, "STOP", and "Use
Caution Crossing Motor Vehicle Roadway" (with a picture of a stick
figure dismounted and holding his bike as a car and maybe a big truck
roll past in front of him from both directions with those little
cartoon "speed" lines behind them).

Anyway, is this somehow more ridiculous than stopping anywhere else
solely because the sign says so?

There's a bike lane along a very busy road that I ride sometimes. The
road climbs an overpass, and near the top the road narrows, the bike
lane ends with a cut onto an adjacent path, and a sign there says, "No
Bikes on Roadway". The path veers off 90 degrees, then down a ramp
with a sharp 180 degree turn, then another 90, then through a tunnel,
then dumps the bicyclist back into the bike lane of the original road,
where the bike lane simply ends less than a block later. This is
ridiculous. The 360 degree contortion of ramps and tunnels cannot be
taken at a reasonable speed (I can handle the contortions okay, but
the 180 and the tunnel are blind turns, and the path narrow, so must
be taken slowly), diverts the bicyclist way out of his intended
direction of travel along the road - backtracking even, and so should
be optional in terms of the mandatory use law. The bicyclist should
simply take the lane at the top of the overpass, and signage should
warn motorists that this is to be expected - not the opposite.

It's a sucky bike lane, anyway - with many raised manhole covers and
plenty of nasty debris. But it's a very busy road with 40 mph speed
limit, and many drivers would be loath to share the lane, so the bike
lane has *something* going for it.

> So assuming those signs somehow ensure safety is a big mistake.

Nothing short of sheer idiocy, in fact - for the riders *or* the
traffic engineers.

[Frank Krygowski]

David Scheidt wrote:
> Frank Krygowski<frkrygo...@geemail.com> wrote:
> :with mandatory helmet laws, and now even with laws that require
> :bicyclists to yield to ALL vehicles! (Those are apparently Chicago and
> :Flagstaff, both rated Silver Level by LAB.)
>
> Please provide a citation to the statute that requires that in
> Illinois.

Sure.

http://www.chicagobikes.org/bikelaws/?show=chicago

"Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near as
practicable to the right-hand side of the roadway, exercising due care
when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction
and at all times giving the right-of-way to other moving vehicles."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

I know there are times when it becomes useful, the question is, would
you ride exclusively on the footpath, for a minimum of 20 miles per day?

I might ride a short distance on the footpath, to avoid for example a
traffic jam, road works, or open street festival like:
http://www.hispanicfiesta.com.au/

But once the road is clear of obstruction, it's the safest place to be
at any sort of reasonable riding speed.

--
JS.

[Dan O]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097235/

Riley: "Ed. Hi. Uh... I see you've met Albert and Henry and Jack.
I'd like you to meet my friend Billy."
Billy: "Hi, Ed."
Ed: "Hey, Bill. What do you do?"
Billy: "What do I do? Well... kinda depends on the circumstances,
Ed."

[Duane Hebert]

We can't ride on sidewalks here if we're over 12 years old. But your
points are true for most bike paths. I use them to avoid traffic or
when they are the only way to get somewhere. But I generally ride too
fast to stay on bike paths for very long. Or I'm with a group that is
too large to use them.

But one benefit that you don't mention is that they keep slow moving
bikes out of my way when I'm on the road. I have more problems on the
road with inexperienced riders than I do with cars. This doesn't mean
that I don't still think traffic sucks though...

[Frank Krygowski]

Here's a blog that analyzes Phoenix Arizona's latest bike crash report.

http://azbikelaw.org/blog/listening-to-phoenixs-bicycle-collision-summary/

The author's major points: Sidewalks seem MUCH more dangerous than
roads, and cycling by vehicle rules seems MUCH safer than being, um,
creative. That's shown by the table, indicating whether the cyclist's
action pre-crash would be deemed "good" or "bad" by VC standards. Only
10% of crashes involved "good" VC behavior. A full 70% happened to
sidewalk cyclists.

Unfortunately, there's no exposure data, which means it's possible that
only 10% of the cycling in Phoenix is done according to the rules of the
road, and that 70% of Phoenix's cycling is done on sidewalks. But I
think that's highly unlikely.

I also think it's likely that most of the rule-flouting cyclists figured
they were being really smart - i.e. much smarter than those cyclists
following normal traffic rules.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>The author's major points: Sidewalks seem MUCH more dangerous than
>roads, and cycling by vehicle rules seems MUCH safer than being, um,
>creative.

I only skimmed the web page, but this jumped out at me: "...and
nothing is split by seriousness..."

Is he saying that the data only records "Collision" vs
"Non-Collision"? i.e. The data does (do?) not discriminate
between something like road rash/bruises and getting squashed by
a bus?
--
PeteCresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

The original report at http://phoenix.gov/STREETS/2007bike.pdf does
count the number of "serious or fatal" crashes, 63 of them. It doesn't
break down crash types by serious vs. minor, from what I can see.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jym Dyer]

> The original report at
http://phoenix.gov/STREETS/2007bike.pdf

=v= As usual, based on police reports and thus subject to
the observer bias of police and, in the case of fatalities,
survivor bias. So the "at-fault" numbers and charts are
completely meaningless, but will of course be used to prop up
the usual entrenched opinions anyhow. The other stats are of
more value, of course, though they depend on how much forensic
work the police decide to do when a bike is involved.
<_Jym_>

[RobertH]

On Sep 26, 9:30 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> I also think it's likely that most of the rule-flouting cyclists figured
> they were being really smart - i.e. much smarter than those cyclists
> following normal traffic rules.

I know that's your fantasy. Reality is that a high percentage of those
'rule-flouting cyclists' were actually little kids riding their bikes
like little kids, on and off the sidewalks. Studying the crashes
suffered by little kids on bikes is of course of very limited utility
for adult cyclists.

[charlie flaherty]

> that I don't still think traffic sucks though...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am a daily rider here in Baltimore City...
My bike gets me where I need to be, on time, no parking hassles...
My longest jaunt is to my favorite phamacy, about a 12 mile round
trip...all else is just local city commuting...lots of it.

I ride sort of as the crow flies...I use streets, sidewalks, and a
personal favorite, the alleys. I spend very little time in the street
during heavy traffic flows...way too dangerous for this old man. A
motorcycling safety strategy is to vary one's route, don't lock into a
pattern and begin to assume things...so I'm always looking for every
clear stretch of street and useing it whenever it's available.

Baltimore allows parking on both sides of the street virtually
everywhere...one way single lane, double lane one way, 2, 3, and 4
lane 1 and 2 way...and those fairly quiet alleys...

As there is a tool for every job, I have chosen a 650B fat tired
utility cycle for my city riding. It's a Monarch "Original" from
Finland (50 bucks from the bike collective]...front basket, rear rack,
SS fenders, 3 spd w/CB Sachs hub and its companion drum frt hub. A
true all weather bike. Lights, both generator and battery types, frt
and rear, and a bell that imparts a single sharp ding...for the
sidewalks, to alert pedestrians, whom I will always yield to when safe
passing isn't possible.

I have heard "nice bike"...never has anyone said get off the
sidewalk...for Critical Mass I have an array of stellar machines ready
to ride at higher speed. The Monarch works for that as well...I'm
merely the latern rouge. I've fallen 5 times in about 4 and half
years, twice on paint in the rain...and one tangle with a motorist who
edged out a side street muscleing into the flow of 5 o'clock traffic,
of which i was a part....

As long as people continue to speed in town, talk on cell phones, not
use turn signals, run lights, and sneek up behind you and blast their
horns....I will use sidewalks, alleys, streets and pick the direction
I deem safest. God only knows how many "fixie" brakeless and
helmetless riders bite the dust....I see them everyday flying in
traffic, some sitting up riding no hands...

For someone who rides everywhere, everyday, sidewalks have to be part
of the route...the streets downtown are policed and traffic moves way
slower...so I join the cars. Most everywhere else, the sidewalks can
be pretty clear sailing...why risk it by limiting oneself to just the
streets...

charlie flaherty
baltimore maryland

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per charlie flaherty:
>
>... to vary one's route, don't lock into a

>pattern and begin to assume things...

That's been my one reservation about the mirror I began using a
few months ago. Occasionally I find myself acting as if I know
what's behind me even though I haven't checked the mirror within
the window dictated by speed of closing traffic.

>As long as people continue to speed in town, talk on cell phones, not
>use turn signals, run lights, and sneek up behind you and blast their
>horns...

>For someone who rides everywhere, everyday, sidewalks have to be part
>of the route...

I have yet to be challenged by anybody on my riding practices,
but if/when I do, I think my response will be something like:

"Yes, you are in good company. Whole books have been written
describing how to ride. You are in complete agreement with those
books' recommendations and I am in violation of them."

(Well, WTF are you doing it then....?)

"But I would propose that none of those books were written in the
context of people routinely exceeding the speed limit by 15+ mph,
talking on cell phones, texting, and/or doing email while
steering with their knees."
--
PeteCresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per charlie flaherty:

>>

>> For someone who rides everywhere, everyday, sidewalks have to be part
>> of the route...
>
> I have yet to be challenged by anybody on my riding practices,
> but if/when I do, I think my response will be something like:
>
> "Yes, you are in good company. Whole books have been written
> describing how to ride. You are in complete agreement with those
> books' recommendations and I am in violation of them."
>
> (Well, WTF are you doing it then....?)
>
> "But I would propose that none of those books were written in the
> context of people routinely exceeding the speed limit by 15+ mph,
> talking on cell phones, texting, and/or doing email while
> steering with their knees."

If people are going to drive while distracted, I think I'm better off
not surprising them - by, say, riding on the sidewalk they're turning
across, or riding out into a crosswalk where they expect only 3 mph
pedestrians, or popping around a blind corner in an alleyway, etc.

If I'm riding ahead of them in standard road position, they have to
glance up only once every 100 feet to notice me. In those other
situations, they'd have to glance up immediately before the cyclist
makes his surprise move. Seems to me the odds are better on the road,
as the data clearly shows.

It's not to say those moves can't be made safely. The cyclist just has
to ride very at pedestrian speed and stop very frequently, effectively
giving up his rights. But based on the data, most sidewalk cyclists
don't understand that, or their risk records wouldn't be so terrible.
And to me, riding that way very much of the time would be extremely
frustrating.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>If people are going to drive while distracted, I think I'm better off
>not surprising them - by, say, riding on the sidewalk they're turning
>across, or riding out into a crosswalk where they expect only 3 mph
>pedestrians, or popping around a blind corner in an alleyway, etc.

I would agree that anybody riding on a sidewalk that negotiates a
crosswalk or any other intersection at more than a walking pace
is somebody whose days are numbered.

I would also opine that if one is riding on a sidewalk, they
should be riding at less than a jogger's pace.

>If I'm riding ahead of them in standard road position, they have to
>glance up only once every 100 feet to notice me.

That did not seem to be the case for Bob Schwinn - who I used to
windsurf with: http://tinyurl.com/2g82suj

I can also think of at least three local people - who I've never
spoken with, and whose names I don't even know. All I know is
that I'd see them almost daily riding where I would not choose to
ride... and then they just disappeared from the scene...
period.... never saw them again. Sure, maybe all 3 decided to
give up biking.... or maybe had some sort of other incident like
an illness/injury/heart attack..... but I wouldn't stake my life
on it.

My suspicion is that accidents caused by texting, doing email,
and operating a cell phone are grossly under-reported - after
all, who in their right mind is going to volunteer that's what
they were doing when they killed or maimed somebody?

I've had two of what would have been close calls myself - except
that I saw them coming and reacted accordingly. In one, the guy
appeared tb dialing a cell phone - holding it in one hand and
punching numbers with the other; staring, of course, at the cell
phone. In the other, I don't know what the guy was preoccupied
with - just that he was staring intently down at something in his
lap - and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Anthony Weiner. I zigged,
but he didn't zag.....

