Canada's most dangerous city for cyclists

[Sir Ridesalot]

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cyclists-141704036.html

Cheers

[James]

Yup. We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups
http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/ because although their goal is
admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is
really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say
it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.

Their "solution" to getting people to ride is to actively campaign for
and promote bike lanes and shared paths, even though most, if not all
the bike lanes are not designed to improve safety - but to make novices
*feel* safe - until they collect an opening car door for example.

They are steadfast in their belief that with enough bike lanes there
will be enough bikes on the road to cause a cultural shift, and reject
any idea of educating the moron (subset of) motorists that bicycles are
legal and legitimate road users, that roads are paid for out of general
revenue tax, and that motor vehicle registration is mandatory insurance
because motor vehicle operators are far more likely to kill or severely
injure other road users. You get the picture.

I keep applying pressure.

--
JS

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>

Yep. Two days ago, I was on a narrow-ish two lane street that I frequently ride. One car was hanging back behind me, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, then began to go around just as a punk on a mountain bike was heading right at me, riding facing traffic.

As we all passed, I said "What are you doing on the wrong side of the road???" He immediately began yelling at me, claiming he knew what he was doing, and that I was on the wrong side of the road.

Of _course_ he felt that he was really competent. They all do.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that
>
> > really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that
>
> > bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many
>
> > bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it
>
> > pleases tthem.
>
> >
>
> > http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cyclists-141704036.html
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yup. We get that a lot.
>
>
>
> I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups
>
> http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/ because although their goal is
>
> admirable, their methods are highly questionable.
>
>
>
> They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is
>
> really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say
>
> it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult, and not tried."

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On May 2, 6:02 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads.
>

I wouldn't say "amazing". Remarkable, yes, but it doesn't surprise
me.

> Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>

Well then, maybe if we all just do what the fucking cagers want, then
they'll accept us. Yeah, right.

> http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...
>

[Dan O]

On May 2, 8:14 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>
> Yep.  Two days ago, I was on a narrow-ish two lane street that I frequently ride.  One car was hanging back behind me, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, then began to go around just as a punk on a mountain bike was heading right at me, riding facing traffic.
>

I was coming back from the store tonight when I saw a "punk" on a
skateboard coming toward me with _no lights_! The nerve!

> As we all passed, I said "What are you doing on the wrong side of the road???"  He immediately began yelling at me, claiming he knew what he was doing, and that I was on the wrong side of the road.
>

Obviously he didn't recognize you, else he'd know you couldn't
possibly be wrong about anything.

> Of _course_ he felt that he was really competent.  They all do.
>

You know what he felt? That's creepy.

[Dan O]

On May 2, 8:15 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> > On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that
>
> > > really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that
>
> > > bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many
>
> > > bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it
>
> > > pleases tthem.
>

> > >http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...

>
> > Yup.  We get that a lot.
>
> > I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups
>

> >http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/because although their goal is

>
> > admirable, their methods are highly questionable.
>
> > They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is
>
> > really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say
>
> > it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.
>
> It's been said:  "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found to be difficult.  It's that it's been assumed difficult, and not tried."
>

It's been said: "krygowski you're a fucking idiot!"

[James]

Aw, c'mon now, Dan. While that made me giggle a little, it wasn't
really called for just there, was it?

I think those of us who regularly mix it with the fossil fuel burners
have learned to ride defensively, which is a lot of what VC is about.

I'm no practitioner of strict VC. I have to say quite a few hail Eddy's
whenever I go to the VC priest for confession, but I do a lot of what
the Godfather of the "one true way" prescribes, though it was learned
from experience.

I suggest that although you take alternate routes, you do some VC stuff
without realising it. I know I do.

--
JS.

[Duane Hébert]

On 5/2/2013 9:02 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.

Seems that there is a correlation.


> http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cyclists-141704036.html
>
> Cheers

[frkr...@gmail.com]

He _told_ me what he felt. "I'm 33! I been riding #*%! forever! I know what I'm doing!!!"

But to address the issue head-on: Would you say he was competent, Dan? Coming head-on at a rider who was following the law while being passed by a car?

Will you _really_ take the side of a salmon rider? And argue against a guy riding where the law and decent traffic sense dictate??

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

And you're still behaving like a drunken teenager, in your riding style, your garbage language, your anti-societal attitudes, your mini-minded posts, and probably in other ways we haven't heard about.

