Thinking Outside The Box

[AMuzi]

Those whacky guys who brought you the Euro are at it again:

http://transportationnation.org/2012/02/09/european-cities-allowing-bikes-to-run-red-lights/

Yeah, what could go wrong with that?

http://bikinginla.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/san-diego-cyclist-killed-second-southern-california-fatality-in-just-two-days/



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

[Dan O]

On Feb 26, 10:20 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Those whacky guys who brought you the Euro are at it again:
>

> http://transportationnation.org/2012/02/09/european-cities-allowing-b...
>

Ahhhh... Progressives.

> Yeah, what could go wrong with that?
>

> http://bikinginla.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/san-diego-cyclist-killed-s...
>

Idiot asked for it. Why should everyone else have to stop?

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Feb 26, 12:20 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Those whacky guys who brought you the Euro are at it again:
>

> http://transportationnation.org/2012/02/09/european-cities-allowing-b...

Paris "rampant with cyclists?" Not when I was there in '02. I mean,
that was ten years ago...

Loved the (approx) "cyclists must yield to motor traffic"-- well yeah!
One way or the other...

Excuse me, but as I've tried to teach my kids, the reason you actually
stop at red lights and, especially, stop signs, since those carry more
"ignore" temptation, is so you can stop driving, or cycling, or even
walking, and pay attention to *looking*. Twice. How many times have I,
while cycling, had a motorist "not see me" even though they looked
right at me and maybe even made eye contact (!) because they didn't
want to see me? (Answer: "lots").

If a cyclist runs a red light and gets smushed, my sympathies are more
with the motor vehicle operator. Not an experience to be wished on
anyone, and said in spite of the many times I've been used as a pylon
or otherwise "as an object of aggression".
--D-y

[Dan O]

On Feb 26, 10:58 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 26, 12:20 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> > Those whacky guys who brought you the Euro are at it again:
>
> >http://transportationnation.org/2012/02/09/european-cities-allowing-b...
>
> Paris "rampant with cyclists?" Not when I was there in '02. I mean,
> that was ten years ago...
>
> Loved the (approx) "cyclists must yield to motor traffic"-- well yeah!
> One way or the other...
>

Agreed.

> Excuse me, but as I've tried to teach my kids, the reason you actually
> stop at red lights and, especially, stop signs, since those carry more
> "ignore" temptation, is so you can stop driving, or cycling, or even
> walking, and pay attention to *looking*. Twice. How many times have I,
> while cycling, had a motorist "not see me" even though they looked
> right at me and maybe even made eye contact (!) because they didn't
> want to see me? (Answer: "lots").
>

Agreed. Situational awareness - while in motion - is not for everyone
(I guess).

> If a cyclist runs a red light and gets smushed, my sympathies are more
> with the motor vehicle operator. Not an experience to be wished on
> anyone, and said in spite of the many times I've been used as a pylon
> or otherwise "as an object of aggression".

Agreed. The blithe idiot is not just hurting himself. But I'm not in
charge of him. Why should his stupidity dictate what I must do?

[Frank Krygowski]

Just keep in mind, _every_ hotshot who deliberately runs a red light is
plenty confident. Every one figures he's way better than average, and
so skillful that he's got no need for laws. That true even of the ones
that get killed.

When you decide to do the same thing with the same attitude of
confidence, maybe you should ask yourself: "Can I _prove_ I'm different
than the unsuccessful hotshots?"

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Feb 26, 5:51 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> Just keep in mind,...

No.

> ... _every_ hotshot who deliberately runs a red light is

> plenty confident. Every one figures he's way better than average, and
> so skillful that he's got no need for laws. That true even of the ones
> that get killed.
>
> When you decide to do the same thing with the same attitude of
> confidence, maybe you should ask yourself: "Can I _prove_ I'm different
> than the unsuccessful hotshots?"
>

Living proof, dude :-)

[James]

On 27/02/12 12:51, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 10:58 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com"<dustoyev...@mac.com>

>>> If a cyclist runs a red light and gets smushed, my sympathies are more
>>> with the motor vehicle operator. Not an experience to be wished on
>>> anyone, and said in spite of the many times I've been used as a pylon
>>> or otherwise "as an object of aggression".

Agreed.

>> Agreed. The blithe idiot is not just hurting himself. But I'm not in
>> charge of him. Why should his stupidity dictate what I must do?

Also agreed.

> Just keep in mind, _every_ hotshot who deliberately runs a red light is
> plenty confident. Every one figures he's way better than average, and so
> skillful that he's got no need for laws. That true even of the ones that
> get killed.
>
> When you decide to do the same thing with the same attitude of
> confidence, maybe you should ask yourself: "Can I _prove_ I'm different
> than the unsuccessful hotshots?"

When the motor vehicle sensing coils don't sense a bicycle, I don't take
a _chance_ it will be safe to proceed, I wait until it _is_ safe. Hell,
I look sideways even when the lights are in my favor!

--
JS.

[Chalo]

Dan O wrote:
>
> dustoyevsky wrote:

Y'all are doing a superb job of shifting the ethical burden of
piloting stinking death boxes from the offenders to the victims. What
makes you believe it's inherently OK to imperil other people's lives
by using a deadly machine with a grievously faulty control system,
just because someone's too worthlessly lazy to use his own effort?
Y'all are cyclists, for crissakes. If this is the prevailing attitude
among people who should know better, it's no wonder that hit-and-run
assaults are out of control and the authorities are doing nothing to
fix the problem.

But hey, your convenience is far more important than other peoples'
lives and well-being. This is an opinion shared by almost all
motorists, so it must be true.

At least we can all enjoy the consequences of the hideous
unsustainable resource gluttony of cars. Energy scarcity and the
resultant skyrocketing operating cost is probably the only thing that
will cure us of our stinking death boxes (if we don't die from them
first).

Chalo

[AMuzi]

Maybe we should make railroad crossing lights optional as
well. And remove the gates, which drivers evade regularly.

(after which, news reports semantically twist the event to
'tragedy', often reporting 'train hits car' as opposed to
'driver ran light')

[Jay Beattie]

I was practically wiped out by a bicycle running a red light a while
ago while riding home. I am frequently dodging pedestrians while
riding through green lights. If Paris is that thick with bicycles,
then they're going to start running into each other if they're running
lights. In a dense city, you can't have one mode of transportation
following one set of rules, and another mode of transportation
following another -- not when they're all on the same road.

-- Jay Beattie.

[kolldata]

aw lookit the free choice crowd whine whine whine...
saves gas, what's wrong here ?

altho the lower classes unspeakable gluttonyovercrowding my interstate
with japanese coupes may seem terminal, we should check consumtion in
'natural' gas for night'security' lighting
whenever I find commuter rail, I foind happy people. Itsa sure thing.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Feb 26, 11:21 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Y'all are doing a superb job of shifting the ethical burden of
> piloting stinking death boxes from the offenders to the victims.  What
> makes you believe it's inherently OK to imperil other people's lives
> by using a deadly machine with a grievously faulty control system,
> just because someone's too worthlessly lazy to use his own effort?
> Y'all are cyclists, for crissakes.  If this is the prevailing attitude
> among people who should know better, it's no wonder that hit-and-run
> assaults are out of control and the authorities are doing nothing to
> fix the problem.
>
> But hey, your convenience is far more important than other peoples'
> lives and well-being.  This is an opinion shared by almost all
> motorists, so it must be true.

Sorry, I don't get your point - at least, not as far as you seem to be
pushing it.

I've said for years that drivers should bear _much_ more
responsibility for the harm they cause. I'll even say that a motorist
who kills another person should never drive again. But I'd make one
exception: when someone uses another person's motor vehicle to
complete a suicide.

People really do suicide by jumping in front of train locomotives
(large motor vehicles). Should we hold the engineer responsible? Of
course not. The same holds for an auto driver if a person leaps
directly in front of his car... including by running a red light. By
any practical test, it's indistinguishable from suicide.

I really didn't understand the part about my "convenience." To me,
it's convenient to stay alive. So I obey traffic lights, with very
rare exceptions. Works for me.

>
> At least we can all enjoy the consequences of the hideous
> unsustainable resource gluttony of cars.  Energy scarcity and the
> resultant skyrocketing operating cost is probably the only thing that
> will cure us of our stinking death boxes (if we don't die from them
> first).

Sacrificing myself on the pavement under a stinking death box will not
advance the cause.

- Frank Krygowski

[James]

Cars often run off the road and into solid objects (trees and the like).
Naughty cars.

--
JS.

[Joe Riel]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> So I obey traffic lights, with very
> rare exceptions. Works for me.

So what do you guys do when the lights don't switch
for you? I'll turn left on a red arrow if I didn't
get the green when I should, the straight-through is green,
and it is safe to proceed. I just treat it like an
uncontrolled left-turn.

--
Joe Riel

[Stephen Bauman]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:20:49 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

> Those whacky guys who brought you the Euro are at it again:
>
> http://transportationnation.org/2012/02/09/european-cities-allowing-
bikes-to-run-red-lights/
>
> Yeah, what could go wrong with that?
>
> http://bikinginla.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/san-diego-cyclist-killed-
second-southern-california-fatality-in-just-two-days/

There has been quite a bit of misunderstanding regarding the Paris
regulation.

Here's a link to the original proposal

http://www.paris.fr/accueil/deplacements/velo-passer-au-feu-rouge-oui-
mais/rub_9648_actu_111135_port_23738

What they are allowing is right turn on red only for cyclists. They are
also allowing cyclists to go straight through if and only if the
intersection has no right turn. The rule is not universal, just at marked
intersections.

From the link:

>Une flèche de couleur jaune indique aux cyclistes la direction à suivre,
>à droite ou tout droit s’il n’y a pas de voie à droite.