Finally, when I travel as a passenger with a certain close family
member driving, I pretty much try to keep my eyes closed bc this
person has no idea whatsoever - not even the tiniest clue - where
their right hand wheels are. They routinely curb tires on
clearly-visible curbs and drive through clearly-visible potholes
that are well over the ghost line on the shoulder. Pennsylvania
State driving certification procedures notwithstanding, my
assumption is that person is not alone.


Believe-it-or-not, I actually do mix it up with traffic
sometimes. The times I feel reasonably safe are in city traffic
(central Philadelphia) and down at the shore (Atlantic City/Ocean
City New Jersey). In those places there are enough cyclists
that drivers are routinely conducting themselves as if there
might be a cyclist ahead.

In other locales, I also ride on streets - buy I'm far, far from
confident in my safety among cars/trucks.

--
PeteCresswell

[Dan O]

On Sep 28, 8:20 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per charlie flaherty:
>
> >> For someone who rides everywhere, everyday, sidewalks have to be part
> >> of the route...
>
> > I have yet to be challenged by anybody on my riding practices,
> > but if/when I do, I think my response will be something like:
>
> > "Yes, you are in good company. Whole books have been written
> > describing how to ride. You are in complete agreement with those
> > books' recommendations and I am in violation of them."
>
> > (Well, WTF are you doing it then....?)
>
> > "But I would propose that none of those books were written in the
> > context of people routinely exceeding the speed limit by 15+ mph,
> > talking on cell phones, texting, and/or doing email while
> > steering with their knees."
>
> If people are going to drive while distracted, I think I'm better off
> not surprising them - by, say, riding on the sidewalk they're turning
> across, or riding out into a crosswalk where they expect only 3 mph
> pedestrians, or popping around a blind corner in an alleyway, etc.
>

Only if you blithely and obliviously forge onward placing your safety
entirely in the control of others.

> If I'm riding ahead of them in standard road position, they have to
> glance up only once every 100 feet to notice me. In those other
> situations, they'd have to glance up immediately before the cyclist
> makes his surprise move.

Bullshit - as above.

> Seems to me the odds are better on the road,
> as the data clearly shows.
>

The odds of being mown down by a driver who's not paying attention
while you're riding responsibly? Or the odds of being hit by one who
is driving (fairly) responsibly but *you* are riding like a blithe
idiot who's missing his survival instinct or something.

> It's not to say those moves can't be made safely. The cyclist just has
> to ride very at pedestrian speed and stop very frequently, effectively
> giving up his rights.

Um... I wouldn't say that (giving up my *rights*). It's a choice -
one that I appreciate having available.

> But based on the data, most sidewalk cyclists

> don't understand that...

I'm not into the statistics (doesn't particularly matter to my
situation, if I *do* understand the specific hazards), but yeah, I'll
agree that there are no shortage of blithe idiots - wherever they
happen to be riding.

>..., or their risk records wouldn't be so terrible.

"Their" risk records? The blithe idiots, you mean?

> And to me, riding that way very much of the time would be extremely
> frustrating.
>

That's the beauty - no one else is telling you how to ride ;-)

[charlie flaherty]

On Sep 28, 1:20 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted


WHEN I ride on a sidewalk I have chosen to do so because it's
empty...if someone is there, I defer to them...Baltimore is a pretty
hip little village and pedestrians one day are bikers the next...

I am only too happy to pull up to a wall, stop, hand on wall for
balance...give a top of the day, and proceed when appropriate....I
always leave lots of time to get places so a pause a few times along a
pedestrian way doesn't dent my schedule...so to you Frank, go in
peace, do what you do...

I have surrendered no rights, I am not frustrated, I DO understand
what I am doing, I do weigh risks...I've been up on 2 wheels for 55
years and Im still spinning...why you choose to assume I invade
crosswalks, make suprise moves, challenge motorists in any way, or
frustrate them by impedeing their flow, is at a minimum, speculation.

...you sound like one of those guys i sometimes see, pounding your
pedals uphill, with 10 cars behind trying to pass....exercising your
rights.

....and you say I'm popping around blind corners in alleyways...is
that what you say? well frank, you go take your "standard road
position", whatever you think that is....please don't try to explain
it to me...your text is neither informative, nor fun to read...and
when you get home from one of your fun rides, please thank your lucky
stars some texting teen hasn't invaded your standard road position.

charlie flaherty
baltimore maryland

[Dan O]

On Sep 28, 10:47 am, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>
> Believe-it-or-not, I actually do mix it up with traffic
> sometimes. The times I feel reasonably safe are in city traffic
> (central Philadelphia) and down at the shore (Atlantic City/Ocean
> City New Jersey). In those places there are enough cyclists
> that drivers are routinely conducting themselves as if there
> might be a cyclist ahead.
>
> In other locales, I also ride on streets - buy I'm far, far from
> confident in my safety among cars/trucks.
>

This seems an apt enough cue for my scary story of Monday morning. In
light of said cue, though, reader discretion is advised: I know some
readers may be on the fence or even a little behind it already WRT to
riding in cagerland. So, squeamish are forewarned.

I was riding in to work Monday morning. Left the house a little
before 5:00 AM. Dark, very light, occasional rain (not enough to even
wet the road much). My headlight was working great. I ride through
farmland for about ten miles, seeing maybe three or four cars / trucks
total. It's pretty much alone in the universe.

About six miles in I cross a bridge and turn onto a road that skirts
the river. This area can be a little spooky - quiet but for the sound
of rushing water - gaps in the trees here and there. I see a *lot*
different critters - especially early in the morning. Cougars are
known to be around. though I've never seen one on the road, I
sometimes feel a little frightened through here. Fallen logs look
like monsters, etc.

So anyway at around the ten mile mark I roll into a tiny little town.
No cars, no people up and about, etc. No rain ATM, either. There are
houses set back from the right side of the road with long driveways
and lots of trees in front. Through the trees I sort of perceive
possible motion toward the road. This doesn't scare me so much here
like back by the river, but it could be a dog, or a deer, or somebody
walking to the mailbox, or... who knows; so I move left toward the
center line (no traffic anywhere) to buy some buffer on the right. I
pass the area in question and nothing emerges, so I move back to the
right half of my lane, riding on.

Now I approach a T intersection on the left, and a car is pulled up to
the stop. It starts a right turn onto the main road, coming my way.
No problem, right?

But maybe because I'm already a tad heightened watching out for bears
and what not, I readily notice that it is swinging a kind of wide onto
the road... quite a bit wide... left front wheel coming over the
center line, even. What's up with that? It enters my mind how I was
riding that very line only moments before. Though of course I would
not be there in *this* situation, anybody who was would be hit by a
car making a turn like this one.

So anyway I'm watching them pretty close, and moving a little more
right. But they're not swinging back into their lane (the oncoming
lane to my left)... in fact they're drifting *further* over the center
line!

From here the story takes much longer to tell than the approximately
one to two seconds that transpired.

I start moving farther right toward the road edge, watching them
*really* close now - trying to process what's going on - going into
options consideration mode, when... Holy crap they're maing a diagonal
across the road into my lane head on toward me!

Adrenaline really kicks in now. Situational processing and decision
consideration jump instantly to instinctive mode. It occurs to me
that they must be *aiming* to hit me (no witnesses, either), I guess
maybe I sort of get ready for the impact and crash as I still am
trying to frantically find a way to get out of this alive, and I bail
off the road edge.

I don't even see the car as I look to the bailout (... no, I'm not
sure I was looking to the bailout - it was *dark*, so maybe I was
looking there and just don't remember it because there wasn't anything
to see very well, but I almost think maybe I looked completely away
from the car because I knew it could be really bad and and didn't want
to see it happen. I don't know. This was all a split second in time
more than two days ago, and I have made an effort not to think about
it too much.)

... but anyway, the bailout area turns out to be deep, loose, large
gravel, which stops me quickly. I *did* see the car right up to the
last fraction of a second, though, and know I was whizzing past the
drivers side as I flew off the road edge.

I came to a stop quickly in the deep gravel, picked up the front
wheel, spun around and stormed toward the driver's side of the stopped
car, yelling something to the effect of, "What do you think you're
doing?!" (but much, much more colorfully expressed)

The car is now stopped *entirely* on the wrong side of the road - its
left front fender at the fog line right about where I just went off
the edge. The driver's window is open. Adrenaline influenced
frothing uncontrollably, I stick my head right almost into it. The
driver, a ~30ish looking woman with glasses on, says, "Sorry, I didn't
see you."

Of course I am too livid to carry on a rational discussion or calmy
ask what they're doing on that side of the road, but she must have
sensed I was trying to ask that (I don't know - maybe I did), and she
says, "I was going over there", and points into the darkness somewhere
off the side of the road ahead of here car.

Neither she nor her male passenger seemed too concerned about what had
happened (or what had almost happened), but neither did they strike me
as even remotely homicidal. It's kind of weird that they didn't seem
more shaken up, but maybe they figured I was shaken up enough for
everybody involved. I didn't smell alcohol or anything like that.
The weird thing is, I think maybe they *weren't* trying to hit me.
They never said what they were doing driving the worng way on that
side of the road or what was up ahead there on the far left, but I
think it might have been mailboxes at the head of a driveway, and I
think they might have been delivering papers or something. But they
and I were the only things moving in that little town at that time of
morning, and I very damn near hit that inverse lottery that Peter
mentioned not too long ago.

[James]

> WHEN I ride on a sidewalk I have chosen to do so because it's
> empty...if someone is there, I defer to them...Baltimore is a pretty
> hip little village and pedestrians one day are bikers the next...
>
> I am only too happy to pull up to a wall, stop, hand on wall for
> balance...give a top of the day, and proceed when appropriate....I
> always leave lots of time to get places so a pause a few times along a
> pedestrian way doesn't dent my schedule...so to you Frank, go in
> peace, do what you do...
>
> I have surrendered no rights, I am not frustrated, I DO understand
> what I am doing, I do weigh risks...I've been up on 2 wheels for 55
> years and Im still spinning...why you choose to assume I invade
> crosswalks, make suprise moves, challenge motorists in any way, or
> frustrate them by impedeing their flow, is at a minimum, speculation.
>
> ...you sound like one of those guys i sometimes see, pounding your
> pedals uphill, with 10 cars behind trying to pass....exercising your
> rights.
>
> ....and you say I'm popping around blind corners in alleyways...is
> that what you say? well frank, you go take your "standard road
> position", whatever you think that is....please don't try to explain
> it to me...your text is neither informative, nor fun to read...and
> when you get home from one of your fun rides, please thank your lucky
> stars some texting teen hasn't invaded your standard road position.

Frank has that effect on others too. Hope you don't feel special ;-)

--
JS.

[Duane Hebert]

Had a similar, though less hairy incident a couple of weekends ago. Was
a mail man who changed lanes against traffic to drop the mail off at a
mail box at the end of a farmer's driveway. 12 of us in the group at
speed. "Car up!" didn't really suffice.
Don't think he was trying to kill anyone but he was close enough
anyway. Except in this case, he was clearly rattled.

[James]

A lovely incident description, Dan. It took me a few moments to process
due to the riding on the other side of the road difference ;-)

> Had a similar, though less hairy incident a couple of weekends ago. Was
> a mail man who changed lanes against traffic to drop the mail off at a
> mail box at the end of a farmer's driveway. 12 of us in the group at
> speed. "Car up!" didn't really suffice.
> Don't think he was trying to kill anyone but he was close enough
> anyway. Except in this case, he was clearly rattled.