Too bad you're not really 15 years old. There would at least be hope of good sense arriving with maturity.

- Frank Krygowski

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Sir Ridesalot:

> Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.

I'd say that "pleases them" is the wrong phrase for some cyclists in
some situations. "survival demands" is closer in certain situations.
Note "certain" situations NOT "all" or even "most" situations.

Where I ride (southeastern Pennsylvania, USA) you can get seriously
killed following to the letter traffic laws that were essentially
written for motor vehicles on roads that where engineered/built with no
thought at all for cyclists or pedestrians.

Not that I'm not saying "all cases"... Not following traffic laws in a
city, for instance is probably a bad idea most of the time.

OTOH riding the wrong way at walking/jogging speed down a one-way alley
that is virtually unused can be perceived as safer than mixing it up
with 45 mph traffic on a parallel street that has no shoulder/fog lines.

Riding on sidewalks is another case in point. Cities? Riding on
pedestrian-populated sidewalks seems just plain dumb to me. Crime
against nature. Case closed.

But out, say, in West Conshocken I ride a route where one section looks
like a class B post-apocalypse movie as the route passes under a series
of superhighway overpasses. But there is a nice wide sidewalk (albeit
littered with trash and the occasional automobile part), but I'll lay
money that it hasn't seen more than one pedestrian per week for years.
In that case the choice is between riding that sidewalk and hoping that
closing traffic at 60+ with no shoulder doesn't ruin you whole day.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Andre Jute]

Aw, Franki-boy, I was just getting ready to feel sorry for you and say something calming to Dan, when you get on your high horse and stick your snot-nozzle in the air. You're your own worst enemy, man.

Andre Jute
"Andre is only as brutal as he has to be." -- Nelson Mandela

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:21:48 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Sir Ridesalot:
>
> > Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>
>
>
> I'd say that "pleases them" is the wrong phrase for some cyclists in
>
> some situations. "survival demands" is closer in certain situations.
>
> Note "certain" situations NOT "all" or even "most" situations.
>
>
>
> Where I ride (southeastern Pennsylvania, USA) you can get seriously
>
> killed following to the letter traffic laws that were essentially
>

> written for motor vehicles ...

Well, the fundamental traffic laws were written before motor vehicles existed. Things like "everybody on the same side of the road" came about when it was almost all horses and carriages.

> ... on roads that where engineered/built with no

>
> thought at all for cyclists or pedestrians.
>
>
>
> Not that I'm not saying "all cases"... Not following traffic laws in a
>
> city, for instance is probably a bad idea most of the time.
>
>
>
> OTOH riding the wrong way at walking/jogging speed down a one-way alley
>
> that is virtually unused can be perceived as safer than mixing it up
>
> with 45 mph traffic on a parallel street that has no shoulder/fog lines.
>
>
>
> Riding on sidewalks is another case in point. Cities? Riding on
>
> pedestrian-populated sidewalks seems just plain dumb to me. Crime
>
> against nature. Case closed.
>
>
>
> But out, say, in West Conshocken I ride a route where one section looks
>
> like a class B post-apocalypse movie as the route passes under a series
>
> of superhighway overpasses. But there is a nice wide sidewalk (albeit
>
> littered with trash and the occasional automobile part), but I'll lay
>
> money that it hasn't seen more than one pedestrian per week for years.
>
> In that case the choice is between riding that sidewalk and hoping that
>
> closing traffic at 60+ with no shoulder doesn't ruin you whole day.

I think there are misconceptions - or in some cases, purposeful distortions - of the views and behaviors of knowledgeable (and even prominent) vehicular cyclists. I've met many of the most influential VCs, I've ridden with a few of them, and I've discussed their riding styles with other people who have ridden with them. I've taken classes from a few of them.

They don't say "You must NEVER ride on a sidewalk." They don't say "You must never ride anywhere that a car can't also drive." They don't say "Absolutely all bike facilities are bad," or "You must slavishly obey every detail of traffic law."

And in that community, there is continuing discussion and debate over fundamentals, like about when it's appropriate to control the lane vs. share the lane; about whether "Idaho stops" should be legal or not; about the relative value of various infrastructure designs, etc. These are smart people, not automatons.