(A yellow arrow showing cyclists which direction to follow: right or
straight if there isn't any right turn. )

I live in one of the two jurisdictions in the US that prohibits right
turn on red for cars. Outside that area, a cyclist isn't safe even if he
proceeds on a green signal. There's always the danger of being t-boned by
a driver turning right on red. At least the proposed Paris regulation is
limited to cyclists. Red still means stop for cars.

I've been hit three times by cars during my 50+ years of cycling. All
three were at or in intersections. Once I stopped for a red light and the
NYC cab following me did not. Twice, I was hit by cars while traveling
through an intersection when I had a green light. Based on my limited
anecdotal experience, the conclusions are obvious: going through green
lights is dangerous and be extra careful while stopping for a red
light. :=)

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Jay Beattie:

> If Paris is that thick with bicycles,
>then they're going to start running into each other if they're running
>lights. In a dense city, you can't have one mode of transportation
>following one set of rules, and another mode of transportation
>following another -- not when they're all on the same road.

One thing is for sure: if a city the size of Paris goes all the
way with this, we should have some hard data on whether it works
or not within a few years.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Jay Beattie]

On Feb 26, 10:06 pm, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com> wrote:

I do that too, but I've hunted all through the vehicle code and not
been able to find anything that says that I can do it legally. The
only relevant exception to not following a traffic control device is
when you are signaled through by a cop, at least in Oregon.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

James wrote:
>
> When the motor vehicle sensing coils don't sense a bicycle, I don't take
> a _chance_ it will be safe to proceed, I wait until it _is_ safe. Hell,
> I look sideways even when the lights are in my favor!

Same here. Wise move.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

That's the main "rare exception" I mentioned. I believe a person is not
required to wait an unreasonable amount of time at a non-working red
light. And if the detection loop doesn't trip the light for me, I'd say
it's non-working.

More discussion: Be sure you know the tricks for getting those loops to
detect your bike - or at least, increasing the chances. Some tips are
here:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/signals/green.htm
and http://www.labreform.org/education/loops.html

In addition, I've had some success at dipole detectors by putting my
wheels on the wire line, then leaning my bike toward the inside of the
rectangle. The bike wheels and frame then have a bigger effect on the
electric fields.

And I've also had success by phoning the agency responsible for the
detector and complaining. They've turned up the sensitivity for me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[gpsman]

On Feb 26, 1:58 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> as I've tried to teach my kids, the reason you actually
> stop at red lights and, especially, stop signs, since those carry more
> "ignore" temptation, is so you can stop driving, or cycling, or even
> walking, and pay attention to *looking*. Twice

You sound like a "driver".

> How many times have I,
> while cycling, had a motorist "not see me" even though they looked
> right at me and maybe even made eye contact (!) because they didn't
> want to see me? (Answer: "lots").

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Visual perception is not what motorists think it is, despite the fact
we've all experienced not seeing something that was right in front of
our faces.
-----

- gpsman

[Dan O]

On Feb 27, 8:24 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Exactly. What difference does it make what color the light is?
(Aside from the fact disregarding it may seem chaotic to an otherwise
unaffected observer.)

You talked about every (over)confident hotshot thinking they were
above average all that, but some of them still get creamed. Well,
some of the most law-abiding riders get creamed, too. What difference
does the light make (to my safety) if I am cognizant of the physics in
play? I can't run a *green* light if it isn't safe to do so. I *can*
run a red light if it is. Duh.

[DirtRoadie]

On Feb 27, 12:11 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 8:24 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > James wrote:
>
> > > When the motor vehicle sensing coils don't sense a bicycle, I don't take
> > > a _chance_ it will be safe to proceed, I wait until it _is_ safe. Hell,
> > > I look sideways even when the lights are in my favor!
>
> > Same here.  Wise move.
>
> Exactly.  What difference does it make what color the light is?
> (Aside from the fact disregarding it may seem chaotic to an otherwise
> unaffected observer.)

If it's red, as a practical matter you need to be aware of traffic
conditions AND the proximity of law enforcement.
DR

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Feb 27, 10:58 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:58 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > as I've tried to teach my kids, the reason you actually
> > stop at red lights and, especially, stop signs, since those carry more
> > "ignore" temptation, is so you can stop driving, or cycling, or even
> > walking, and pay attention to *looking*. Twice
>
> You sound like a "driver".

Drive, and cycle, and walk. Don't want to get hit, don't want to hit
anyone, either.

> Visual perception is not what motorists think it is, despite the fact
> we've all experienced not seeing something that was right in front of
> our faces.

I about got nailed once when riding when I didn't see a car I didn't
want to see. Close enough, and hell no the driver didn't slow down.
That was a life-changing moment, proof positive that I was as human as
the next guy. I already had my "look twice" rule firmly in place, but
ignored it. Well, that's why I had the rule <g>. Oops!
--D-y

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Feb 26, 10:21 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > If a cyclist runs a red light and gets smushed, my sympathies are more
> > > with the motor vehicle operator. Not an experience to be wished on
> > > anyone, and said in spite of the many times I've been used as a pylon
> > > or otherwise "as an object of aggression".
>
> > Agreed.  The blithe idiot is not just hurting himself.  But I'm not in
> > charge of him.  Why should his stupidity dictate what I must do?
>
> Y'all are doing a superb job of shifting the ethical burden of
> piloting stinking death boxes from the offenders to the victims.

"Offenders" run red lights. The "eithical burden" you're speaking of
also involves not making a mess on law-abiding citizens' bumpers and
windshields, and not imposing a burden on the healthcare system by not
carrying insurance while driving, riding, or walking in an
irresponsible manner.

I'll agree that enforcement of law and "principle of law", to try to
express a sense of responsibility for actions, are sorely lacking.
Yup, you can kill or severely injure another human being in a variety
of manners, not just by driving a "stinking death box", and skate-- or
at least not pay much of a penalty, compared to what happens to the
victim.
Life, it turns out, is cheap, no matter what they taught you in school
<g>.
--D-y

[kolldata]

add genocide

ask yourself ! whosah goona run lights ?

[Kerry Montgomery]

Dan O,
Since you asked - some differences:
If you run a red light on your bicycle, it creates or reinforces the image
that some motorists have that all bicycle riders are law offenders and
should be treated as such.
If you run a red light on your bicycle, it models this potentially risky
behavior for others, who may not be so cognizent, and are hurt when
emulating you.
If you run a red light on your bicycle, it models unlawful behavior for the
more impressionable members of our society, particularly children.
Kerry

[Jay Beattie]

On Feb 27, 9:50 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> considered Mon, 27 Feb 2012

> I'm surprised there's no exception covering faulty lights, as we have
> here in the UK.  This legitimises proceeding through a light that
> fails to detect your presence (although you have to wait long enough
> to be sure it hasn't).- Hide quoted text -

There is an exception relating to traffic control signs that are not
conspicuous as required under a different chapter (not the vehicle
code), but I found nothing dealing with lights that were
malfunctioning or that would not cycle. If Frank has a UVC cite, I
could see if there is an Oregon VC corollary. -- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

For Phil: In the U.S., traffic laws are enacted by the individual
states, and thus vary somewhat state by state. The Uniform Vehicle
Code is provided as a model, and most states probably match it at
least 95%. But particularly regarding bicycles, many states have
exercised some ill-advised creativity.

For Jay: I didn't check, but I suspect the UVC has nothing about
dealing with a stuck red light. Ohio law allows proceeding reasonably
if the signal displays no light at all, or an impossible combination
of lights, but that's not the same thing. In theory, a stuck red
would generate an immovable queue of all vehicles that encountered it!

The Ohio Bicycle Federation has had a proposal out (i.e. carefully
chosen replacement wording) for about two years to fix that problem,
as well as some others. Unfortunately, we've been disappointed in
getting a legislator to sponsor such a bill. One legislator did check
our all our proposals, but instead of sponsoring the entire group, as
in the past, the legislator picked only one low-priority item and
didn't push that very hard. We're still trying.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Feb 27, 5:17 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> I about got nailed once when riding when I didn't see a car I didn't
> want to see. Close enough, and hell no the driver didn't slow down.
> That was a life-changing moment, proof positive that I was as human as
> the next guy. I already had my "look twice" rule firmly in place, but
> ignored it. Well, that's why I had the rule <g>. Oops!
> --D-y

The scariest moment for me, personally, was during three+ weeks
cycling Ireland. After weeks, I was sure I was well-used to the
driving on the left, but at one blind corner stop sign, my brain
somehow reverted to U.S. geometry. I looked at an oncoming car and
somehow thought "he's moving away from me" or something. Fortunately,
it wasn't close to a crash, but it scared me well awake.

Even scarier was a ride with several friends plus our son when he was
about eleven. Six of us had been waiting about 30 seconds to cross a
divided four lane, chatting as we waited for traffic to clear. Our
son suddenly and inexplicably started to ride forward on his own, into
the path of an oncoming semi. Of course we all yelled, the driver hit
brakes and horn, and our kid stopped, but it was terrifying.

Last scary example: Either last year or the year before, one of the
national Board members of the League of American Bicyclists was killed
when he suddenly turned left on his bike directly in front of an
oncoming car. This despite a lifelong reputation for safety
consciousness and terrific competence. Tragic, and especially so
because he was one of the genuine good guys.

- Frank Krygowski

[kolldata]

AHD Fu

BUTT if yawl run red lights, practice running rREd lights the yawl get
good at what ?

I have amove in the rain for the ONNNNNNNRAMMMMMMMMPPPPPP

WHERE I get the 401 goin 75+, give the pattern a quick analysis, and
ifn there's a hole
THROW it across 3-4 lanes to the thru lane and accelrate.
great fun.