I knocked a paper delivery boy off his bike one day, many years ago. In
a group, I was riding down a gentle grade, possibly 3-4%. This paper
delivery boy decided to cross the road just ahead. We shouted. He
stopped in the middle of the road - at right angles to the flow. I was
furthest from the gutter, and didn't have room to dodge left, and there
was a car now coming the other way.

I was on the skids hard, and washed off most of the speed, so the impact
speed was not high, but I knocked him over and fell down myself.
Neither of us really hurt, but shaken and rattled none the less. Some
people do the most stupid things.

--
JS.

[Dan O]

The mail delivery cars and trucks here have right-side controls. The
motor "paper boys", not so much. Pretty sure it has to be illegal for
them to drive the wrong way, but at 5:30 in the morning when all the
other cagers are still in bed, I guess they get away with it.

> I knocked a paper delivery boy off his bike one day, many years ago.

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/19/the-newspaper-boy.html

I was one of them, too, once.

> In
> a group, I was riding down a gentle grade, possibly 3-4%. This paper
> delivery boy decided to cross the road just ahead. We shouted. He
> stopped in the middle of the road - at right angles to the flow.

Yikes!

> I was
> furthest from the gutter, and didn't have room to dodge left, and there
> was a car now coming the other way.
>
> I was on the skids hard, and washed off most of the speed, so the impact
> speed was not high, but I knocked him over and fell down myself.
> Neither of us really hurt, but shaken and rattled none the less.

I crashed into another bike one time - cornering hard - he had pulled
away from the stop sign and into the intersection when he saw me and
stopped like a deer in the headlights right in my path. No way I was
going to lift up and go to the outside with parked cars on that side
(I was hauling ass into the turn, and it was sort of foggy, so partly
my fault). I tried to cut to the inside, but was already near the
edge. Boom! Nailed his bike at the chainstay; tacoed my front
wheel. Had to carry / drag my bike the last mile or so to work.

> Some
> people do the most stupid things.
>

I am not immune from that syndrome myself, but do try to think, and to
benefit from learning opportunities.

[Duane Hebert]

Most do here as well but this was a small town outside of Montreal.
Sort of like Sam Drucker delivering the mail to Hooterville
on his way home. This was not 5:30 though. It was 9 or so. He had to
wait for the oncoming trucks to pass before he could cut over. Probably
why he didn't see us. Shit happens. We were all lucky that day.
Including him.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dan O:

>Neither she nor her male passenger seemed too concerned about what had
>happened (or what had almost happened), but neither did they strike me
>as even remotely homicidal.

I can't cite offhand, but you might be interested to find/read
author Stephen King's account of how he got his while walking
down the shoulder of a rural road - and about the guy who did
it... It was like something right out of one of his novels.
--
PeteCresswell

[Dan O]

I've read a bunch of his stuff. Had to stop with the novels after a
few in a row and I jumped at a shadow stepping off my porch :-) He's
a bit of a hack (no offense), but I really love some of the work in
(amng others) "Skeleton Crew", and ""Pet Semetary" is transcendent.

Monday morning was very much right out of the genre. Yet again in my
life, both sides of luck came together in a cosmic event.

[Duane Hebert]

Actually a lot like his Gunfighter series.

[kolldata]

On Sep 22, 8:48 pm, damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike

> infrastructure.http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709484/bike-infrastructure-hits-cong...

yeah yeah yeah an empty sidewalk out in the empty week day burbs
DOWNWIND !

it true yaknow, NPR is a buncha Commie Pinkos

[Radey Shouman]

_Pet Sematary_, in particular, practically makes a character of
hazardous rural New England traffic.

--

[Frank Krygowski]

On Sep 28, 1:47 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per Frank Krygowski:
>
> >If people are going to drive while distracted, I think I'm better off
> >not surprising them - by, say, riding on the sidewalk they're turning
> >across, or riding out into a crosswalk where they expect only 3 mph
> >pedestrians, or popping around a blind corner in an alleyway, etc.
>
> I would agree that anybody riding on a sidewalk that negotiates a
> crosswalk or any other intersection at more than a walking pace
> is somebody whose days are numbered.
>
> I would also opine that if one is riding on a sidewalk, they
> should be riding at less than a jogger's pace.

Yep. All that makes sense.

> >If I'm riding ahead of them in standard road position, they have to
> >glance up only once every 100 feet to notice me.  
>
> That did not seem to be the case for Bob Schwinn - who I used to
> windsurf with:  http://tinyurl.com/2g82suj

I know some of us know people who died on bikes, although none of my
friends have. But I've had at least five friends who died in car
crashes, and one who died on his motorcycle. As I've shown many
times, bike deaths are very rare. It's just not that bad out there.

> I can also think of at least three local people - who I've never
> spoken with, and whose names I don't even know.  All I know is
> that I'd see them almost daily riding where I would not choose to
> ride... and then they just disappeared from the scene...
> period.... never saw them again.   Sure, maybe all 3 decided to
> give up biking.... or maybe had some sort of other incident like
> an illness/injury/heart attack..... but I wouldn't stake my life
> on it.

The odds are either loss of interest or "some other incident." I'd
think if they were killed or terribly injured, you'd have read about
it, no? And those "other incidents" outnumber bike deaths by more
than 1000 to one. We've been over the data.

> My suspicion is that accidents caused by texting, doing email,
> and operating a cell phone are grossly under-reported - after
> all, who in their right mind is going to volunteer that's what
> they were doing when they killed or maimed somebody?

I'm all for serious penalties on distracted drivers. But I'm aware
that the evidence of greatly increased danger is pretty weak. Again,
2009 (the year with the most recent data AFAIK) the national count of
bike fatalities dropped very significantly compared to previous
years. Just 630 deaths when 700 is more common. And by all accounts,
cycling is significantly up.

In any case, I'm still not worried when I ride. I'm certainly not
ready to abandon the road for the sidewalk. To me, _that_ would be
scary.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Sep 28, 5:21 pm, charlie flaherty <nipponco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 1:20 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > > Per charlie flaherty:
>
> > >> For someone who rides everywhere, everyday, sidewalks have to be part
> > >> of the route...
>

> > >  Whole books have been written

> > > describing how to ride.  ...

Fine.

>   I have surrendered no rights, I am not frustrated, I DO understand
> what I am doing, I do weigh risks...I've been up on 2 wheels for 55
> years and Im still spinning...

OK, that's nearly as long as I have.

> why you choose to assume I invade
> crosswalks, make suprise moves, challenge motorists in any way, or
> frustrate them by impedeing their flow, is at a minimum, speculation.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I did not say you did those
things.

I will say that many, if not most, sidewalk cyclists put themselves in
more danger than they would be riding the street, probably because
they don't understand the sidewalk's hazards. I can cite quite a few
good studies showing that sidewalk riding is much more dangerous.

It's possible to ride safely on many sidewalks. You just have to
remember to ride slowly, at less than jogging speed. You need to
watch for cars crossing the sidewalk from both directions (including
back, over your shoulder) at every intersection and every driveway,
and realize they probably won't see you, so be ready to do an
emergency stop. You need to watch out for pedestrians, and realize
that they may move in any direction with no warning. You need to
watch out for collision hazards like telephone poles, planters, signs,
stairways, etc. You need to watch for bad pavement surfaces,
sometimes really bad, including even surprise steps. You need to not
let your wheel drop off the sharp lateral edge of many sidewalks,
which can cause an instantaneous fall. You need to watch out for
other sidewalk riders coming at you or passing you, and recognize that
even if you're skilled and careful, most sidewalk riders are
definitely not.

In other words, you can't act as if you're in a safer environment.
The sidewalk is more dangerous. The numbers have been measured many
times.

>    ...you sound like one of those guys i sometimes see, pounding your
> pedals uphill, with 10 cars behind trying to pass....exercising your
> rights.

Well, I don't recall ever having ten cars waiting behind me, but I
suppose it might have happened briefly on the short hill by the
library in town. It's OK. The police know very well that cyclists
have full rights to the road, and they expect me (and other riders) to
exercise them.

> ....and you say I'm popping around blind corners in alleyways...is
> that what you say?

No, Charlie, that's not what I said. Re-read the above.

> well frank, you go take your "standard road
> position", whatever you think that is....please don't try to explain
> it to me...your text is neither informative, nor fun to read...

IIRC, the surveys typically show over 85% of people think of
themselves as "above average" drivers. Nobody ever seems to poll the
cyclists, but I'm sure at least 85% of bicyclists consider themselves
super-competent, too. And with members of both groups, any hint that
they should improve, or even learn anything at all, is taken as an
insult. Oddly, they all seem to think they already know everything,
without ever having to crack a book, read an article or take a class.

I'll admit, I don't know how to fix that problem.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Sep 28, 5:48 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ....

> They never said what they were doing driving the worng way on that
> side of the road or what was up ahead there on the far left, but I
> think it might have been mailboxes at the head of a driveway, and I

> think they might have been delivering papers or something. ...


Yep, you have to be ready for anything. FWIW, if you were on a
motorcycle, you'd probably have been hit head on.

BTW, you never mentioned yelling _before_ they came all the way
across. Did you?

I'm very willing to give a loud yell any time I'd honk a car horn.
I've certainly gotten motorists attention that way.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Sep 28, 7:08 pm, Duane Hebert <s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
>
> Had a similar, though less hairy incident a couple of weekends ago.  Was
> a mail man who changed lanes against traffic to drop the mail off at a
> mail box at the end of a farmer's driveway.  12 of us in the group at
> speed.  "Car up!" didn't really suffice.
> Don't think he was trying to kill anyone but he was close enough
> anyway.  Except in this case, he was clearly rattled.

With any incident like that which involves someone driving on their
job, it may make sense to get the plate number and any other vehicle
ID, and turn in a complaint. Employers _really_ don't want their
drivers hurting anyone.

- Frank Krygowski

[charlie flaherty]

On Sep 24, 12:43 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> David Scheidt wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@geemail.com>  wrote:
> > :with mandatory helmet laws, and now even with laws that require
> > :bicyclists to yield to ALL vehicles!  (Those are apparently Chicago and
> > :Flagstaff, both rated Silver Level by LAB.)
>
> > Please provide a citation to the statute that requires that in
> > Illinois.
>
> Sure.
>
> http://www.chicagobikes.org/bikelaws/?show=chicago
>
> "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near as
> practicable to the right-hand side of the roadway, exercising due care
> when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction
> and at all times giving the right-of-way to other moving vehicles."
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

...that statute was probably written by a bunch of auto industry ass
kissers...sounds like bikers have NO rights except to look out, pull
over, and otherwise bow down to the car...horse feathers...an ordenace
to this day that exonerates motorists who kill or injure
cyclists...what a pile of one sided bull shit

[Dan O]

On Sep 28, 9:54 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 5:48 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ....
> > They never said what they were doing driving the worng way on that
> > side of the road or what was up ahead there on the far left, but I
> > think it might have been mailboxes at the head of a driveway, and I
> > think they might have been delivering papers or something. ...
>
> Yep, you have to be ready for anything.

Meaningless.

> FWIW, if you were on a
> motorcycle, you'd probably have been hit head on.
>

What's your point?

> BTW, you never mentioned yelling _before_ they came all the way
> across.

BTW, I fully expect you to find failing in my thought and behavior.

> Did you?
>

No, Frank - in those precious critical milliseconds I did not endeavor
to engage the oncoming motorist in verbal communication. I focused on
decisive evasive action, which may have saved my life.

> I'm very willing to give a loud yell any time I'd honk a car horn.
> I've certainly gotten motorists attention that way.
>

You are amazing.

[Frank Krygowski]

Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> The police here aid criminally irresponsible driving instead of
> penalising it, so it's no wonder the fuckwits are worse than they used
> to be.