In general, they do object to the idea that "any bike facility is a good bike facility." (They tend to analyze them according to real-world actions and reactions of road users, taking into account things like predictability, visibility, hazard avoidance, and actual crash data.) They object to door zone bike lanes, to segregated facilities that hide a cyclist until he suddenly pops into the path of a car, to bike lanes that put a cyclist to the right (in the U.S.) of right-turning vehicles, etc.

They don't pretend (as one poster here used to claim) that it's not necessary to be alert, or to watch for road hazards. In fact, the opposite is true, and those factors are specifically taught in cycling classes.

They do share the belief that with just a little learning, almost all people can ride safely on almost all roads; and that the most important thing is for all road users to follow logical and consistent road rules.

Bending rules? Again, they're smart people, not automatons. I doubt you'd ever find a State Highway Patrolman who always executes a perfect stop sign stop in his family car. Likewise, I doubt you'd ever find _any_ cyclist who hits zero velocity for over one second at every stop sign. And if carefully riding a one-way alley would save half a mile of out-of-the-way travel, I imagine almost all cyclists would find a way to do that.

However, that's not the same as absolving or arguing in favor of riding salmon-style head-on at other cyclists; or riding drunk at night without lights; or blowing through traffic lights at whim. Competent "vehicular cyclists" don't, AFAIK, approve of riding like that. And of course, the dolts who ride like that don't approve of vehicular cycling.

- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 2:02:09 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.

There is one case where I live and ride where breaking the rules of the road is productive. I ride on some very narrow lanes. Legally a car should not pass because there isn't space to give a cyclist a metre of space. But I try not to hold up motorist until they become impatient and do something stupid. If I go to the side of the road I should be on, and the driver is clumsy, I end in the ditch. So I go to the "wrong", the driver side, where the driver, especially of wide vans or trucks, can see precisely how much space there is. You let the driver pass, and the cyclist is relatively safe. I've let the police pass in their truck a few times in this manner, and none of them ever said a word about it.

But I think nothing of riding on the pavement to keep safe in places where the traffic is too heavy and traveling too fast. Even without malice most people here don't know how wide/long their cars and especially vans are. Yesterday, returning in the rush hour from the parking lot of a hardware store which is conveniently laid out on a hill to ride intervals, I found joggers on the narrow pavement I normally use, so I went on the road. I was traveling downhill at a fraction over 40kph and two drivers still managed to touch my pannier basket with their cars as they tried to squeeze between me and oncoming traffic, and several others passed me into a blind corner where their accident might have involved me too; they simply have no experience of riding around bicycles, and no idea of spatial considerations of width/length/speed. So in a ride of less than 3km, my life was closely endangered twice, and several other potentially harmful events happened.

It's ironic that I'm safer on the narrow country lanes than on the suburban road that passes the front of my town house.

There are certain roads, including some that twenty years ago I often cycled after dark, on which it now simply isn't safe to go even early on a Sunday morning. They include every major road out of town.

Several people who used to ride with me no longer cycle because the traffic makes the ride too stressful. The superintendent of police for the whole region, who surely knew which were the dangerous roads, was killed on a road on which I refused to go with him a couple of years before that.

I don't care what Vehicular Cycling idiots like Krygo say, I'm safer on the pavement. I don't care what the law says either; my life is far more important than the law; anyone who wants me to observe the law should enforce the metro separation rule before they even speak to me. I don't fancy a memorial inscribed "Here lies Andre Jute/who stood on his right/to receive a metro of clear space/from every driver".

Andre Jute

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per frkr...@gmail.com:

>
>However, that's not the same as absolving or arguing in favor of riding salmon-style head-on at other cyclists; or riding drunk at night without lights; or blowing through traffic lights at whim. Competent "vehicular cyclists" don't, AFAIK, approve of riding like that. And of course, the dolts who ride like that don't approve of vehicular cycling.

Nice post.

The post gave me a much-improved understanding of "Vehicular Cycling" -
which I had previously take to be soon-to-be-short-lived people trying
to act just like motor vehicles.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Duane]

That comment would have been just as valid by replacing Vehicular
Cyclists with "competent cyclists" and Vehicular Cycling with "competent
cycling."

You don't have to join the cult to be a competent cyclist.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Andre Jute:

>
>But I think nothing of riding on the pavement to keep safe in places where the traffic is too heavy and traveling too fast. Even without malice most people here don't know how wide/long their cars and especially vans are.