[Kerry Montgomery]

PDX scary example -
Part of a group I was riding with had stopped to wait for auto traffic to
clear before crossing Marine Drive, a 2-lane each way highway. A car comes
to an abrupt stop to let them cross, the truck behind the car locks up his
brakes and dodges to the shoulder so's to miss the abrupt stopper. Happily
the truck stopped before reaching the riders standing on the shoulder, but
it was very close and very scary.
Kerry

[Dan O]

On Feb 27, 3:24 pm, "Kerry Montgomery" <kamon...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Dan O wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 8:24 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> James wrote:
>
> >>> When the motor vehicle sensing coils don't sense a bicycle, I don't
> >>> take a _chance_ it will be safe to proceed, I wait until it _is_
> >>> safe. Hell, I look sideways even when the lights are in my favor!
>
> >> Same here. Wise move.
>
> > Exactly. What difference does it make what color the light is?
> > (Aside from the fact disregarding it may seem chaotic to an otherwise
> > unaffected observer.)
>
> > You talked about every (over)confident hotshot thinking they were
> > above average all that, but some of them still get creamed. Well,
> > some of the most law-abiding riders get creamed, too. What difference
> > does the light make (to my safety) if I am cognizant of the physics in
> > play? I can't run a *green* light if it isn't safe to do so. I *can*
> > run a red light if it is. Duh.
>
> Dan O,
> Since you asked - some differences:
> If you run a red light on your bicycle, it creates or reinforces the image
> that some motorists have that all bicycle riders are law offenders and
> should be treated as such.

Not reasonable.

> If you run a red light on your bicycle, it models this potentially risky
> behavior for others, who may not be so cognizent, and are hurt when
> emulating you.

Idiots.

> If you run a red light on your bicycle, it models unlawful behavior for the
> more impressionable members of our society, particularly children.

So I'm not a "model citizen".

[Dan O]

Despite blowing stops as SOP whenever possible, I've had exactly *one*
(1) run in with law enforcement over failing to stop. It was a
portable stop sign erected temporarily for event traffic expected
later in the day. I was riding through the quiet area early in the
morning as usual. A police car going the opposite direction stopped
at the intersection. I approached, stopped pedaling, stood up, made a
show of looking around (no traffic anywhere in sight, no sound of
traffic anywhere in the area - nada). I looked straight at the cop
car to see where he was going, and he proceeded straight through the
intersection then past me. So I give a little more gratuitous swivel
head, roll on into the intersection, resume pedaling, and go back in
the saddle on my way. He whipped it around and turned on the lights
and siren, pulled me over, and started giving me a lecture (kind of
like Kerry does later in this thread, but longer). The whole time I
stood there listening to his lecture, not a single other vehicle came
anywhere near the area, but I'll bet a dozen cars were blowing red
lights with pedestrians in the crosswalk somewhere else.

[Dan O]

On Feb 27, 7:48 pm, "Kerry Montgomery" <kamon...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 5:17 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> I about got nailed once when riding when I didn't see a car I didn't
> >> want to see. Close enough, and hell no the driver didn't slow down.
> >> That was a life-changing moment, proof positive that I was as human
> >> as the next guy. I already had my "look twice" rule firmly in place,
> >> but ignored it. Well, that's why I had the rule <g>. Oops!
> >>

There is no perfection in human endeavor. We just have to hope to do
our best, try to do well enough, and count on luck for the rest.

>
> > The scariest moment for me, personally, was during three+ weeks
> > cycling Ireland. After weeks, I was sure I was well-used to the
> > driving on the left, but at one blind corner stop sign, my brain
> > somehow reverted to U.S. geometry. I looked at an oncoming car and
> > somehow thought "he's moving away from me" or something. Fortunately,
> > it wasn't close to a crash, but it scared me well awake.

Lucky.

>
> > Even scarier was a ride with several friends plus our son when he was
> > about eleven. Six of us had been waiting about 30 seconds to cross a
> > divided four lane, chatting as we waited for traffic to clear. Our
> > son suddenly and inexplicably started to ride forward on his own, into
> > the path of an oncoming semi. Of course we all yelled, the driver hit
> > brakes and horn, and our kid stopped, but it was terrifying.

Lucky.

>
> > Last scary example: Either last year or the year before, one of the
> > national Board members of the League of American Bicyclists was killed
> > when he suddenly turned left on his bike directly in front of an
> > oncoming car. This despite a lifelong reputation for safety
> > consciousness and terrific competence. Tragic, and especially so
> > because he was one of the genuine good guys.

Unlike me, for example, I suppose.

>
> PDX scary example -
> Part of a group I was riding with had stopped to wait for auto traffic to
> clear before crossing Marine Drive, a 2-lane each way highway. A car comes
> to an abrupt stop to let them cross, the truck behind the car locks up his
> brakes and dodges to the shoulder so's to miss the abrupt stopper. Happily
> the truck stopped before reaching the riders standing on the shoulder, but
> it was very close and very scary.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/310cda5d8d875f29

[DirtRoadie]

Sorry to hear that cycling is so dangerous and that you are so
fearful.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Feb 27, 6:51 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Last scary example: Either last year or the year before, one of the
> national Board members of the League of American Bicyclists was killed
> when he suddenly turned left on his bike directly in front of an
> oncoming car.  This despite a lifelong reputation for safety
> consciousness and terrific competence.  Tragic, and especially so
> because he was one of the genuine good guys.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

He died? That's sad. But I'm sure you take some consolation from it
not being nearly as bad as it would have been if he had been a
pedestrian!
DR

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per dusto...@mac.com:

>I about got nailed once when riding when I didn't see a car

"Almost" is probably too strong a word, but yesterday I was
riding a more-or-less residential street when this guy came
*wheeling* out of a school parking lot right at me.

He zigged, I zagged, nobody got hurt - and he apologized
profusely saying he just did not see me, which I take as an
indictment of my wearing a gray pullover and brown work pants
that day instead of red or orange on top.

Funny thing, though, a week before that and one block away the
same approximate time of day, this kid blew a stop sign and my
front wheel actually hit the inside of his rear wheel well. He
kept on going.

But, in retrospect, I was wearing the same stealth-colored
clothing.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by
incompetence."....
--
Pete Cresswell

[Chalo]

dustoyevsky wrote:

>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Y'all are doing a superb job of shifting the ethical burden of
> > piloting stinking death boxes from the offenders to the victims.
>
> "Offenders" run red lights. The "eithical burden" you're speaking of
> also involves not making a mess on law-abiding citizens' bumpers and
> windshields, and not imposing a burden on the healthcare system by not
> carrying insurance while driving, riding, or walking in an
> irresponsible manner.

Apply your reasoning to shooting enthusiasts or toxic polluters and
see whether it still holds up for you. "His fault-- he should have
known better than to be there" does not wash for me. Walking and
cycling do not impose the kind of heavy externalities on the rest of
us that driving does.

Chalo

[Frank Krygowski]

FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. A person is certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
they are dressed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Feb 28, 2:47 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per dustoyev...@mac.com:

So kiddies, take a tip from Uncle Frank - you can wear camouflage and
"take the lane." If you get hit, it's somebody else's fault.

DR

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>The scariest moment for me, personally, was during three+ weeks
>cycling Ireland. After weeks, I was sure I was well-used to the
>driving on the left, but at one blind corner stop sign, my brain
>somehow reverted to U.S. geometry. I looked at an oncoming car and
>somehow thought "he's moving away from me" or something. Fortunately,
>it wasn't close to a crash, but it scared me well awake.

Half of my family lives in the U.K. and I had the pleasure to go
over there for a few weeks attending a family reunion some years
back. 100+ attendees.

These people move back-and-forth between Europe (right-side
driving) and the U.K. (left-side driving) on a regular basis.

I brought the left/right side issue up with each and every person
I spoke with and *everybody* had a story.
--
Pete Cresswell

[AMuzi]

>> Chalo wrote:
>>> Y'all are doing a superb job of shifting the ethical burden of
>>> piloting stinking death boxes from the offenders to the victims.

> dustoyevsky wrote:
>> "Offenders" run red lights. The "eithical burden" you're speaking of
>> also involves not making a mess on law-abiding citizens' bumpers and
>> windshields, and not imposing a burden on the healthcare system by not
>> carrying insurance while driving, riding, or walking in an
>> irresponsible manner.

Chalo wrote:
> Apply your reasoning to shooting enthusiasts or toxic polluters and
> see whether it still holds up for you. "His fault-- he should have
> known better than to be there" does not wash for me. Walking and
> cycling do not impose the kind of heavy externalities on the rest of
> us that driving does.
>
> Chalo

I don't have a specific beef but in Wisconsin traffic law,
for example, the assumption is that a traffic incident must
have some shared responsibility, i.e., if you were not there
at all, it would not have happened.

Just another viewpoint.

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

[AMuzi]

In Japan, I was hyper vigilant on bikes but had a few close
calls nonchalantly stepping off a curb after looking the
wrong way.

[dusto...@mac.com]

No thanks. I'd rather apply my reasoning where it belongs. Red lights
and stop signs, along with road striping, and ROW rules and laws in
general, have a purpose that specifically applies to getting traffic
"down the road" in as safe a manner as possible. If a cyclist chooses
to run stop signs and red lights, he is deliberately putting himself
at risk. If he gets hit, as opposed to not getting hit because he
obeyed traffic regulations, he made the choice. And you're exactly
right-- "he should have known better than to be there". Make that "he
did know better but some kind of fault in his thought processes
overrode logical thinking".

I'm not talking about law-abiding cyclists who get hit. Apples/
oranges, so don't try to accuse me of giving motorists some kind of
pass on carelessly or intentionally running down cyclists, if that's
what you're trying to do here.
--D-y

[John B.]