This seems to be a widespread problem, and not only for bicyclists.
Pedestrians suffer as well.

On last nights news, there was a report about the sentencing of a young
woman who ran over a 12-year-old schoolboy. The woman ran a red light
and severely injured the boy, who was crossing the street in a
crosswalk. She fled the scene, but witnesses pursued her and made sure
she was apprehended. The boy spent about two weeks in intensive care
and had to have his spleen removed, which will affect the rest of his life.

Yesterday, the judge sentenced the offender to just ten days in jail,
and suspended her driver's license for just one year. I think it's a
travesty.

I'd like to learn more about the "strict liability" laws in northern
Europe, where motorists are supposedly actually held accountable for
their offenses.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Dan O wrote:
> On Sep 28, 9:54 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 5:48 pm, Dan O<danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ....
>>> They never said what they were doing driving the worng way on that
>>> side of the road or what was up ahead there on the far left, but I
>>> think it might have been mailboxes at the head of a driveway, and I
>>> think they might have been delivering papers or something. ...
>>
>> Yep, you have to be ready for anything.
>
> Meaningless.

How about "Watch for any vehicle that makes a crazy move, and be ready
to take evasive action"? Can you understand that meaning?

>
>> FWIW, if you were on a
>> motorcycle, you'd probably have been hit head on.
>>
>
> What's your point?

The point is, the fact that you were on a bicycle instead of a
motorcycle probably saved you from serious injury.

>> BTW, you never mentioned yelling _before_ they came all the way
>> across.
>
> BTW, I fully expect you to find failing in my thought and behavior.

And I fully expect you to pretend - despite the considerable evidence
you've given here - that your riding is perfect and could not possibly
be improved. I expect you to demonstrate yet again that you're not
willing to learn anything.

>> Did you?
>>
>
> No, Frank - in those precious critical milliseconds I did not endeavor
> to engage the oncoming motorist in verbal communication.

It's hardly "verbal communication" in the usual sense. It's yelling,
loudly. Why not yell? Are you trying to be discreet and polite, to not
disturb a motorist who's risking your life? Grow some balls, Dan.

I yell at motorists whenever necessary. Just a couple days ago, I
yelled at a driver backing quickly down his driveway, because I wasn't
sure he saw me (and my wife - we were on a tandem). It worked. He hit
the brakes and looked directly at us as he stopped. Why not yell?

> I focused on
> decisive evasive action, which may have saved my life.

Yelling can also save your life, and there's no reason not to do both.
Add it to your capabilities.

>> I'm very willing to give a loud yell any time I'd honk a car horn.
>> I've certainly gotten motorists attention that way.
>>
>
> You are amazing.

And you are devoted to not learning anything, aren't you?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[charlie flaherty]

> - Show quoted text -

Frank
On my ride home last evening i paid close attention to my
sidewalk use and thought about why i do so
...it's funny but certain pieces of specific commutes become "the way"
and why we chose certain bits of the commute were fashioned long ago
and one just incorporates this to that, that with this, and no need to
rethink it...

...so when i exit the street to a sidewalk it is to use the smooth
transition of certain curb cuts,up the sidewalk a little ways, back to
the street, to avoid hazzardous transitions turning up an alley from a
street, street to an alley...
...the city has been repaving for several years now [stimulous
money]...and as the engineers tag it all together, they often leave
raised hard edges, awaiting [and waiting] for new surface to be laid
right up to those edges...so smooth driveways to sidewalk, smooth curb
cuts to sidewalk, always leading back to the street saves my rims,
allows me to keep rolling without miniture curb hopping all along my
route. 90% of my rides are in the street, with traffic, "standard road
position", going at a pace that while not rivaling motorized vehicles,
is in the flow...
...besides finding my proper place to allow flow around me, looking
back when safe to see what's coming up... see if cars are stopped at
the light behind me, if so, i can take more road and chug on up the
many little hills in this city...

...and as you do, i have yelled plenty at an oblivious motorist just
to get them to look around so i can have eye contact, and use common
hand signals to wave them on, or point to the path i want, and do a
quick read to see if we're in TOTAL agreement...people in cars aren't
dumb, mostly, and are willing partners as long as their rights are not
infringed upon according to long established and well know rules of
the road...drivers will do dumb things when frustrated, so i've chosen
many times to just stop, and let certain packs of vehicles pass me by,
and leave them to their own in fighting.

...i love to drive, have many miles under my belt, same w/
motorcycles...as well as the bicycle. I don't claim to be god's gift
in any of those deciplines...but I do know how to keep myself
safe...and i do know when i'm in a tricky position, and what i need to
do to NOT be challenging motorists for road space, or putting
pedestrians at risk on THEIR walkways.

...in this city, at this time, i have found my place on the hiways and
biways AND walkways so as to connect my dots and be pretty visable,
and invisable...as required.

...if I would have a commuting fear to express, it would be the door
openers far more than infringement of my road space...baltimore is an
old city, and when speeds are too high, volumn too great,space for me
too small, I just beat it to a road less traveled....

...peace frank, enjoy your bike and be safe

charlie flaherty
baltimore maryland

[Dan O]

On Sep 29, 10:53 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> Dan O wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 9:54 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 28, 5:48 pm, Dan O<danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> ....
> >>> They never said what they were doing driving the worng way on that
> >>> side of the road or what was up ahead there on the far left, but I
> >>> think it might have been mailboxes at the head of a driveway, and I
> >>> think they might have been delivering papers or something. ...
>
> >> Yep, you have to be ready for anything.
>
> > Meaningless.
>
> How about "Watch for any vehicle that makes a crazy move, and be ready
> to take evasive action"? Can you understand that meaning?
>

Goes without saying; meaningless.

Nobody can ever be ready for everything. All anybody can do is learn
as they go and do their best and hope its enough when it really
matters.

>
>
> >> FWIW, if you were on a
> >> motorcycle, you'd probably have been hit head on.
>
> > What's your point?
>
> The point is, the fact that you were on a bicycle instead of a
> motorcycle probably saved you from serious injury.
>

What likely saved me from serious injury or worse was situational
awareness, quick versatile response, and a conditioned willingness
without hesitation to leave the road at speed.

> >> BTW, you never mentioned yelling _before_ they came all the way
> >> across.
>
> > BTW, I fully expect you to find failing in my thought and behavior.
>
> And I fully expect you to pretend - despite the considerable evidence
> you've given here - that your riding is perfect and could not possibly
> be improved.

Oh but there's no shortage of evidence that you find my thought and
behavior faulty. Where I have I ever pretended that my riding is
perfect and could not possibly be improved? I'll trade you citation
for citation.

> I expect you to demonstrate yet again that you're not
> willing to learn anything.
>

I well appreciate the constant learning opportunities life offers, and
thoughtfully reflect on them, and try to be open minded.

> >> Did you?
>
> > No, Frank - in those precious critical milliseconds I did not endeavor
> > to engage the oncoming motorist in verbal communication.
>
> It's hardly "verbal communication" in the usual sense. It's yelling,
> loudly. Why not yell? Are you trying to be discreet and polite, to not
> disturb a motorist who's risking your life?

I focused my faculties on more effective action.

> Grow some balls, Dan.
>

No comment (but say that to my face and see what it gets you, pansy).

> I yell at motorists whenever necessary. Just a couple days ago, I
> yelled at a driver backing quickly down his driveway, because I wasn't
> sure he saw me (and my wife - we were on a tandem). It worked. He hit
> the brakes and looked directly at us as he stopped.

Apples and oranges... no - apples and string beans... no - pinto beans
and watermelons...

> Why not yell?
>

It's 5:30 AM and ~50 degrees F outside. What are the chances that the
oncoming driver will hear me inside the car, realize the source,
notice me, correct their course and veer off? There are less than two
seconds before imminent impact. And what are the chances they don't
see me and just happen to be driving across the road the wrong way on
a direct head on collision course? In my mind at that moment (and it
was just the shortest of moments), I believed they knew I was there
and were targeting me. How else ot explain what they were doing (the
paper boy thing was never established - just a post incident analysis
speculation of mine that sort of fit). This wasn't a consideration at
the time, but suppose they heard me yell right before impact; wouldn't
that just be bonus points? Yelling may be a fully automatic response
for you, but I think you probably formulate and deliver a message,
even if only, "Hey! [I'm riding here!]". That takes processing cycles
and deliberate action. I sort of know how my brain works, and it was
working full tilt on the problem at the time, did a damn good job, and
pulled me through, but just barely. This situation and your "backing
down the driveway" scenario are so different, I think maybe you just
might have been creamed here - shrieking your ass off all the way.

I frequently find myself reflecting in hindsight on what I might have
done differently for a better outcome, but in this instance I can't
find much. The chief lessons seem to be a reinforcement of the
importance of situational awaremeness, and the dire hazards that
bicycling around motor traffic may present.

> > I focused on
>
> > decisive evasive action, which may have saved my life.
>
> Yelling can also save your life, and there's no reason not to do both.

Oh but there is. See above re; how my brain works, processing cycles,
focus, action, and available time.

> Add it to your capabilities.
>

I'm capable of yelling, and sometimes do. I just don't rely on
verbally engaging a driver to alter their course of action in a split
secoond when it really matters, preferring to focus my efforts more
effectively escaping the threat. If I was just standing there and
couldn't take evasive action, I guess I probably would have yelled at
them.

Suppose - in light of events and circumstances as described - suppose
I had yelled *instead* of bailing out. What do you suppose my chances
would have been? Suppose I had yelled *and* bailed out. At best it
would have been the same outcome, right? At worst (and altogether
conceivable) they might have heard me yell, looked up from the
newspaper or whatever, saw a bicycle about to fly over their hood,
freaked out and cut the wheel hard left (the direction they were
already veering)... ouch! Suppose they looked up and freaked out and
cut the wheel hard right (while already veering left) and flipped or
spun the car as I whizzed by the drivers side.

So all I can say is fuck you.

> >> I'm very willing to give a loud yell any time I'd honk a car horn.
> >> I've certainly gotten motorists attention that way.
>
> > You are amazing.
>
> And you are devoted to not learning anything, aren't you?
>

Okay, you got me :-) That's my devotion. Just another dumb lucky
bastard, I guess ;-)

[James]

Dan O wrote:
> On Sep 29, 10:53 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Dan O wrote:
>>> On Sep 28, 9:54 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 28, 5:48 pm, Dan O<danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ....
>>>>> They never said what they were doing driving the worng way on that
>>>>> side of the road or what was up ahead there on the far left, but I
>>>>> think it might have been mailboxes at the head of a driveway, and I
>>>>> think they might have been delivering papers or something. ...
>>>> Yep, you have to be ready for anything.
>>> Meaningless.
>> How about "Watch for any vehicle that makes a crazy move, and be ready
>> to take evasive action"? Can you understand that meaning?
>>
>
> Goes without saying; meaningless.
>
> Nobody can ever be ready for everything. All anybody can do is learn
> as they go and do their best and hope its enough when it really
> matters.
>

I love the crazy slow moves. Is he going to go? Will he stop? Has he
seen me? Should I dodge right because he is stopping? Should I dodge
left because I thin khe might go?

Sometimes they are worse than the fast moves. At least the fast ones
are over and done with, and there's less time for indecision!

>>>> FWIW, if you were on a
>>>> motorcycle, you'd probably have been hit head on.
>>> What's your point?
>> The point is, the fact that you were on a bicycle instead of a
>> motorcycle probably saved you from serious injury.
>>
>
> What likely saved me from serious injury or worse was situational
> awareness, quick versatile response, and a conditioned willingness
> without hesitation to leave the road at speed.