A close-family-member-who-shall-remain-unnamed has no idea whatsoever -
zero, zilch, bupkis, nada... - where their left wheels are when driving
an automobile. Potholes that are way beyond the ghost line, curbs...
you name it. The right-side tires on that car really catch hell. Woe
be undo the poor cyclist....

That plus knowing that cell phone use, texting while driving, and doing
email while driving have become significantly-common informs my riding
today.

My suspicion is that the rules for safe riding are still evolving and
were not formulated in the context of, for instance, the study by
somebody somewhere that indicated 30 percent of people under 30 years of
age admitting to texting while driving within the last 30 days.

Couple years back, a guy I windsurfed with got his while riding the
shoulder of a flat, dead-straight stretch of road. Seemed like the
only plausible explanation was the driver of the pickup truck texting,
dialing, or emailing.
--
Pete Cresswell

[davethedave]

Too true. I always thought the vehicular cycling thing was just rebranded
road sense with some marketing whizzo stuff thrown in for U.S. book sales
by what's 'is name the tree care dude. (I don't see why I should increase
his internet prescence.)

The only problems I have where I live are;

right hooks, (They just don't care.)

turning left (sheer weight of traffic prevents it being an easy affair)

roundabouts (there are traffic lights at each quarter. The idea of how
they work has not been fully grasped and traffic backs up to hell and
back before the lights change.)

red light jumpers (are a matter of course not just for special occasions)
You can see a few here on the roads I ride on. Along with other idiocy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzV8KJ3oQYQ

However once you know what's going on it's not too difficult to cope
with.
--
davethedave

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per davethedave:

>red light jumpers (are a matter of course not just for special occasions)
>You can see a few here on the roads I ride on. Along with other idiocy.

Couple years back, they went to ridiculously-long red/green light times
around here - along with that moronic pause where all lights are red.

I'd guess there was a brief reduction in accidents that looked good on
somebody's stats somewhere.

But now that the honeymoon is over the pause is being discounted by a
*lot* of drivers.

Where I used to see people occasionally slipping through red (not
yellow... red) lights, now I'm seeing every day people coming into the
red pedal-to-the-metal: both knowing the traffic on the other side won't
have green for some ridiculous time and also in order to avoid the very
long red light.... and they don't always judge the delay right.

On one major road near our house, you wouldn't last a week if you just
looked at the green light and stepped off the curb. You literally have
to wait a few seconds for the inevitable 2-3 vehicles running the red to
pass.
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per (PeteCresswell):

>where their left wheels are

Oops... SHB "right wheels"....
--
Pete Cresswell

[Andre Jute]

I thought you were sensitively adapting your remarks to my drive on the left circumstances. Disappointed to discover it is only an accident. -- AJ

[Dan O]

On May 2, 10:08 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 8:15 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> >>> On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> >>>> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
> >>>> that
>
> >>>> really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
> >>>> that
>
> >>>> bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
> >>>> many
>
> >>>> bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
> >>>> it
>
> >>>> pleases tthem.
>
> >>>>http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...
>
> Yup. We get that a lot.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups
>

> >>>http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/becausealthough their goal is

>
> >>> admirable, their methods are highly questionable.
>
> >>> They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which
> >>> is
>
> >>> really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness,
> >>> and say
>
> >>> it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by
> >>> many here.
>
> >> It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried
> >> and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult,
> >> and not tried."
>
> > It's been said: "krygowski you're a fucking idiot!"
>
> Aw, c'mon now, Dan. While that made me giggle a little, it wasn't
> really called for just there, was it?
>
> I think those of us who regularly mix it with the fossil fuel burners
> have learned to ride defensively, which is a lot of what VC is about.
>
> I'm no practitioner of strict VC. I have to say quite a few hail Eddy's
> whenever I go to the VC priest for confession, but I do a lot of what
> the Godfather of the "one true way" prescribes, though it was learned
> from experience.
>
> I suggest that although you take alternate routes, you do some VC stuff
> without realising it. I know I do.
>

Not without realizing it. I absolutely *do* realize it. Moreover, I
well realize that I could *easily* do it quite completely if I wanted
to (but then my riding experience would *suck*) - references available
in the archive.