I think that is an extremely foolish thing to say; and quite contrary
to what goes on in the rest of the world.

We have red lights on the top of structures to warn aircraft of tall
structures, we have orange balls on high voltage transmission lines;
we even have red lights on the back of automobiles. All to let the
other guy know that something is afoot and he might want to do
something about it.

If your theory is correct then we can abandon all of these and more.
Why, we could even do away with stop lights and railroad crossing
gates. Certainly a individual can see a train coming.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
>responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. A person is certainly
>free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
>responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
>they are dressed.

During my misspent youth, I was a kitchen boy at a summer camp on
the Chesapeake bay.

One of the counselors was flat-out rabid on the subject of marine
right-of-way.

One day he and his Star-class sailboat got virtually cut in half
by a large power boat in one of those "I-have-the-right-of-way,
dammit-and-I'm-not-gonna-change-course" situations.

The word was that when somebody came out to fetch him (clinging
to what was left of the summer camp's boat) he was ranting "But I
had the right-of-way.".

At least he wasn't maimed or dead...
--
Pete Cresswell

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Feb 28, 4:47 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>

wrote:
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per dustoyev...@mac.com:

Does that include the poor driver who hits a bicyclist at night
because said cyclist was wearing all black or all very dark clothing
as well as riding a dark coloured bicycle without lights or even
reflectors at night? Such bicyclist are laughingly referred to as
"Stealth Cyclists". Why some of them even ride like that on unlighted
country roads at night.

Come on Frank. Are you saying that all of the responsibility for
accident avoidance rests with the driver of an automobile? Many times
I've narrowly avoided hitting a "Stealth Cyclist" at night who
appeared out of nowhere. And I wasonly riding my bicycle at about 20 -
30 kmh. Some bicyclists either just do not have a clue as to how
invisible they are at night or either that they are Kamikaze Bicycle
Wannabes". I really do feel sorry for the poor driver who hits and
seriously injures or kills one of these "Stealth Bicyclists".

Cheers

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John B.:

>I think that is an extremely foolish thing to say; and quite contrary
>to what goes on in the rest of the world.
>
>We have red lights on the top of structures to warn aircraft of tall
>structures, we have orange balls on high voltage transmission lines;
>we even have red lights on the back of automobiles. All to let the
>other guy know that something is afoot and he might want to do
>something about it.
>
>If your theory is correct then we can abandon all of these and more.
>Why, we could even do away with stop lights and railroad crossing
>gates. Certainly a individual can see a train coming.

In defense of Frank (not that he needs it....) I understood his
argument to be with the idea of responsibility/fault, not the
practicalities of any given situation.

Even if I'm wearing camouflage coveralls on a dark, overcast day
the vehicle operator is still responsible for seeing me.

To my way of thinking, however, that does not conflict the notion
that I am foolish for dressing like that.

http://www.loudounroadrunners.org/node/33
--
Pete Cresswell

[DirtRoadie]

Here lies the body of Jonathan Day
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right — dead right — as he rode along.
But he's just as dead as if he'd been dead wrong.
DR

[James]

Dark clothes at night....

Why limit to clothes? Why not no lights as well, if you choose?

Pedestrians and cyclists, like all others, are stupid to be jumping in
front of vehicles.

--
JS

[Jay Beattie]

Sounds to me like he giving cyclists a pass because cyclists are not
in "death boxes" and they do not impose externalities on the rest of
us. That's fine with me -- because I ride a bike and recycle, I can
run red lights in heavy traffic with impugnity! Woopee!

[DirtRoadie]

On Feb 28, 6:05 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

> In defense of Frank (not that he needs it....)

Yes, even the criminally insane are entitled to a defense.

>I understood his
> argument to be with the idea of responsibility/fault, not the
> practicalities of any given situation.

Sorry that does not fly legally or practically. That would be to say
that a driver is "strictly liable" even for for seeing something that
he/she could not possibly see.

> Even if I'm wearing camouflage coveralls on a dark, overcast day
> the vehicle operator is still responsible for seeing me.

A flawed concept in every regard.
DR

[Dan O]

(I think) he just means, "With great power comes great
responsibility." Due diligence, control. awareness, etc. - all
subject to reasonableness.

BTW, it seems like all the good gear in my size on sale from Nashbar
only comes in black. I am aware how this affects my visibility
compared to the neon vest people, and consider this in the required
dynamics, but I am far from invisible. (If I *did* want to go ninja
stealth, my expectations in traffic interaction would be entirely
different again.)

Seems to me, being inconspicuous, blowing stops, whatever - either
you're a blithe idiot about it, or you know what you're doing (with
degrees of each on a continuum, of course).

[John B.]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:59:27 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

Someone once commented on the Rules of the Road - maritime traffic
regulations - that they were of use only to sort out who was to blame
after the accident.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[dusto...@mac.com]

Like the song says: "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to
fold 'em".

Another thing, speaking of "decisions after the fact", the RotR might
well be "good for" is when you (or your heirs or sig. other with power
of attorney) go to the insurance company for damages, or perhaps to to
civil court to sue the mofo who ran over your ass, or even try to get
a criminal conviction for wrongdoing, despite the actions of the
responding officer.

I really enjoyed being waved through a 4-way stop intersection by a
city policeman (he, in a squad car) as we were crossing paths the
other morning. I demonstrated ability and intent to stop, and even
took a foot out (although there is no "foot down" requirement in local
law). Very refreshing in this Post-Crackdown world I inhabit due to
the scofflaws, where cyclist people are getting tickets, from what I
hear, for not having rear reflectors on their bicycles, something
quite unheard-of in my time in this town, starting in early 1984.

Someplace I seem to dimly remember some rhetoric from the bad old days
back in the 60's where the object of objectionable actions was to
reduce-- or was that "confront?-- "the system" to/with chaos, at which
point the workers of the world would shrug off the chains of the
oppressors, who these days I assume can most often be conveniently
identified by their willingness to pilot stinking death boxes while
imposing evil externalities on the downtrodden who could be making
good money doing something else somewhere, but choose not to as some
sort of an illusory "moral choice" based on murky fears of "non-
sustainabitlity".

Well, give them credit, those firey-eyed revolutionaries of a bygone
era: they did knock the wheels off the War Wagon at least for a time,
before proving themselves unfit to adapt and govern.

Old news, and "whatever". At a nearby 4-way stop sign intersection a
few weeks ago, this on a regular "return route" that goes by the cop
shop, I was able to put a foot down (well, just a toe), let the
impatient officer zoom across my bow-- he wasn't apparently moving
until I toed it, and I don't blame him as I'm sure the crazies will
blow a SS in front of anyone-- while I never did actually stop, and in
fact, pushed off with that toe (sorry, Sidi!), and on my merry low-
carbon-footprint way. This I offer in the spirt of Dan O...
--D-y

[Frank Krygowski]

I've got several research papers on conspicuity of bicyclists and
pedestrians. They've shown that light colored clothing adds very
little conspicuity at night. Reflectors are conspicuous at far
greater distances than white clothing, and lights are conspicuous at
far greater distances than reflectors. (As an aside, those papers
showed "left, right, left" motion like a walking human triggers
recognition even sooner.)

I advocate that bicyclists obey (or if they choose, exceed) the legal
requirements regarding lights or reflectors on the bike. But once a
cyclist has a bike properly equipped for night riding, he should not
be required to dress in an outlandish manner. Such a requirement
would add negligible benefit, and would dissuade people from using
bikes. It's another variant of the "Danger! Danger!" craze.

I feel the same regarding pedestrians. It would be very distasteful
to me to have someone say "It's his own fault he got run over walking
in that crosswalk, because he wore dark trousers." Walking is the
most fundamental method of transportation. I feel we have a right to
walk in a reasonably normal manner, and in perfectly normal clothes.

Imposing extra costume requirements for cycling or walking is giving
far too much to motorists. They must be made to watch where they're
going, and not shift responsibility or blame to their potential
victims.

(BTW, we were in Estonia a couple years ago. Estonia has a law
requiring pedestrians at night to carry reflectors. I think walking
reflectors are OK if one chooses to use them, but I strongly disagree
with making them mandatory.)

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Feb 28, 6:56 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:47:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> >(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> >> Per dustoyev...@mac.com:

Nope. My theory is not to abandon all those things. I'm talking
about NOT absolving a motorist because the person (pedestrian or
cyclist) he ran over was dressed normally, as opposed to dressed in
clown colors.

- Frank Krygowski

[dusto...@mac.com]

Well that's the point (IMHO), that if a cyclist has reflectors, lights
front and rear, that when the feces descends in court, say, or when
fighting to get an errant motorist a much-needed citation, that a lack
of "clown clothing" not be used against the cyclist.

That said, I have one of those really ugly "Safety Neon Green" wind
jackets that-- and you'll have to give me a little slack on this,
please-- probably saved my hide a couple of times (at least) when I
used to ride the old Tour of the Inner Loop Wednesday Night Ride in
Houston (*not* the Death Ride).

That also said, I have seen that "Safety Neon Green" color blend into
a foliage background as if it were "Camo Neon Green", and this more
than once, while this "safety gear" was being worn by construction or
roadway workers, out in our Hill Country where there is a somewhat
patchy, scrubby growth of cedar and other, larger trees. I was very
surprised at this observation but Safety Neon Orange would have been a
whole lot better choice of color! As would have been posting cones, or
perhaps some kind of portable flasher setup, or flashing light bars on
top of vehicles, all of which were absent on a couple of occasions.