What, you gave up your right to the road?! Shame, shame shame... ;-)

>>>> BTW, you never mentioned yelling _before_ they came all the way
>>>> across.
>>> BTW, I fully expect you to find failing in my thought and behavior.
>> And I fully expect you to pretend - despite the considerable evidence
>> you've given here - that your riding is perfect and could not possibly
>> be improved.
>
> Oh but there's no shortage of evidence that you find my thought and
> behavior faulty. Where I have I ever pretended that my riding is
> perfect and could not possibly be improved? I'll trade you citation
> for citation.

Next comes the F.U., and not without deservedness!

>> Grow some balls, Dan.
>>
>
> No comment (but say that to my face and see what it gets you, pansy).

Ooo - I can see an F.U. coming Frank's way, any second now....

You might have started to move left to go around them, and when you
yelled they realised their mistake and swerved right - straight into
your escape route!

Sometimes it's best not to yell, and just avoid.

>> > I focused on
>>
>>> decisive evasive action, which may have saved my life.
>> Yelling can also save your life, and there's no reason not to do both.
>
> Oh but there is. See above re; how my brain works, processing cycles,
> focus, action, and available time.
>
>> Add it to your capabilities.
>>
>
> I'm capable of yelling, and sometimes do. I just don't rely on
> verbally engaging a driver to alter their course of action in a split
> secoond when it really matters, preferring to focus my efforts more
> effectively escaping the threat. If I was just standing there and
> couldn't take evasive action, I guess I probably would have yelled at
> them.
>
> Suppose - in light of events and circumstances as described - suppose
> I had yelled *instead* of bailing out. What do you suppose my chances
> would have been? Suppose I had yelled *and* bailed out. At best it
> would have been the same outcome, right? At worst (and altogether
> conceivable) they might have heard me yell, looked up from the
> newspaper or whatever, saw a bicycle about to fly over their hood,
> freaked out and cut the wheel hard left (the direction they were
> already veering)... ouch! Suppose they looked up and freaked out and
> cut the wheel hard right (while already veering left) and flipped or
> spun the car as I whizzed by the drivers side.
>
> So all I can say is fuck you.

Yup - I knew it was coming. Inevitable and well deserved ;-)

>>>> I'm very willing to give a loud yell any time I'd honk a car horn.
>>>> I've certainly gotten motorists attention that way.
>>> You are amazing.
>> And you are devoted to not learning anything, aren't you?
>>
>
> Okay, you got me :-) That's my devotion. Just another dumb lucky
> bastard, I guess ;-)
>

Never fear. One day Frank's luck will run out. It has to other birds
of his feather.

--
JS.

[Dan O]

On Sep 29, 6:48 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> You might have started to move left to go around them, and when you
> yelled they realised their mistake and swerved right - straight into
> your escape route!
>

Interestingly enough, as I watched them beginning to move across the
road toward my side, the first most prominent evasive option sort of
seemed to the left, but that would take time on a bike, would put *me*
on the wrong side of the road, too, while they should still be
expected to correct their errant course and get in their own lane
(without being yelled at to do it), in which case I would be
splattered all over the wrong side of the road when the cleanup crew
arrived - bad outcome *and* my fault.

Since Frank mentioned a motorcycle (but not swimming, or basketball),
and given their bearing, I think I *might* have gone left around them
on a motorcycle - much quicker to whip around that way and be done and
gone than a bicycle, still having the left edge to bail if necessary;
but a bicycle would be hanging out there way too long to risk it.

<snip>

[Michael Press]

In article <bd6987t5sts5mun26...@4ax.com>,
Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:


[...]

> I had one in Cambridge, when I was actually (unusual for me) riding in
> a well marked mandatory (in the UK that means it's illegal for motor
> vehicles to enter it, not that it is mandatory for cyclists to use it)
> cycle lane.
> I was confronted by a taxi driving towards me, on the wrong side of
> the road, and fully in the cycle lane, looking intently at the house
> numbers to find the right address for her pickup.
> I stopped completely, but she kept on coming until I started pounding
> one her bonnet (hood), with my bike being pushed backwards.
>
> I blocked her in place and called the police, refusing to let her
> leave until they got there.
>
> When they arrived, they threatened ME with arrest for unlawful
> detention. Dangerous driving is an indictable (and therefore
> arrestable) offence, and I had done no more than detain her until the
> police arrived and given her over to their custody (i.e. arrested her
> in a completely lawful manner) but the police didn't seem to know that
> any such procedure exists (how in the hell did they aver get warrant
> cards?).

Do you _know_ that you may lawfully detain the driver
in that particular circumstance? I would tell the
driver that I am calling the police, and request that
the driver remain on the scene. Get the registration
tag number, and a complete physical description of the
driver. Write it down. Write down a complete report of
the incident, then call the police and make a citizen's
arrest on the driver. You can do that whether the driver
remains on the scene or does not.

> A couple of weeks later I got a letter informing me that they had
> decided not to take any proceedings against ME, and completely
> ignoring her unlawful and dangerous behaviour.

If it mattered enough to me to complain on usenet about
my ill treatment, I would have retained legal counsel
in the first place. When it comes to asserting my rights
I like to think inside the box.

> I should have just gouged the side of the taxi with a pedal to make it
> unfit for service (that would have cost her more than any fine) and
> ridden away.

Really?

> The police here aid criminally irresponsible driving instead of
> penalising it, so it's no wonder the fuckwits are worse than they used
> to be.

Somehow I manage to gain the respect of law officers.
Cannot figure that out.

--
Michael Press

[DirtRoadie]

On Sep 29, 7:48 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Never fear.  One day Frank's luck will run out.  It has to other birds
> of his feather.

That's a day I look forward to hearing about - without any skewed
statistical analysis.

DR

[Frank Krygowski]

Dan O wrote:
> On Sep 29, 10:53 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>
>> Why not yell?
>>
>
> It's 5:30 AM and ~50 degrees F outside. What are the chances that the
> oncoming driver will hear me inside the car, realize the source,
> notice me, correct their course and veer off?

In my experience, pretty good. The experience I described with the
driver backing out? That was just a recent one, but it's hardly unique.
Those people stop despite their windows being rolled up. I've yelled
at drivers in other situations as well and been heard, and properly
reacted to. I've even had motorists roll down windows and say "I'm sorry."

Furthermore, if the person was crossing to the wrong side of the road to
insert a newspaper into a box, as you speculate, they probably had their
driver's window open.

But it's more a question of "Why not yell?" You can do that before it
you evade, if you pay enough attention to note the possibility of their
bad move. And it's pretty unrealistic to say it's impossible to shout
and brake or swerve simultaneously, if it comes to that.

> Yelling may be a fully automatic response
> for you, but I think you probably formulate and deliver a message,
> even if only, "Hey! [I'm riding here!]".

I can formulate "Hey!" in less than 1/10 second. If you can't, you
should probably practice. Again: Why not?

> ... I think maybe you just

> might have been creamed here - shrieking your ass off all the way.

Yeah, right, Dan. You're the guy who describes riding drunk, crashing
while doing wheelies, surprising and shocking cagers by violating rules
of the road, and now almost getting creamed yourself. I'm the guy who's
ridden all over this continent and in many European countries with no
problems and only two minor on-road falls in 40+ years. Yet you think I
couldn't have handled your little incident.

> Suppose - in light of events and circumstances as described - suppose
> I had yelled *instead* of bailing out.

Why on earth would anyone ever consider those to be mutually exclusive
alternatives?? Does your car have a horn but no brakes??

> So all I can say is fuck you.

Just as classy and impressive as always!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

One of the closer calls I have had in the last few years happened at a T
intersection within a mile of my home. I was heading east on the
crossbar of the T. The intersecting road comes from the south, and has
the only stop sign. At that time there was a line of cars waiting to
turn left, as there frequently is.

Two cars were a short distance ahead of me. Having spent, collectively,
hours of my life waiting at that intersection, I accelerated to give the
poor devils a chance to turn. In retrospect I should have moved to the
center of the lane to make myself more visible, but I did not.

The guy at the head of the line was driving a pickup truck. He was of
middle years, had neither a cell phone in his hand nor a dog on his lap,
and appeared to be looking directly at me. Nevertheless, he began
rolling into the intersection immediately after the second car cleared
it.

It seemed certain that I would run into his vehicle, and, lacking better
ideas, I yelled "Hey dude!". He got a surpised look on his face, and,
thankfully, stopped where he was -- I had to make only a slight detour.

His window was open, and I was facing it, rather than the windshield.
Only a few feet separated us. I doubt that verbal communication actually
saved my life, but I'm was quite happy to have tried it.

--

[Dan O]

On Sep 30, 4:34 pm, Radey Shouman <shou...@comcast.net> wrote:

Mine was in pitch dark. I could see neither driver, cell phone, dog,
etc. It was cold outside so vehicles presumably sealed (I went back
to the spot today in daylight - mailboxes all on other side of the
road - paper boy theory is out) - coming at me wrong way head on -
less than two seconds from realization of problem to conclusion - no
time to waste on yelling or surprised looks - having better ideas, I
got out of it.

[Duane Hebert]

Dan, you know you won't get anywhere with any explanation that what you
did depended
on the circumstances. Sometime yelling at the driver works. Sometime
you can feel better
by yelling at the idiot only after avoiding a collision.

I found out the hard way that yelling at someone on a bike doesn't
always work. Kid coming at
me over an overpass on the wrong side of the street. Yelled but he had
on ear buds. I had to
bail to the left into the center lane where I fell in front of a car.
Luckily the driver was aware of what
was happening and stopped. Actually got out and helped me up.

Doesn't mean that I never yell at drivers. I don't know any cyclist
that doesn't.

Must be easy to live in a world that is black/white, yes/no,
true/false. Sounds boring though.
I suspect that you have to be an "expert" to exist in such a place.

[charlie flaherty]

On Sep 28, 1:00 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per charlie flaherty:
>
>
>
> >... to vary one's route, don't lock into a
> >pattern and begin to assume things...
>
> That's been my one reservation about the mirror I began using a
> few months ago.  Occasionally I find myself acting as if I know
> what's behind me even though I haven't checked the mirror within
> the window dictated by speed of closing traffic.
>
> >As long as people continue to speed in town, talk on cell phones, not
> >use turn signals, run lights, and sneek up behind you and blast their
> >horns...

> >For someone who rides everywhere, everyday, sidewalks have to be part
> >of the route...
>

> I have yet to be challenged by anybody on my riding practices,
> but if/when I do, I think my response will be something like:
>
> "Yes, you are in good company.  Whole books have been written
> describing how to ride.  You are in complete agreement with those
> books' recommendations and I am in violation of them."
>
> (Well, WTF are you doing it then....?)

>
> "But I would propose that none of those books were written in the
> context of people routinely exceeding the speed limit by 15+ mph,
> talking on cell phones, texting, and/or doing email while
> steering with their knees."

> --
> PeteCresswell

I wanted to circle back to agree with Pete's observation...all the
various state laws on texting, cell phone use in automobiles seem
largely to be unenforced, unless the cops need cause for a vehicle
they target...like the broken tail lite routine...
...and most safety studies and recommendations work off the premise
that all parties are observing the law and following posted speed
limits...and that simply is not now, nor ever has been the real world
...so when i get from A to B without personal injury, have not caused
an accident, havn't been yelled at, havn't had a horn blown my way,
havn't disturbed or scared anyone on a walkway, I think I've done
about all I can do mixing with cars on roads originally laid out for
horse and carriage.
charlie flaherty
baltimore maryland

[Frank Krygowski]

charlie flaherty wrote:
> On Sep 28, 1:00 pm, "(PeteCresswell)"<x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "But I would propose that none of those books were written in the
>> context of people routinely exceeding the speed limit by 15+ mph,
>> talking on cell phones, texting, and/or doing email while
>> steering with their knees."
>

> I wanted to circle back to agree with Pete's observation...all the
> various state laws on texting, cell phone use in automobiles seem
> largely to be unenforced, unless the cops need cause for a vehicle
> they target...like the broken tail lite routine...

I agree, in most places those laws seem to be unenforced. This may
change, just as enforcement of the laws for drunken driving changed once
MADD made it a political issue.

But in general, cops don't seem to enforce the letter of the law (just
as with speed limits). They tend to enforce the laws as modified by
society's expectations.

My suburban village is routinely called a "speed trap." Why? Because
as the village residents prefer, the cops ticket people driving 35 in a
25 zone. Can you imagine the nerve those cops?

> ...and most safety studies and recommendations work off the premise
> that all parties are observing the law and following posted speed
> limits...and that simply is not now, nor ever has been the real world

I've got to disagree on what you claim is the premise for the
recommendations. What we're talking about is known as Vehicular
Cycling, and it's been taught, tried and tested in the real world for at
least 35 years in America. It has thousands and thousands of users who
show it works in this very real world.

Regarding the studies: Every study I know of that compared (say)
sidewalk riding with proper road riding was done by measuring actual
crash rates in the real world. For example, Aultman-Hall's studies of
crash rates in Ottawa and Toronto commuters were done by hanging very
detailed survey forms on the parked bikes of city bike commuters. See
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/aultman.html

Respondents were asked to mark their commuting routes, and to show where
they road streets and where they rode sidewalks (etc.). They were asked
detailed questions about their riding, and about the number of crashes
and where they occurred. Sidewalks turned out to be many times more
dangerous than streets. "For Ottawa, both the fall rate and injury rate
on sidewalks were four times higher than on roads. In Toronto, 9 and 6.4
times higher respectively." That's all "real world."

> ...so when i get from A to B without personal injury, have not caused
> an accident, havn't been yelled at, havn't had a horn blown my way,
> havn't disturbed or scared anyone on a walkway, I think I've done
> about all I can do mixing with cars on roads originally laid out for
> horse and carriage.

Don't let the horn honking or yelling bother you. Driving makes some
people rude. Those jerks are a small minority. Ignore them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Sep 30, 9:03 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 10:53 am, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> > wrote:

Boy, you've really chopped the shit out of my post, quoting bits and
pieces out of context, avoiding specific questions entirely, and
failed to indicate your edits omitting explanations, but anyway...

>
> >> Why not yell?
>
> > It's 5:30 AM and ~50 degrees F outside. What are the chances that the
> > oncoming driver will hear me inside the car, realize the source,
> > notice me, correct their course and veer off?
>
> In my experience, pretty good. The experience I described with the
> driver backing out? That was just a recent one, but it's hardly unique.
> Those people stop despite their windows being rolled up. I've yelled
> at drivers in other situations as well and been heard, and properly
> reacted to. I've even had motorists roll down windows and say "I'm sorry."
>

This is really getting ridiculous. You weren't there. I was.

> Furthermore, if the person was crossing to the wrong side of the road to
> insert a newspaper into a box, as you speculate, they probably had their
> driver's window open.
>

Maybe, but I made that speculation after the fact, and nearly all cars
have their windows closed in those conditions, so it's a reasonable
default assumption, diminishes the value of yelling, which in this
case did not seem a worthwhile measure given speed, distance,
trajectory, timing, and my survival instincts.

(I went back yesterday in daylight, and my recollection of time,
space,
orientation, etc. was surprisingly accurate. Also, the crossing the
road for
newspaper delivery theory is out, taking us back to malice or
something
else very weird. I can tell you that this little town - while full of
many very
nice folks - is known for some things like meth tweakers and dog
poisonings.)

> But it's more a question of "Why not yell?" You can do that before it
> you evade, if you pay enough attention to note the possibility of their
> bad move.

I said pretty clearly that by the time this car was doing anything
that might warrant yelling about (failing to trim their turn and get
in their own lane, there were like two seconds left, and even then
was not posing an imminent danger to me yet anyway - not until
a second later when they began accelerating on a diagonal course
toward me, at which point I had maybe a second or less to act, and
did.

Your default response may very well be to yell. Mine is not. (I will
save myself looking up all your anecdotes about yelling at this person
or that person to shape up and listen to Frank.) We understand you're
out there to dictate the one right Krygowski-endorsed way to everyone
- directing traffic, etc.

> And it's pretty unrealistic to say it's impossible to shout
> and brake or swerve simultaneously, if it comes to that.
>

Not impossible - never said it was; but it is a divided effort.

> > Yelling may be a fully automatic response
> > for you, but I think you probably formulate and deliver a message,
> > even if only, "Hey! [I'm riding here!]".
>
> I can formulate "Hey!" in less than 1/10 second. If you can't, you
> should probably practice. Again: Why not?
>

I suppose I can, too; but it's still a conscious act, followed by a
deliberate physical act - one which includes things like head
aiming and focus of attention. And even delivered, it still depends
on processing and reaction by someone else for effect. My brain was
really cranking at working out what was going on and what to do about
it. No time to throw a monkey wrench into the works and start over
re-assessing if and when the thrown wrench has an effect.

I don't find my lack of instinctual shouting response leaves me
wanting
badly enough to train myself to behave like a dog.

I've given just a bit of thought to adrenaline surge and flooding and
so forth, too - something to think on more later, maybe. I don't
think
that I want to consciously mess with survival responses that have
served me very well over and over again.

But anyway, shame on you for faulting me like this. What a jerk.

> > ... I think maybe you just
> > might have been creamed here - shrieking your ass off all the way.
>
> Yeah, right, Dan. You're the guy who describes riding drunk, crashing
> while doing wheelies, surprising and shocking cagers by violating rules
> of the road, and now almost getting creamed yourself. I'm the guy who's
> ridden all over this continent and in many European countries with no
> problems and only two minor on-road falls in 40+ years. Yet you think I
> couldn't have handled your little incident.
>

(You're so awesome :-), and - while this incident was short in time -
that
you consider it "little" says a lot about your perspective and the
worth of
your advice, and you've snipped the explanation, but anyway... )

I think you seem so determined that yelling at the driver was the
right thing to do, refusing to acknowledge that doing so would be
almost entirely pointless and would take time, energy, and focus of
attention away from the more effective processes that worked in a
tight, critical time frame. You are so bent on lecturing me about
what you think I should have done... (I don't really think it's even
what you think I should have done, though you've rationalized it by
now with all your arguing. Rather, I think it's just whatever fault
you could contrive for my thought or actions, which you are now
hammering on like a dobermans chew toy... but I digress.)

Also, you are known to warn about the hazards of the road edge and
sudden transitions. We know you ride cautiously, and you might well
be more hesitant than I to leap off the road edge in the dark, and you
do not have my experience on the ragged edge of control, on all manner
of surfaces, you seem to really emphasize that communicating with the
driver was the key.. so yeah - while I got out of it alive and well,
yet
you are so insistent that I should have done something else... well...

> > Suppose - in light of events and circumstances as described - suppose
> > I had yelled *instead* of bailing out.
>
> Why on earth would anyone ever consider those to be mutually exclusive
> alternatives?? Does your car have a horn but no brakes??
>

I said "suppose". Then I also said suppose I did both. Then I said
it again, but you snipped all that - declining to offer your
speculation
on the outcomes.

Interesting analogy, though. Yes, I do have a car. And yes, it does
have a horn... and brakes. However, in an extremely critical life or
death emergency maneuvering situation, I would not mess around with
the horn button, but I think I would employ both of my hands and feet
more optimally focusing everything on the basic vehicle controls.
Yes,
a very apt analogy, thank you.

The bottom line is that my actions resulted in the best imaginable
outcome, and I can't find anything substantial that I might have done
differently for either a better outcome or to avoid the situation in
the first place; but you are simply bent on faulting me, and pursue
this
like the aforementioned doberman. Kind of sick.

> > So all I can say is fuck you.
>
> Just as classy and impressive as always!
>

And you just can't help yourself, but I don't care what you think, and
am finished farting around with you for now.

[Frank Krygowski]

Dan O wrote:
>
>
> But anyway, shame on you for faulting me like this. What a jerk.
>
...
>

> The bottom line is that my actions resulted in the best imaginable
> outcome, and I can't find anything substantial that I might have done
> differently for either a better outcome or to avoid the situation in
> the first place; but you are simply bent on faulting me, and pursue
> this
> like the aforementioned doberman. Kind of sick.

I think you need to go back and re-read what I first said to you in
response to your post. To quote:

"BTW, you never mentioned yelling _before_ they came all the way

across. Did you?

"I'm very willing to give a loud yell any time I'd honk a car horn.
I've certainly gotten motorists attention that way."

There was nothing in my post which faulted you. I respectfully asked a
question and politely described something I do - both of which are
completely normal in a discussion group. There was nothing the least
bit disrespectful in what I wrote.

In response to that, you IMMEDIATELY got very huffy and sarcastic:
"BTW, I fully expect you to find failing in my thought and behavior....

No, Frank - in those precious critical milliseconds I did not endeavor

to engage the oncoming motorist in verbal communication. I focused on
decisive evasive action, which may have saved my life...You are amazing."

Within two posts, you escalated to several screens of argument, long
explanations of why it's impossible for you to yell (??!), followed by
yet another "fuck you."

If you want to post scary incidents but don't want anyone to comment,
maybe you should label them "Please do not respond."

Meanwhile, I'll note again: There are LOTS of your posts I don't
respond to. Can you see why? It's like talking to a tantrum-prone
eight-year-old.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>and about the number of crashes
>and where they occurred. Sidewalks turned out to be many times more
>dangerous than streets.

I'll admit to just skimming here, but on the face of it equating
number of crashes to danger does not compute for me.

There are crashes and then there are *crashes*.

I suspect that survivability goes way down and severity of injury
goes way up when a motor vehicle is involved in the crash -
specifically where the motor vehicle hits or clips the cyclist.

OTOH, a "crash" on a sidewalk probably does not involve a motor
vehicle. After coming off the sidewalk into an intersection,
yes... but not *on* a sidewalk.

If I had to choose, I would take a 1:100 chance of a "crash" that
does not involve a motor vehicle over a 1:10000 chance of a
crash that involves getting hit by a motor vehicle. Actually, I
wouldn't volunteer for either.... but if I had to choose...
--
PeteCresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

But many crashes on sidewalks do involve motor vehicles. Those are the
cars that pull in and out of driveways or parking lots, driven by
motorists that don't expect something as fast-moving as a cyclist.

My own anecdote (posted before): I rode home from work on a different,
busier route, to hit a music store for a microphone cord. Traffic was
pretty much wall-to-wall on that four lane at 5 PM.

The music store didn't have the cord, but Circuit City was just a
hundred yards or so further on, with just one small store in between. I
looked at the oncoming traffic and how long I'd have to wait before
pulling out, then thought "Heck, I'll just ride slowly up the sidewalk."

At the one drive in between, a car whipped into a right turn and cut
across my path, missing me by a few feet.

Also, the time I came closest to hitting a cyclist, he was on a
sidewalk. I was slowly inching out of a blind driveway (building on my
left, tall hedge on my right) when he came zooming downhill & wrong-way
from my right as I looked left. I think a lot of drivers would have hit
him.

Bottom line, there's no way a typical sidewalk is safer than the road.
In some special cases, perhaps it may be - but not nearly as often as
many people think.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Nate Nagel]

That would have been your fault. you should pay more attention, slow
down, and drive more carefully.

Sound familiar, hypocrite?

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[charlie flaherty]

> - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Frank

I have to agree w/ Dan and Pete here...you just can't walk a mile
in anyone's shoes

It's your way ,or, it's your way...
no conceeding a single point, because you are right about everything
all the time
I personally look at a study, and agree or reject observations,
recommendations, advise as it pertains to my "real " world
conditions...