Texas requires a reflector at the rear on bikes. Compare a reflector
to a Planet Bike rear flasher, and forget about it. The reflector is
only to satisfy the law; its being seen requires an alignment of
incoming and reflected light that is not reliable.
A flasher might not be the most convenient or actually workable
solution (light getting into eyes at inopportune moments) for workers,
but the runners I see out there "sharing" my bike lanes as we're
getting into the longer days here, I really appreciate those who do
use a flasher. For one example, the color red might as well be black
after dark and no, "you can't see them" even though they seem to
think, some of them, that they are quite visible.

I've seen running shoes with reflective tabs that, because the shoe is
moving, do reflect light and show movement, and I just remembered that
I used to carry a reflective velcro "pants cuff" that I used sometimes
even when I didn't need to keep a cuff out of spokes. That, in a town
where I experience quite a bit of hostility while going about my legal
business, riding a bicycle after dark on the ROW.
--D-y

[DirtRoadie]

Apparently you think that a motorist can be absolved "because the

person (pedestrian or cyclist) he ran over was dressed normally"

Correct? Isn't that what you said?

You could hardly have expressed it in a more poorly.
And of course the standard you suggest should not exist,
DOES not exist. Another of your fictional straw targets.

DR

[Frank Krygowski]

On Feb 29, 4:06 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well that's the point (IMHO), that if a cyclist has reflectors, lights
> front and rear, that when the feces descends in court, say, or when
> fighting to get an errant motorist a much-needed citation, that a lack
> of "clown clothing" not be used against the cyclist.

Yep, exactly.

> Texas requires a reflector at the rear on bikes. Compare a reflector
> to a Planet Bike rear flasher, and forget about it. The reflector is
> only to satisfy the law; its being seen requires an alignment of
> incoming and reflected light that is not reliable.

That is a shortcoming of reflectors. My state is one of only two
(IIRC) that require a red rear light in addition to (or combined with)
a red rear reflector. But when I cross the state line I still use
that taillight. Downside is approximately zero, and upside is LOTS
more conspicuity from the rear.

> ... For one example, the color red might as well be black

> after dark and no, "you can't see them" even though they seem to
> think, some of them, that they are quite visible.

Sounds like joggers, too, should be checking out their nighttime
equipment to see how much they really show up!

- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

Frank you have great difficulty with logic and are mixing apples and
oranges .
If a person is likely to be visible (objectively speaking), such as
because of use of lights, the color of their clothing is unlikely to
ever be raised as an issue.
But if its a nun in a black habit with no lights and a driver cannot,
in fact, see her, there is a huge inequity in holding the driver 100%
responsible for not seeing her (if that is the only basis for
liability).

And contrary to your suggestion, fault can be and is often
apportioned. To take your quote "It's his own fault he got run over
walking in that crosswalk, because he wore dark trousers." That is
unlikely. An accurate view could readily be "The fact that he was
wearing dark clothing was found to be a contributing factor in his
being run over in that crosswalk." It could be found to be the
PREDOMINANT factor. Nothing remotely strange or unjust about that.

I know you want to automatically establish that NO driver is EVER
justified when they say "I didn't see the victim" but in some cases
it's accurate without any fault of the driver.

DR

[John B.]

Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
comprehension of most of your readers.

But still, your statement that "a motorist should be responsible for

properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how they are

dressed" seems to be saying that there is no excuse for a motorist not
to see anyone, under any condition, and this is patently impossible.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[DirtRoadie]

Bingo!
And to try to pre-detemine the effect of clothing color, standing
alone, without taking into account ALL other factors is equally
ludicrous.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

And I could have expressed myself a bit better by saying "You could
hardly have expressed it more poorly."
DR

[Frank Krygowski]

On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
> >> >responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing.  A person is certainly
> >> >free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
> >> >responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
> >> >they are dressed.
>

> Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
> written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
> comprehension of most of your readers.

Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers. DR will
attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels, and the vast majority of
readers will not post anything.

As to tone: Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
statements. Re-read what I wrote above. What word in my statement
implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?

As a separate point: why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
manner?

- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Feb 29, 7:13 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
> > >> >responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing.  A person is certainly
> > >> >free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
> > >> >responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
> > >> >they are dressed.
>
> > Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
> > written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
> > comprehension of most of your readers.
>
> Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers.  DR will
> attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels,

No, but I did object when you suggested that a person walking a bike
is unlikely to be a cyclist.

> and the vast majority of
> readers will not post anything.

Frank, when you say something that sounds borderline ridiculous I have
no hesitation in speaking up and in this particular case I do not
stand alone.

> As to tone:  Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
> of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
> statements.  Re-read what I wrote above.  What word in my statement
> implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?

Frank, what you wrote made almost no sense. So explain what you
meant.
Was it -
1. A rider's clothing (e.g. color) should NEVER be taken into account
in determining whether a rider is appropriately visible?
2. A rider wearing ANY ordinary clothing should NEVER be found to be
poorly visible?
3. A rider's clothing is only one factor in the visibility of a
rider.

It certainly came across very strongly as 1 and/or 2. If it is 3
(which is the only choice that makes any sense) than you wasted a lot
of verbiage to merely state the obvious and acknowledge that a driver
should not be faced liability despite not having done anything
improper.

>
> As a separate point:  why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
> with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
> thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
> manner?
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Your "separate point" is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
If a driver is in error the driver is in error. So be it. Hang the
bastard.
But you miss the main point entirely. If something cannot reasonably
be seen, why should a motorist be expected to see it or be considered
to be in error for not seeing it ?
You seem intent on clinging to a concept that JB has accurately
pointed out is absurd. Others obviously agree by their comments.

DR

[John B.]

You obviously can't give up. whether you are being lucid or not.

But to answer your question. A few years back the law here was changed
to force motorcycles to have their headlight and tail light on any
time the bike was moving. Accidents decreased.

Now, rationally if accidents decreased it seems likely that people
didn't really want to run into motorcycles in the first place and that
the always on lights had some effect which caused this reduction in
accidents.

The most likely effect of lighting up a motorcycle is to make it more
visible, which seems to demonstrate that while stating that a driver
should see, they frequently don't see and increasing the visibility of
the target does decrease appear to reduce collisions.

Unless you can demonstrate some deep seated fear of lights, or other
reason, that caused the phenomena.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[dusto...@mac.com]

"People (other drivers) weren't used to seeing motorcycles with their
headlights and tail lights on" and frequency of accidents (if you
believe the proffered statistics) decreased for the period of time
allegedly examined for frequency of MV-MC accidents".

What happened over a longer term? What period of time was used as a
"base", for comparision? Were "the numbers" carefully cherry-picked in
any one of the several other "easy" schemes for cherry-picking
"statistical evidence", meant to support mandatory "lights on"
legislation and regulation, presentation of which was proudly brought
to you by The Amalgamated Tungsten & Plastics Manufacturers of the
Americas, a non-profit, publicly supported society proudly dedicated
to Truth, Justice, and Motherhood?

(great big long disclaimer, so that I'm not misunderstood, and jumped
on for the preceding remarks):
I turn my lights on "early" (Planet bike "too bright" rear flasher and
flashing headlight). I wear at least a little reflective gear
(clothing, "markers") at night, usually. Regard myself as somewhat
slack in this dept. except my twilight riding is done *only* on a
couple of Austin's best-used bike paths that I know well in the first
place, ride often, and get to see on the outward leg of the usual ride
routes. I pay attention like a big dog. I "know when to hold 'em",
etc. Were I commuting (in the scrum) early or late when light is
sketchy, I would be lit up like a pint-sized semi truck (my son got me
some spoke-mount reflectors which I certainly would install on a
'muter bike), and I sure as hell would have a minimum of one
excellent, bright headlight, and probably more like two, as my old
friends in Houston taught me, by example-- one fixed, to be see by,
and another one on the helmet so I could see what I was looking at and
trying to see clearly in the dark, especially against opposing
headlights. My clothing would be effectively reflective; I "see"
reflective piping and "spots" on others' clothing the best while I'm
riding or driving, so I would go that route. I would still be ready to
"bail" at any moment, so as to live, and in such condition as to be
fit to ride another day.

Hell, I'd even wear that old Neon Safety Green wind jacket, even
though it makes me look like a goober. That color is very effective at
least in certain conditions as far as being visible, and it covers my
club jersey. That's a twofer, there, when you're riding in the buffalo
herd.

"Protect yourself at all times".
--D-y

[Frank Krygowski]

> But to answer your question....

John, please answer my first question. What word or words in my
paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone? I simply don't see
one. And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; in fact,
for days I've been ill and feeling very low-key. I think there's a
problem on the receiving end, not the transmitting end.

> A few years back the law here was changed
> to force motorcycles to have their headlight and tail light on any
> time the bike was moving. Accidents decreased.
>
> Now, rationally if accidents decreased it seems likely that people
> didn't really want to run into motorcycles in the first place and that
> the always on lights had some effect which caused this reduction in
> accidents.
>
> The most likely effect of lighting up a motorcycle is to make it more
> visible, which seems to demonstrate that while stating that a driver
> should see, they frequently don't see and increasing the visibility of
> the target does decrease appear to reduce collisions.
>
> Unless you can demonstrate some deep seated fear of lights, or other
> reason, that caused the phenomena.

I don't doubt that accidents decreased for those motorcyclists.
(Interesting that there was no mention of day-glow clothes, though!)

Note that I am _not_ claiming that day-glow clothing, nor daytime
running lights, nor any other conspicuity aid is useless. I have no
doubt that a cyclist would be more noticeable if he dressed in a Bozo
the Clown costume, with a revolving searchlight mounted on his head and
a siren running continuously.

What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no
obligation to dress in unusual clothing. Outfits like this
http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/ should continue to be legal, and if
such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
held even partially responsible.

Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
most countries for over 100 years. The same should be true of walking
for transportation. Neither should be considered an extreme activity
requiring garish costumes for safety.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Feb 29, 2:43 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 4:06 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well that's the point (IMHO), that if a cyclist has reflectors, lights
> > front and rear, that when the feces descends in court, say, or when
> > fighting to get an errant motorist a much-needed citation, that a lack
> > of "clown clothing" not be used against the cyclist.
>
> Yep, exactly.
>
> > Texas requires a reflector at the rear on bikes. Compare a reflector
> > to a Planet Bike rear flasher, and forget about it. The reflector is
> > only to satisfy the law; its being seen requires an alignment of
> > incoming and reflected light that is not reliable.
>
> That is a shortcoming of reflectors. My state is one of only two
> (IIRC) that require a red rear light in addition to (or combined with)
> a red rear reflector. But when I cross the state line I still use
> that taillight. Downside is approximately zero, and upside is LOTS
> more conspicuity from the rear.
>

I do not disagree entirely, but I think people gush too much about the
effectiveness of active lighting. Good reflectors are still effective
off-axis, and lights have directional limitations, too.

I am not a neon vest and christmas tree lighting and reflective tape
plastered on every surface kind of guy (preferring to rely on my
situational awareness and my own appropriate action to avoid being
creamed), but I do sport quite the smattering of highly reflective
elements on different planes.

> > ... For one example, the color red might as well be black
> > after dark and no, "you can't see them" even though they seem to
> > think, some of them, that they are quite visible.
>
> Sounds like joggers, too, should be checking out their nighttime
> equipment to see how much they really show up!
>

Exactly - joggers, pedestrians, and other critters on or near roadways
typically must rely substantially on their situational awareness and
their own appropriate action to avoid being creamed.

[Dan O]

Reasonableness applies.

(And it's bad to run down a nun no matter what the excuse.)

[DirtRoadie]

On Mar 1, 9:48 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:

> What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no

> obligation to dress in unusual clothing.  Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/should continue to be legal, and if

> such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
> held even partially responsible

> --
> - Frank Krygowski

And therein lies the problem in your analysis. You are painting the
motorist as "inattentive" even though he/ she may be utterly free of
fault when the cyclist is not reasonably visible.
You might just as well propose that, facts of the situation be damned,
motorists are ALWAYS liable in incidents with cyclists.
You just don't get it.
DR

[Dan O]

> Your intent may have been one thing but the tone...

Ooooo... wait for it...

> ... in which it was

> written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
> comprehension of most of your readers.
>
> But still, your statement that "a motorist should be responsible for
> properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how they are
> dressed" seems to be saying that there is no excuse for a motorist not
> to see anyone, under any condition, and this is patently impossible.

Even I didn't take it quite that way (and I'm about as polarized
toward Krygowski as they come :-)

[Dan O]

Smarmy, offensive to the neon vest afficionados.

> What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no

> obligation to dress in unusual clothing. Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/should continue to be legal, and if

> such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
> held even partially responsible.
>

Right. If you go there at all it's an infinitely slippery slope to
anyone blaming anyone who doesn't employ *every* possible optimum
visibility accoutrement.

> Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
> most countries for over 100 years. The same should be true of walking
> for transportation. Neither should be considered an extreme activity
> requiring garish costumes for safety.
>

Absolutely true (but neither should we judge people if they *want* to
dress like Bozo :-)

[dusto...@mac.com]

> > obligation to dress in unusual clothing.  Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinue to be legal, and if

> > such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
> > held even partially responsible.
>
> Right.  If you go there at all it's an infinitely slippery slope to
> anyone blaming anyone who doesn't employ *every* possible optimum
> visibility accoutrement.
>
> > Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
> > most countries for over 100 years.  The same should be true of walking
> > for transportation.  Neither should be considered an extreme activity
> > requiring garish costumes for safety.
>
> Absolutely true (but neither should we judge people if they *want* to
> dress like Bozo :-)

Well, I certainly have been "judged" for my Safety Neon Green
windjacket, and "Bozo" is close enough <g>. Especially when they see
me.

OK, reality check:

<http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2012/02/28/adding-insult-to-
injury/>

Cyclists are the lowest form of life on the food chain. I don't like
it either but there you are.
That's one reason I don't bust stop signs and stop lights, because my
maxim is "Don't ever give them a shot at you" which includes road and
courtroom.

I think being lit up like a mini-semi-truck makes my look like a Bozo
(or dork, if you prefer), too-- but if worse comes to worst, I wanna
"have a case" and the opposing lawyers (including the sharks from the
insurance company if the driver has any insurance in the first place)
don't care about anything except their own bottom line.
--D-y

[AMuzi]

Shocking result after an horrific event, and I've followed
these things all my life. Here's your link without the line
break:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7arvqk9

I'm not an attorney, but one might surmise that running over
the victim after a traffic incident and then stopping a
vehicle on her body in the roadway would imply intent. But
then I am not a judge either. Maybe he was ruling an an
emanation form a penumbra or some such.


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

[Frank Krygowski]

And I'm simply saying we need to fight such prejudice, whether people
claim "you deserved it because you shouldn't have been riding there" or
"you deserved it because you weren't wearing bright enough clothing."


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

On Mar 1, 11:55 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> >>> obligation to dress in unusual clothing.  Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinueto be legal, and if

Don't dis the liberal penumbra judges (penumbra being the operative
term from Roe). They would have thrown the book at the defendant and
felt compassion for the victim. It's the conservative, small town
judges -- those who froth at liberals and faggots in lycra -- who make
these kinds of decisions.

And yes, a determined DA would have charged two offenses, with the
second impact comprising a separate vehicular assault -- probably
assault 2. -- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

What really presents a problem is why you seem intent on turning a
discussion about visibility of objects on the highway into a personal
attack?

Is this an attempt to demonstrate that anyone who doesn't accept your
pronouncement as graven on tablets of stone is a heretic and obviously
wrong? Or an exercise in paranoia, "he doesn't agree with me so he
must be out to get me?"

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Sir Ridesalot]

The problem is that some drivers simply do not see a bicyclist for any
number of reasons such as simply not looking for them or the driver is
intoxicated orsomething. Case in point from Toronto, Ontario, Canada
around 1985 on Bloor Street/ Danforth Avenue (sameroad name changes
part way) that involved me on a very well lit bicycle. A driver in the
west end very nearly ran into me as he made a left turn across Bloor
Street. Fortuantely I saw the car in my periphreal vision as he
started the turn and was able to accelerate away from him. Braking
would have stopped me right where he was going to be. This was at
night and witnesses commented that the driver must have been drunk not
to have seen my light. How bright was my light? It was a car quartz-
halogen driving light hooked up to the battery from a 750 hp
motorbike. The battery was carried on the rear rack of the bike and it
gave me plenty of light to see and be seen by. This was proven a short
time later that very night on the same road as I crossed the Bloor
Street viaduct and approached the turn off for the Don Valley Parkway.
As I approached the DVP turnoff I was flagged down by a policeman
engaged in RIDE checks. When I stopped he said he saw me *BEFORE* I
got onto the viaduct at about Parliament Street and though he was
going to ticket a one-eyed-bandit automobile. Take a look at a map of
that area and you`ll see that the bike`s light was visible at quite a
distance. Yet the driver who nearly cramed me earlier on that ride
either did not see me or he didn`t care.

It has been proven over and over again by many studies that people
often *DO NOT SEE WHAT THEY ARE NOT EXPECTING TO SEE*. A lot of
drivers only spare a glance and are looking for large motor vehicle
size objects before that driver moves their vehicle into what could be
the space about to be occupied by a bicyclist. Therefore it behooves a
bicyclist riding at night or at any other time to make himself/herself
as conspicuous as is reasonable so they can be seen by other road
users (read drivers) who are sparing just a glance when they look for
an obstruction in their way.

It has also been demonstrated that amber lights are more effective at
night than red lights.

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Mar 1, 11:48 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> John B. wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski

> > <frkry...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >> On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John B.<johnbsloc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkry...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>> FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
> >>>>>> responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing.  A person is certainly
> >>>>>> free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
> >>>>>> responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
> >>>>>> they are dressed.
>
> >>> Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
> >>> written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
> >>> comprehension of most of your readers.
>
> >> Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers.  DR will
> >> attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels, and the vast majority of
> >> readers will not post anything.
>
> >> As to tone:  Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
> >> of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
> >> statements.  Re-read what I wrote above.  What word in my statement
> >> implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?
>
> >> As a separate point:  why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
> >> with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
> >> thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
> >> manner?
>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
>

Snipped:

>
> What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no

> obligation to dress in unusual clothing.  Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/should continue to be legal, and if

> such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
> held even partially responsible.
>
> Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
> most countries for over 100 years.  The same should be true of walking
> for transportation.  Neither should be considered an extreme activity
> requiring garish costumes for safety.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

I notice that every image on that page was taken in daylight. I also
noticed that most of the bicyclistwere wearing something red or other
fairly light coloured clothing or riding a bright coloured bike such
as red. The bicyclists who were wearing dark coloured clothing would
be far less visible at night than the ones with lighter coloured
clothing. If any study shows that light coloured clothing is less
visible at night than dark clothing (study such as the one you
provided a linkto upthread) I must wonder why the military uses dark
colours for stealth operations. Or why Ninjas and break-and-enter
persons wear black instead of white.

As far as the last 100 years of cycling and clothing goes; well speeds
for both motor vehicles and some bicyclists have increased a fair bit
even on urban streets with the result that the time to react to any
event is shorter. Therefore again it is prudent to make onself as
visible as one can reasonably be.