You have indeed given every poster to this topic a red ass...
...at this point I'm tired of beating a dead horse
best for me to be wrapping it up, on this, for now

You have held up a study's findings as the final word...hell, the only
word...
even though most here have told stories pointing out experiences at
odds w/ those findings...
...or maybe we're just 99 of the 100 who don't crash on the sidewalk
just maybe we use it seemlessly as a downhiller keeps adjusting his
path to make it to the bottom in one piece....

No, according to you, we're all fuck ups who don't get it...don't
understand.
Your schooling all of us serves only to isolate you, not edify anyone.
....but that's how you like it...the devil's advocate.
...this single topic has enlightened me as to how to deal w/ you in
the future...

My bottomline
you're a narrow minded tool.

over and out

charlie flaherty
baltimore
maryland

[AMuzi]

As the new 140,000 item Federal Medical Reporting/Billing
system will likely show, it's possible to accumulate
voluminous data, sometimes with great effort and expense,
while meaning eludes capture.

('torn artery' has dozens of reporting codes for each
arterial segment of the body. I'm not making this up. Merely
'torn artery' is now an unacceptable report! )

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[David Scheidt]

AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
:As the new 140,000 item Federal Medical Reporting/Billing

:system will likely show, it's possible to accumulate
:voluminous data, sometimes with great effort and expense,
:while meaning eludes capture.

:('torn artery' has dozens of reporting codes for each
:arterial segment of the body. I'm not making this up. Merely
:'torn artery' is now an unacceptable report! )

Your insurance company already required an equally detailed report,
except they want it in their format, which is no one elses.

--
sig 86

[Jay Beattie]

True. Everyone uses ICD codes and HCPCS/CPT codes. There is software
that ties the chart note to the billing codes, so its not like someone
is looking though some thick book to figure it out. I also don't think
providers are complaining about the Medicare/Medicaid reporting
requirements -- its the reimbursement rates.

-- Jay Beattie.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

The biggest problem around here is cyclists riding on the sidewalk and
riding across pedestrian crosswalks - which is illegal - and running
into the side of turning cars, or being clipped by turning cars who
are not expecting a 2 wheeled rocket in a pedestrian space.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>But many crashes on sidewalks do involve motor vehicles. Those are the
>cars that pull in and out of driveways or parking lots, driven by
>motorists that don't expect something as fast-moving as a cyclist.

Then we're arguing semantics. I agree 100% with the pulling out
thing. I just figured that at that point the accident was not
technically on the sidewalk. But, realistically, I can see
that it actually is part and parcel of sidewalk riding - *dumb*
side walk riding.... to be sure.
--
PeteCresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

Maybe that would have been my fault, Nate, had I hit him. But I was
slow and careful, so I did not hit him.

Should we mark you down as being in favor of sidewalk riding?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Oct 1, 1:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per Frank Krygowski:
> >> and about the number of crashes
> >> and where they occurred. Sidewalks turned out to be many times more
> >> dangerous than streets.
>
> > I'll admit to just skimming here, but on the face of it equating
> > number of crashes to danger does not compute for me.
>
> > There are crashes and then there are *crashes*.
>
> > I suspect that survivability goes way down and severity of injury
> > goes way up when a motor vehicle is involved in the crash -
> > specifically where the motor vehicle hits or clips the cyclist.
>
> > OTOH, a "crash" on a sidewalk probably does not involve a motor
> > vehicle. After coming off the sidewalk into an intersection,
> > yes... but not *on* a sidewalk.
>
> > If I had to choose, I would take a 1:100 chance of a "crash" that
> > does not involve a motor vehicle over a 1:10000 chance of a
> > crash that involves getting hit by a motor vehicle. Actually, I
> > wouldn't volunteer for either.... but if I had to choose...
>
> But many crashes on sidewalks do involve motor vehicles. Those are the
> cars that pull in and out of driveways or parking lots, driven by
> motorists that don't expect something as fast-moving as a cyclist.
>

Absolutely right. Any fast-moving must not be undertaken blithely.

However, sidewalk collisions *are* likely to be at much lower speed
than those on the road, should be easier to avoid with due attention,
owing to separation from the influence and distraction of other
traffic, and there may even be soft grass to land in :-) - not to
downplay the hazard. Unfortunately, too many of them probably involve
children.

> My own anecdote (posted before): I rode home from work on a different,
> busier route, to hit a music store for a microphone cord. Traffic was
> pretty much wall-to-wall on that four lane at 5 PM.
>
> The music store didn't have the cord, but Circuit City was just a
> hundred yards or so further on, with just one small store in between. I
> looked at the oncoming traffic and how long I'd have to wait before
> pulling out, then thought "Heck, I'll just ride slowly up the sidewalk."
>
> At the one drive in between, a car whipped into a right turn and cut
> across my path, missing me by a few feet.
>

I know you are have less experience riding on sidewalks, but as you
approach that "one drive", you have to be aware of *any* car anywhere
that *could* reach that drive coincident to your crossing it, and
consider the possibility. The law here sensibly requires bicyclists
to cross any driveway at a walking speed if any vehicle is present to
use that driveway.

> Also, the time I came closest to hitting a cyclist, he was on a
> sidewalk. I was slowly inching out of a blind driveway (building on my
> left, tall hedge on my right) when he came zooming downhill & wrong-way
> from my right as I looked left. I think a lot of drivers would have hit
> him.
>

I commend your cautious inching, but you must realize that sidewalk
traffic is bi-directional.

Yes, traveling on the sidewalk in the same direction as adjacent road
traffic is safer - because too many motorists are less concerned with
sidewalk traffic and only paying attention to expected motor vehicle
traffic - and this is part of that awareness of the unique hazards
found using sidewalks; but traveling either way is legitimate and
*should* be anticipated by motorists crossing sidewalks or crosswalks.

> Bottom line, there's no way a typical sidewalk is safer than the road.

Leaving aside the muddying qualifier "typical" - only because I think
maybe you mean that to also imply typical purposes of the bicyclist,
or the way a sidewalk is typically used by bicyclists - I think your
statement is too absolute, and contradicts what you say next.

> In some special cases, perhaps it may be - but not nearly as often as
> many people think.
>

Agreed.

[Nate Nagel]

On 10/01/2011 09:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> On 10/01/2011 04:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, the time I came closest to hitting a cyclist, he was on a
>>> sidewalk. I was slowly inching out of a blind driveway (building on my
>>> left, tall hedge on my right) when he came zooming downhill & wrong-way
>>> from my right as I looked left. I think a lot of drivers would have hit
>>> him.
>>
>>
>> That would have been your fault. you should pay more attention, slow
>> down, and drive more carefully.
>>
>> Sound familiar, hypocrite?
>
> Maybe that would have been my fault, Nate, had I hit him. But I was slow
> and careful, so I did not hit him.

No, it wouldn't have been. But if someone, say, in a driving newsgroup
dares to complain about the dangerous, irrseponsible behavior of
cyclists, hypocrite Krygowski jumps up all in his shit, because a
motorist is ALWAYS wrong in Krygowski-land. Nice to see that you have
rose-tinted glasses when it comes to your own behavior (even if you
happened to be right this time.)

> Should we mark you down as being in favor of sidewalk riding?

Absolutely not. I'm in favor of sharing the road, and I mean that in a
practical sense, not a "two wheels good, four wheels bad" sense like
some people.

[Dan O]

On Oct 1, 8:17 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 1:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> > Also, the time I came closest to hitting a cyclist, he was on a
> > sidewalk. I was slowly inching out of a blind driveway (building on my
> > left, tall hedge on my right) when he came zooming downhill & wrong-way
> > from my right as I looked left. I think a lot of drivers would have hit
> > him.
>
> I commend your cautious inching, but you must realize that sidewalk
> traffic is bi-directional.
>

I forgot to add that the bicyclist blithely "zooming" across blind
driveways is asking for trouble, and the cautious motorist cannot be
expected to compensate for this.

<snip>

[Dan O]

On Oct 1, 9:05 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 10/01/2011 09:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >> On 10/01/2011 04:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >>> Also, the time I came closest to hitting a cyclist, he was on a
> >>> sidewalk. I was slowly inching out of a blind driveway (building on my
> >>> left, tall hedge on my right) when he came zooming downhill & wrong-way
> >>> from my right as I looked left. I think a lot of drivers would have hit
> >>> him.
>
> >> That would have been your fault. you should pay more attention, slow
> >> down, and drive more carefully.
>
> >> Sound familiar, hypocrite?
>
> > Maybe that would have been my fault, Nate, had I hit him. But I was slow
> > and careful, so I did not hit him.
>
> No, it wouldn't have been. But if someone, say, in a driving newsgroup
> dares to complain about the dangerous, irrseponsible behavior of
> cyclists, hypocrite Krygowski jumps up all in his shit, because a
> motorist is ALWAYS wrong in Krygowski-land. Nice to see that you have
> rose-tinted glasses when it comes to your own behavior (even if you
> happened to be right this time.)
>

Oh heavens no - he's all over my shit, too :-)

> > Should we mark you down as being in favor of sidewalk riding?
>
> Absolutely not. I'm in favor of sharing the road, and I mean that in a
> practical sense, not a "two wheels good, four wheels bad" sense like
> some people.
>

Good to see you're alive and kicking, and hope things are looking up
for you, but you are on record here as stating (maybe even in all
caps, IIRC) that "bicyclists need to obey the fucking law -
period" (something along those lines. This is the attitude of
hostility that frustrated cagers feel and misdirect toward carefree
bicyclists who are hurting no one.

I know that my hijinks are not appreciated, and in fact the PR does
harm bicyclists in general, but... well, two of my favorite movies are
"Pee-Wee's Big Adventure" and "Runaway Train". OTTOMH, I quote:

"I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel"

... and...

"You ain't no kinda partner to me. I'm at war with the world and
everything in it. And you're gonna get hurt."

[Frank Krygowski]

Nate Nagel wrote:
> ... because a
> motorist is ALWAYS wrong in Krygowski-land...

:-) Wow! Sounds like you're going to have a problem with those people
who accuse me of always blaming the cyclist!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

I yell often. I find it helps to practice at regular opportunities. I
like giving a yell at every open car door, just in case there is someone
riding behind me that would appreciate to know of a hazard.

(Let's face it, even if you're outside the door zone, it doesn't mean
the person using the door won't stray further into the road in front of
you).

I enjoy it even more when I notice I've upset the person who threw their
door open without looking. The more reaction I get from them, the more
satisfied I feel that I've annoyed them enough that they might remember
next time to look.

--
JS.

[Radey Shouman]

I understand that, and have no reason to think that you might have done
better any other way.

Your reply to Frank made it sound as though the idea of yelling at
people was insane on it's face. The horn on a car may be used most
often just to express imatience or hostility, but there is a reason it
remains required safety equipment. Loud voices have a similar use.

Had I more than two seconds in the incident I described I think I could
have just stopped.

--

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Radey Shouman:

>Your reply to Frank made it sound as though the idea of yelling at
>people was insane on it's face. The horn on a car may be used most
>often just to express imatience or hostility, but there is a reason it
>remains required safety equipment. Loud voices have a similar use.

This is probably a marginal observation, but if somebody is going
to yell as strangers as a matter of standard practice they should
be very, very sure of the local culture around such a practice.

I spent 9 years of my life in a place where yelling at a stranger
would get you beaten half to death in the worst case, and cuffed
around in the best.
--
PeteCresswell

[Dan O]

On Oct 3, 8:14 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Radey Shouman <shou...@comcast.net> considered Mon, 03 Oct 2011

> +1 for the yell.
>
> It can't do any harm...