Cheers

[Dan O]

> > > obligation to dress in unusual clothing. Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinueto be legal, and if

> > > such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
> > > held even partially responsible.
>
> > Right. If you go there at all it's an infinitely slippery slope to
> > anyone blaming anyone who doesn't employ *every* possible optimum
> > visibility accoutrement.
>
> > > Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
> > > most countries for over 100 years. The same should be true of walking
> > > for transportation. Neither should be considered an extreme activity
> > > requiring garish costumes for safety.
>
> > Absolutely true (but neither should we judge people if they *want* to
> > dress like Bozo :-)
>
> Well, I certainly have been "judged" for my Safety Neon Green
> windjacket, and "Bozo" is close enough <g>. Especially when they see
> me.
>
> OK, reality check:
>
> <http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2012/02/28/adding-insult-to-
> injury/>
>
> Cyclists are the lowest form of life on the food chain. I don't like
> it either but there you are.

Then why should we toe their line?

The traffic controls are instituted with motor vehicle traffic in
mind. The subject of this thread is about the very entities that
instituted these traffic controls acknowledging they don't make sense
applied to bicycles. But we should go out of our way and arbitrarily
adhere to them anyway because we want to make a good impression? On
people who unfairly disregard us either way in the first place?
Because maybe then they'll dislike us a little less?

> That's one reason I don't bust stop signs and stop lights, because my
> maxim is "Don't ever give them a shot at you" which includes road and
> courtroom.
>

I hear you; but they've got a shot at you all the time on the road
anyway, and I don't anticipate winding up in court (although, yes,
then my scofflaw ass could be hanging out in the wind).

If I approach a stop sign or red light and there's anybody around
there with so much as the potential to have the right-of-way or take
me out anyway, I observe what's going on - not just their indications
but *all* the surrounding context (situational awareness) that may
affect what they can and will do - and I do not blow the stop until
I'm acceptably sure of no conflict.

> I think being lit up like a mini-semi-truck makes my look like a Bozo
> (or dork, if you prefer), too-- but if worse comes to worst, I wanna
> "have a case" and the opposing lawyers (including the sharks from the
> insurance company if the driver has any insurance in the first place)
> don't care about anything except their own bottom line.

No judgment from me about appearances (although - and just an
impression - the neon vest seems to say, "I'm scared shitless to be
riding in traffic", or a demand for respect, ala Rizzo, "I'm walkin'
here!". I totally understand enhancing visibility to hopefully
prevent getting creamed, but don't like to think about things like
evidence of fault for a crash I haven't even had.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Mar 1, 7:25 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:48:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>

> <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> >John B. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski

> >> <frkry...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >>> On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John B.<johnbsloc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
> >>>>>>> responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing.  A person is certainly
> >>>>>>> free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
> >>>>>>> responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
> >>>>>>> they are dressed.
>

> >John, please answer my first question.  What word or words in my
> >paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone?  I simply don't see
> >one.  And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; in fact,
> >for days I've been ill and feeling very low-key.  I think there's a
> >problem on the receiving end, not the transmitting end.
>
> What really presents a problem is why you seem intent on turning a
> discussion about visibility of objects on the highway into a personal
> attack?

John, please, slow down.

Go back to the paragraph I wrote above. What part of that are you
reading as a personal attack?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

> > obligation to dress in unusual clothing.  Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinue to be legal, and if

> > such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
> > held even partially responsible.
>
> > Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
> > most countries for over 100 years.  The same should be true of walking
> > for transportation.  Neither should be considered an extreme activity
> > requiring garish costumes for safety.
>
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> I notice that every image on that page was taken in daylight. I also
> noticed that most of the bicyclistwere wearing something red or other
> fairly light coloured clothing or riding a bright coloured bike such
> as red. The bicyclists who were wearing dark coloured clothing would
> be far less visible at night than the ones with lighter coloured
> clothing. If any study shows that light coloured clothing is less
> visible at night than dark clothing (study such as the one you
> provided a linkto upthread) I must wonder why the military uses dark
> colours for stealth operations. Or why Ninjas and break-and-enter
> persons wear black instead of white.
>
> As far as the last 100 years of cycling and clothing goes; well speeds
> for both motor vehicles and some bicyclists have increased a fair bit
> even on urban streets with the result that the time to react to any
> event is shorter. Therefore again it is prudent to make onself as
> visible as one can reasonably be.

And if a particular cyclists wants to wear bright clothing, that's
fine with me. I often wear bright clothing myself, and I have _never_
made fun of a cyclist for wearing bright clothing.

(Well, OK, when one of my best buddies showed up wearing pink lycra
shorts, I ribbed him a bit. That was just sartorial advice between
friends; some clothing choices are just over the top. ;-)

What I'm saying is that bright clothing shouldn't be required; and if
a motorist hits a normally clothed cyclist, he should not use lack of
bright clothing as an excuse.

Wear whatever you want - even pink riding shorts. But don't disparage
a cyclist who chooses differently. After all, no matter what you
wear, no matter how bright your lights:
A) Cycling is extremely safe, and
B) Bad things (rarely) happen no matter what.

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

> > > obligation to dress in unusual clothing.  Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinueto be legal, and if

Frank.

I didn`t say that bright clothing has to be required, Plus my comments
were and are about bright coloured clothing *NOT* neon colours or
reflective colours.

I was NOT DISPARAGING any one Frank.

It is easily shown that wearing light coloured clothing at night makes
a bicyclist, or anyone else for that matter more visible. All you have
to do is have two peole of similar build but one wearing black
clothing head to toe and one wearing white clothing head to toe stand
against a dark background and then have a light shone at each one. You
will see that one in white is far easier to see or is seen earlier.

Nor did I say anywhere that bicycling is dangerous - it need not be
but it *IS* more dangerous if one persists in riding at night whilst
wearing dark coloured clothing and riding a dark coloured bike that
does not have either/or reflectors and lights.

Bad things rarely happen but tell that to dead bicyclist and the poor
driver who killed them because the bicyclist was virtually invisible
in the dark. Cripes! Some bicyclists persist in riding on unlit
country roads or highways in the dark on bicycles without lights or
reflectors and whilst the bicyclist was wearing dark coloured
clothing. A couple of years ago we had three or four such fatalities
in this region and one of them was stealth bicyclist on a dark early
morning ride on a busy unlit highway where traffic routinely exceeds
60 mph especially when it`s dark. For him, and the other nightime
bicyclist fatalities riding like that *WAS* dangerous despite what the
bicycling safety statistics say. There seems to be at least one or two
such fatalities or serious injuries in this region every year.

If a person using the roads at night or early morning when it is full
dark, whether a bicyclist or pedestrian can *NOT* trust that a driver
will see them. The driver should not have to bear all of the
responsibility if such a bicyclist or pedestrian is struck and killed.

Cheers

[Dan O]

If I understood your point above, it was that you have to assume you
might not be seen (no matter what you do), so I don't make myself
crazy trying to make sure that I will (be seen), and don't count on it
(being seen) to save my life.

[Sir Ridesalot]

That's about it Dan.

When riding at night I assume that I'm invisible to motorists no
matter what I've done to reasonably enhance my visibility to them yet
without obsessing about it. I also assume that ever driver on the road
is an idiot. Thus, I watch my surroundings very carefully - even
sidewalks where stealth bicyclist often instantly appear from - and
think about what that possibly could go wrong will go wrong. It's
worked for me now in over fifty years of bicycling on all kinds of
roads day or night.

Cheers

[John B.]

I don't regard it as a personal attack. Simply that in the midst of a
conversation about visibility you suddenly start to defend yourself as
though you had been attacked - "what word or words in my

paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone?  I simply don't see
one.  And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; "

Now, given that I didn't attack you, nor did I accuse you of "impolite
tones", I can only assume that your comment are directed toward
creating an atmosphere where you can claim that you are being
attacked, and thus avoid continuing a discussion in which you have
taken an indefensible position.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jay Beattie]

On Mar 2, 5:01 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:57:48

> +0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> ><frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >>On Feb 28, 6:56 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:47:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski

>
> >>> <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> >>> >> Per dustoyev...@mac.com:
> >>> >>> I about got nailed once when riding when I didn't see a car
>
> >>> >> "Almost" is probably too strong a word, but yesterday I was
> >>> >> riding a more-or-less residential street when this guy came
> >>> >> *wheeling* out of a school parking lot right at me.
>
> >>> >> He zigged, I zagged, nobody got hurt - and he apologized
> >>> >> profusely saying he just did not see me, which I take as an
> >>> >> indictment of my wearing a gray pullover and brown work pants
> >>> >> that day instead of red or orange on top.
>
> >>> >> Funny thing, though, a week before that and one block away the
> >>> >> same approximate time of day, this kid blew a stop sign and my
> >>> >> front wheel actually hit the inside of his rear wheel well.   He
> >>> >> kept on going.
>
> >>> >> But, in retrospect, I was wearing the same stealth-colored
> >>> >> clothing.
>
> >>> >> "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by
> >>> >> incompetence."....
>

> >>> >FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
> >>> >responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing.  A person is certainly
> >>> >free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
> >>> >responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
> >>> >they are dressed.
>

> >>> I think that is an extremely foolish thing to say; and quite contrary
> >>> to what goes on in the rest of the world.
>
> >>> We have red lights on the top of structures to warn aircraft of tall
> >>> structures, we have orange balls on high voltage transmission lines;
> >>> we even have red lights on the back of automobiles. All to let the
> >>> other guy know that something is afoot and he might want to do
> >>> something about it.
>
> >>> If your theory is correct then we can abandon all of these and more.
> >>> Why, we could even do away with stop lights and railroad crossing
> >>> gates. Certainly a individual can see a train coming.
>
> >>Nope.  My theory is not to abandon all those things.  I'm talking
> >>about NOT absolving a motorist because the person (pedestrian or
> >>cyclist) he ran over was dressed normally, as opposed to dressed in
> >>clown colors.
>
> >>- Frank Krygowski
>

> >Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
> >written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
> >comprehension of most of your readers.
>

> >But still, your statement that "a motorist should be responsible for

> >properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how they are

> >dressed" seems to be saying that there is no excuse for a motorist not
> >to see anyone, under any condition, and this is patently impossible.
>

> If they can't see that the way is unobstructed, what on earth are they
> doing driving their vehicle there?

Clothing color should not have much of an effect in strong sunlight.
In drear (flat lighting), bright colors help, and in the dark. I'm
sure there would be less dead deer if they were reflective, at least
on the road. More dead deer during hunting season.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gluv/298864264/

-- Jay Beattie.

[gpsman]

On Mar 1, 10:26 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After all, no matter what you
> wear, no matter how bright your lights:
> A) Cycling is extremely safe, and
> B) Bad things (rarely) happen no matter what.

Seems to be in direct conflict with the very premise of your "cite":

"The neglect of pedestrian and bicycling safety in the United States
has made these modes dangerous ways of getting around."
http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf
-----

- gpsman

[thirty-six]

Er really, you have free meat handouts?

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Mar 1, 8:05 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Cyclists are the lowest form of life on the food chain. I don't like
> > it either but there you are.
>
> Then why should we toe their line?

To keep from getting hit. To keep from getting a ticket and/or thrown
in jail (bike on the wrecker, other $$$). To not enforce the public
perception that we (cyclists) are scofflaw yahoos who deserve anything
we get (deliberately hit, run over, parked with a MV wheel on our
heads, or left to suffer and die).

> The traffic controls are instituted with motor vehicle traffic in
> mind.

I never saw a motor vehicle "WALK" across an intersection.

>  The subject of this thread is about the very entities that
> instituted these traffic controls acknowledging they don't make sense
> applied to bicycles.

That assertion is all in your imagination.

>But we should go out of our way and arbitrarily
> adhere to them anyway because we want to make a good impression?  On
> people who unfairly disregard us either way in the first place?
> Because maybe then they'll dislike us a little less?

You could think of it as "stopping the cycle (!!!) of abuse".
I don't see traffic laws as being "arbitrary"-- "based on random
choice or personal whim, rather than reason or any system", in the
least.
Heavy, heavy projection, Dan O! Nope, the cars going, say north and
south stop so the cars going east and west get a chance to move
through a given intersection. This is controlled by rules as
manifested by stop signs, stop lights, directional signs, and such
rules of use as "the car on the right has the right of way" when
vehicles arrive at a four-way (or three-way) stop simultaneously.

No, random actions, whether by personal whim, not knowing the rules or
deliberately disobeying the rules are precisely what throw a monkey
wrench into the proceedings.
Watch how backed-up MV traffic at a busy 4-way stop often just can't
"figure out" how to pair up and take turns stopping and going, and
imagine how much faster-- and safer! it would be for all users of the
ROW if "we all just followed the rules", in that example and many
other situations.

Many, many MV operators "roll" stop signs-- as opposed to blasting
through them full-speed, "playing chicken", and so forth. There's a
huge difference in mindset there.
Per my story of the officer in the squad car waving me through a stop
sign, maybe we all know better than you think we know. Possible?

>
> > That's one reason I don't bust stop signs and stop lights, because my
> > maxim is "Don't ever give them a shot at you" which includes road and
> > courtroom.
>
> I hear you; but they've got a shot at you all the time on the road
> anyway, and I don't anticipate winding up in court (although, yes,
> then my scofflaw ass could be hanging out in the wind).

Yup, they've got you if they want you. I should expand: "Never give
them a shot at you when there can be any sort of pretext that they
were in the right and you did 'something wrong' so they are justified
in running you over". I think that intended meaning was pretty clear
but there you go.

> If I approach a stop sign or red light and there's anybody around
> there with so much as the potential to have the right-of-way or take
> me out anyway, I observe what's going on - not just their indications
> but *all* the surrounding context (situational awareness) that may
> affect what they can and will do - and I do not blow the stop until
> I'm acceptably sure of no conflict.

Especially on the bike lanes that are shared with MV's, I roll up
slowly, look at the stop sign, yield the ROW as is proper ("taking my
turn") and wave "thanks" to those who cut me some nice extra slack.
When they stop and wave me through (when it's not my turn) I tend to
put a foot down, look at the sign, maybe fold my arms, and try to
indicate in a friendly way that I'm happy to take my turn and that I
respect the rules and laws because that's what they're (the rules and
laws) are really all about, sharing the road and taking turns. No
matter how many violent assholes are out there acting like violent
assholes.

Like I've said, repeatedly here: I used to think I could achieve "full
situational awareness" but I was proved wrong. No surprise, I'm just
another human, just like all those people driving their MV's.

>
> > I think being lit up like a mini-semi-truck makes my look like a Bozo
> > (or dork, if you prefer), too-- but if worse comes to worst, I wanna
> > "have a case" and the opposing lawyers (including the sharks from the
> > insurance company if the driver has any insurance in the first place)
> > don't care about anything except their own bottom line.
>
> No judgment from me about appearances (although - and just an
> impression - the neon vest seems to say, "I'm scared shitless to be
> riding in traffic",

Wow. Declaration of "no judgement" followed by an insulting and
ignorant judgement.
That's part of "dork" or "wimp" or "newbie"-- and I do it myself. But
all the same, if I were commuting "in the scrum" I'd wear my dork
jacket because, by informal survey, I could hear the MV's on Memorial
Drive in Houston during our late rush-hour Wednesday evening ride
giving me up to a foot or so of extra room as they zoomed by.
"YMMV"

I am occasionally very frightened "in traffic". There's an old saying:
"If you're not scared, you're just not right" (referring to a mental
limitation in recognizing peril).
I try my best, and I have drummed it into my children's heads, to
"take control of the situation", which does not necessarily mean
controlling others' movements and actions, but does mean "taking
contol" of outcomes.

or a demand for respect, ala Rizzo, "I'm walkin'
> here!".

"You gotta know when to hold 'em"...

>  I totally understand enhancing visibility to hopefully
> prevent getting creamed, but don't like to think about things like
> evidence of fault for a crash I haven't even had.

I have a routine that I don't really think about very much. Which is a
good foundation for improvisation suited to the moment, besides just
being a pretty good routine.

I used to be a "stealth rider" and I have done the big bad commutes on
fast, busy highways in full shadow mode. It works, IMHO, up to a
point, too. No argument!
It was a great time of life and I tried to enjoy it to the fullest.
Nowadays, I'm doing my best to embrace my mortality in the fullest
sense possible.
--D-y

[Jay Beattie]

On Mar 2, 7:11 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> considered Thu, 1 Mar 2012

> >> >>> obligation to dress in unusual clothing.  Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinuetobe legal, and if

> Deliberately driving onto an injured person (that the driver themself
> injured) who is lying incapacitated on the road and parking with the
> wheel on their head?
> What is there about that to prevent it being attempted murder?
> I cannot see any lack of intent that could prevent a conviction on
> that charge.- Hide quoted text -

Could be, but proving intent to murder is hard. You could charge this
a bunch of different ways depending on the evidence.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 19:16:22 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> John, please, slow down.
>>
>> Go back to the paragraph I wrote above. What part of that are you
>> reading as a personal attack?
>>
>

> I don't regard it as a personal attack. Simply that in the midst of a
> conversation about visibility you suddenly start to defend yourself as
> though you had been attacked - "what word or words in my
> paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone? I simply don't see
> one. And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; "
>
> Now, given that I didn't attack you, nor did I accuse you of "impolite
> tones", I can only assume that your comment are directed toward
> creating an atmosphere where you can claim that you are being
> attacked, and thus avoid continuing a discussion in which you have
> taken an indefensible position.

OK, quick review. My initial statement was this:

"FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. A person is certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
they are dressed."

Your first response was this:
"I think that is an extremely foolish thing to say..." after which you
equated my position to removing warning devices like lights, even though
I've repeatedly advocated lights and reflectors for night cycling.

Your next response was claiming my paragraph above had an objectionable
tone:

"Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
comprehension of most of your readers."

I still see no negative tone in my original paragraph. In fact, it
seems to me you were the one introducing the phrase "extremely foolish,"
which many might interpret as having a bit of negative tone, no?

And I'm getting more curious about your motivation for this discussion.
Would you argue to absolve a motorist who ran over a daytime cyclist
wearing brown clothes?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I agree with D-y. The traffic laws are not arbitrary, and they are
certainly not intended only for cars and trucks. The fundamental
principles actually predate the widespread use of motor vehicles.

In his book _Effective Cycling_, John Forester boils the traffic laws
down to just a few fundamentals:

* First come, first served (i.e. the person in front doesn't have to
abandon the road when someone comes from behind, nor when someone wants
to pull out into the road)

* Obey traffic signals

* Operate on the right (in the U.S.) side of the road

* Faster traffic pass on the left

* Signal your moves

* Destination positioning - i.e., don't turn left from the right curb.

* Special rules must be shown by signs, etc. - i.e., they can't ticket
you for turning left unless there's a "No Left Turn" sign.

The rest is mostly details.

The laws work because they reduce conflicts and surprises, and because
they fit the capabilities of human operators. People who violate them
at whim are asking a lot of the other road users - i.e. "I'm doing what
I want, so you be ready for any crazy move I make."

Similarly, many of the "innovative" bike facilities violate those
fundamental rules and ask people to do much more difficult things. One
example is the "nice, safe, protected" bike track to the right of parked
cars. The bicyclist zooms straight through the intersection and feels
protected from same direction traffic. But the same-direction motorist
turning right across that bike track has no way to see that the
bicyclist until he collides with him.

--
- Frank Krygowski