... unless it distracts your faculties even the slightest bit from
more essential action, in which case it could do the ultimate harm.

> ..., and is actually more likely to be effective in
> an otherwise quiet environment, like the wee small hours before
> sunrise.
> Another benefit is that it attracts the attention of witnesses (if
> there is anyone else around), who may get the number of the car even
> if you can't, or simply by their attention embarrass the driver into
> changing their intended course of action.

I yell... and gesture, and slap windows, etc. - plenty (too much,
actually).

[Dan O]

Wait a sec' - do you mean the incident *I* described? Because if I'd
just stopped I'd have been creamed right there.

[Frank Krygowski]

Wow. Where was that?

In any case, I think I'd still yell if the stranger was endangering my
life through inattention. I don't plan on dying for politeness or
meekness.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

... Oh - never mind - I see now - the incident you described. - okay.

[Radey Shouman]

I dont write "I" when I mean anyone other than your humble
correspondent. You seemed to be saying that two seconds was
not long enough to yell at someone -- I think it's plenty of time.

--

[Radey Shouman]

Yelling to express pique can indeed result in a beatdown, or worse. But
it's a pretty tough neighborhood wherein you're not allowed to loudly
ask someone not to run you over -- I try to avoid those.

--

[Duane Hebert]

http://westislandgazette.com/news/police/16340

Not a bad neighborhood. I ride there often. Been known to yell at
drivers myself. You never know when you will encounter a nut case. I
don't think that was Dan's concern though. Seems like he was saying
that he had just enough time to avoid the collision and chose to do that
rather than yell at the driver in this case.

[Radey Shouman]

Seems the cyclist was criticizing someone's driving after the fact,
not yelling at them to stop at the time. They might have beaten him
up in any case, but I suspect the former is more likely to inspire
violence than the latter.
--

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:
>Wow. Where was that?

Oahu, Hawaii. Early sixties to early seventies.



--
PeteCresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Duane Hebert:

>You never know when you will encounter a nut case.

After 7 years working as treasurer of a 1,200-member civic
association; I came away with the belief that, out of the same
1,000 people two of them are stone crazy at any given moment.

The zinger is that it's not always the same two.
--
PeteCresswell

[Dan O]

On Oct 4, 12:11 pm, Duane Hebert <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 2:42 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
>
>
> > "(PeteCresswell)"<x...@y.Invalid>  writes:
>
> >> Per Radey Shouman:
> >>> Your reply to Frank made it sound as though the idea of yelling at
> >>> people was insane on it's face.  The horn on a car may be used most
> >>> often just to express imatience or hostility, but there is a reason it
> >>> remains required safety equipment.  Loud voices have a similar use.
>

It's true. I wonder how many people know it's illegal to use their
horn the way they do.

Having no bell on my bike, I use my voice to provide audible warning
to pedestrians ("Here comes bike").

> >> This is probably a marginal observation, but if somebody is going
> >> to yell as strangers as a matter of standard practice they should
> >> be very, very sure of the local culture around such a practice.
>

You might say marginal, but a consideration of way underestimated
significance. (Being on the crazy end of the spectrum in the first
place gives me a little insight ;-)

> >> I spent 9 years of my life in a place where yelling at a stranger
> >> would get you beaten half to death in the worst case, and cuffed
> >> around in the best.
>
> > Yelling to express pique can indeed result in a beatdown, or worse.  But
> > it's a pretty tough neighborhood wherein you're not allowed to loudly
> > ask someone not to run you over -- I try to avoid those.
>
> http://westislandgazette.com/news/police/16340
>
> Not a bad neighborhood.  I ride there often.  Been known to yell at
> drivers myself.  You never know when you will encounter a nut case.  I
> don't think that was Dan's concern though.  Seems like he was saying
> that he had just enough time to avoid the collision and chose to do that
> rather than yell at the driver in this case.

The entire situation developed in about 3 seconds. Plenty of time to
yell, sure - but... The first second was the driver sweeping the turn
kind of wide onto the road. Not too cool, but still far off and
nothing all that unusual IME. The next second was me watching for
them to trim the turn and get into their lane - still not a threat to
me, but peculiar enough to have me watching carefully, beginning to
move a little further right, probably already assessing contingency
options (which is simply pretty much just ongoing SOP for me around
any traffic). This middle second *might* have been the time to yell,
but it didn't strike me as the thing to do, otherwise I guess I would
have. (And I still think - and this may be some rationalization of my
own behavior - I still think it's possible that the time and focus
spent yelling could easily have been the deciding difference in the
outcome - which was extremely close.)

I've given thought (too much, probably) about why I didn't yell by
then. For one thing, as I've said, I wouldn't expect it to do any
good - oncoming car, ~100 feet away, cold outside), and another thing
as above - I didn't see anything worth yelling about. People "share"
my lane when they don't need to or shouldn't all the time - some
drivers even "share" the paved shoulder with me for crying out loud.
Another thing. I'm kind of solitary type, anyway - not inclined to
"connect" with people (beyond eye contact, that is) as I make my way -
preferring to depend on myself to respond to circumstances as I
encounter them rather than cooperate with others to shape them. I was
in a dramatically solitary circumstance - mile after mile of lonely
dark road. And maybe, just maybe - a tad out of breath (I don't
toodle the ~30 miles to work).

Anyway, in the *next second, though, they suddenly began a diagonal
course straight for my edge of the road. Yelling at that point would
be pointless, I was now frantically assessing options, maneuvering
with a passion, and (thankfully, as it turns out) 100% focused on
evasive action.

As noted elsewhere, I yell plenty. Sure I would probably holler, "Hey
man!" into the visibly open window of the guy I can see yakking on his
cell phone and pulling out right in front of me. Sure I *might*
holler "Watch out!" at the lady backing out of her driveway. More
usually, though, I just watch what's going on and begin to evaluate
*all* kinds of criteria to make an assessment of what's likely to
happen going forward, keeping in mind as best I can *everything* that
could happen, consider the implications, and respond accordingly,
taking care of and responsibility for myself. That's how I roll. I
think anyone would have to say it's served me pretty well considering
how far and hard I push the envelope.

Yeah, I'm a bike commuter; but not maybe a stereotypical bike
commuter, I think. Yeah, I have to get to work, and yeah, I use a
bicycle to get there; but this commuting time is opportunity every day
for me to be a kid on a bike, and I am not and never have been a
mellow kid when riding bike. More like, sort of radical..

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dan O:

>
>Having no bell on my bike, I use my voice to provide audible warning
>to pedestrians ("Here comes bike").

I recommend one of those single-dingers.

I finally went over to one after almost scaring an old couple to
death as I came up on them and passed them on this *really*
crunchy gravel path.

"On Your Left!" works with other cyclists but with pedestrians
it's iffy - sort of like the "Cash Only" signs on the turnpike.

"WTF does 'Cash Only' mean???? No checks or credit cards?"....
and the recipient has only a very short time to dope it out.

Every once-in-awhile somebody responds to "On your left!" with
something like "So does yer mama!!!!"....

OTOH, I've never, ever had a negative reaction from the bell. A
few people even say "Thank You"....

OTOOH, there's a technique to the bell - loud/soft/number of
dings/distance - where you send the desired message "Somebody's
back there, no sweat... just don't be startled when they come
past." and not the undesirable message "Outta my way, here I
come!"
--
PeteCresswell

[Radey Shouman]

"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> writes:

> Per Dan O:
>>
>>Having no bell on my bike, I use my voice to provide audible warning
>>to pedestrians ("Here comes bike").
>
> I recommend one of those single-dingers.
>
> I finally went over to one after almost scaring an old couple to
> death as I came up on them and passed them on this *really*
> crunchy gravel path.
>
> "On Your Left!" works with other cyclists but with pedestrians
> it's iffy - sort of like the "Cash Only" signs on the turnpike.

I usually stick to "good morning", "good evening", or "that's a nice
looking dog".

[charlie flaherty]

I hate to jump back in here but...
this topic has made me really look at who's on the sidewalks, bike
wise...
and observe them til they're out of sight once spotted

i must say i have seen mostly reckless behaviour on the part of nearly
all sidewalk cyclists
first off, there are more of 'em then i imagined
2ndly, none are traveling at a walking pace
men, women...all helmetless, all traveling waay too fast
passing pedestrians from behind w/ no warning
no slowing down
cruising thru mid block alleys without even a glance as to what might
be darting out between 2 buildings
people w/ ear bud wires dangleing between their legs
miopic
it actually pissed me off
and has already curbed my use of the sidewalks

i started out riding a road bike in baltimore
moved on over to a hybrid to be more upright
and settled in to my 45 pound utility bike
so my top speed has really dropped
when i was getting passed in traffic by cyclists i just got up on the
sidewalk to be out of everyones way
where i couldn't use an alley, and the street was too fast...not much
else to choose

so now i'm prepareing my hybrid for winter use
and plan on being back on the street full time
setting a good example
and not being grouped w/ the people i've seen courting disaster with
the pedestrians who deserve that space for themselves

humbled and eyes opened
i'm still
charlie flaherty
baltimore
maryland

and agreed, the single, sharp ding bell is where it's at
it alerts without annoyance

[Michael Press]

In article <46so87tiekaivubo4...@4ax.com>,

"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

> Per Dan O:
> >
> >Having no bell on my bike, I use my voice to provide audible warning
> >to pedestrians ("Here comes bike").
>
> I recommend one of those single-dingers.

[...]

> OTOH, I've never, ever had a negative reaction from the bell. A
> few people even say "Thank You"....
>
> OTOOH, there's a technique to the bell - loud/soft/number of
> dings/distance - where you send the desired message "Somebody's
> back there, no sweat... just don't be startled when they come
> past." and not the undesirable message "Outta my way, here I
> come!"

This is my experience, too.
Typically I sound the bell once from rather far back
and to the side of the pedestrian or cyclist. People
know if the bell is directly behind or to the side;
and they need time to process, then respond. Knowing
that the bell is to their side, they typically do
not move laterally.

--
Michael Press

[Dan O]

On Oct 5, 1:49 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <46so87tiekaivubo4g3r4766c8tuev0...@4ax.com>,

>
>  "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> > Per Dan O:
>
> > >Having no bell on my bike, I use my voice to provide audible warning
> > >to pedestrians ("Here comes bike").
>
> > I recommend one of those single-dingers.
>
> [...]
>
> > OTOH, I've never, ever had a negative reaction from the bell.   A
> > few people even say "Thank You"....
>
> > OTOOH, there's a technique to the bell - loud/soft/number of
> > dings/distance - where you send the desired message "Somebody's
> > back there, no sweat... just don't be startled when they come
> > past."  and not the undesirable message "Outta my way, here I
> > come!"

When I call out, "Here comes bike", it is an amiable announcement.

>
> This is my experience, too.
> Typically I sound the bell once from rather far back
> and to the side of the pedestrian or cyclist. People
> know if the bell is directly behind or to the side;
> and they need time to process, then respond. Knowing
> that the bell is to their side, they typically do
> not move laterally.
>

I do not spend much time on sidewalks*, and encounter this
circumstance so infrequently that I have not missed having a bell
enough to clutter my cockpit with one (yet). (I agree, though, that
the cheerful little "ding" - and nuanced variations that may be
produced - is quite nice.) I imagine I'll get one someday.

I yield to pedestrians (and other creatures) absolutely - wherever I
encounter them. Wouldn't it be nice if motorists did the same for
more vulnerable travelers.

(*I do not spend much time on sidewalks, but do not hesitate to use
them where it's allowed and suits my purpose. Sidewalks are but one
of the infinite variety of places I will ride. I ride through and
over anything - the more variation the better - excepting tire
puncture hazards, organic waste, and other such unpleasantness.)