What irritates me so is Frank's superciliousness about it -
"competency" and all that. In fact I would venture to say that my way
is far more difficult ("don't try this at home, kids"), but I don't go
around criticizing anybody else's way (until they start to berate me
and mine for no good reason but to make themselves feel superior).

Oh, and the derogatory phrase abive is a ~quote from the archives -
something that's "been said" by someone else (the all lowercase is a
hint). It's a bit of a play on the value of "It's been said... "

[Dan O]

No. I didn't mena to post that (clicker must have slipped or
somehting) - it was a hasty reply before I'd read the whole story, at
which point I retracte the thought.

And I never even suggested that he was competent. Try to keep up.

[Dan O]

On May 3, 10:30 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, May 3, 2013 5:06:45 PM UTC+1, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:55:52 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 8:15 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
>
> > > > > On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > > > > > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that
>
> > > > > > really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that
>
> > > > > > bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many
>
> > > > > > bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it
>
> > > > > > pleases tthem.
>
> > > > > >http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...
>
> > > > > Yup. We get that a lot.
>
> > > > > I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups
>

> > > > >http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/becausealthough their goal is

>
> > > > > admirable, their methods are highly questionable.
>
> > > > > They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is
>
> > > > > really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say
>
> > > > > it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.
>
> > > > It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult, and not tried."
>
> > > It's been said: "krygowski you're a fucking idiot!"
>
> > And you're still behaving like a drunken teenager, in your riding style, your garbage language, your anti-societal attitudes, your mini-minded posts, and probably in other ways we haven't heard about.
>
> > Too bad you're not really 15 years old. There would at least be hope of good sense arriving with maturity.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Aw, Franki-boy, I was just getting ready to feel sorry for you and say something calming to Dan, when you get on your high horse and stick your snot-nozzle in the air. You're your own worst enemy, man.
>

Yeah, I got a kick out that one, too.

And thanks, Andre - I also *do* realize that I need to calm down.
Thanks.

[Dan O]

On May 3, 3:49 am, Duane Hébert <s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 9:02 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>
> Seems that there is a correlation.
>

Well then, maybe if we all just do what the fucking cagers want, then
they'll accept us. Yeah, right.

> >http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...
>

> > Cheers

[Dan O]

On May 3, 9:06 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:55:52 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> > On May 2, 8:15 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
>
> > > > On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > > > > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that
>
> > > > > really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that
>
> > > > > bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many
>
> > > > > bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it
>
> > > > > pleases tthem.
>
> > > > >http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...
>
> > > > Yup. We get that a lot.
>
> > > > I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups
>

> > > >http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/becausealthough their goal is

>
> > > > admirable, their methods are highly questionable.
>
> > > > They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which is
>
> > > > really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness, and say
>
> > > > it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by many here.
>
> > > It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult, and not tried."
>
> > It's been said: "krygowski you're a fucking idiot!"
>
> And you're still behaving like a drunken teenager, in your riding style, your garbage language, your anti-societal attitudes, your mini-minded posts, and probably in other ways we haven't heard about.
>
> Too bad you're not really 15 years old. There would at least be hope of good sense arriving with maturity.
>

Such sheer contemptuous disdain. Is it any wonder...

[Dan O]

Well said.

[Dan O]

On May 3, 12:36 pm, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/2013 3:25 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>

> > Per frkry...@gmail.com:

Well said.

[Dan O]

On May 3, 4:10 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 10:08 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 8:15 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> > >>> On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > >>>> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
> > >>>> that
>
> > >>>> really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
> > >>>> that
>
> > >>>> bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
> > >>>> many
>
> > >>>> bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
> > >>>> it
>
> > >>>> pleases tthem.
>
> > >>>>http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...
>
> > Yup. We get that a lot.
>
> > >>> I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups
>

> > >>>http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/becausealthoughtheir goal is

My way (and I've described this before) involves a radically dynamic
range of heightened risk and significance on situational awareness.
Just following the prescribed, orderly, "proper" way is for wussies.

[Dan O]

On May 3, 4:47 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 4:10 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 10:08 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 8:15 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> > > >>> On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > > >>>> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
> > > >>>> that
>
> > > >>>> really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
> > > >>>> that
>
> > > >>>> bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
> > > >>>> many
>
> > > >>>> bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
> > > >>>> it
>
> > > >>>> pleases tthem.
>
> > > >>>>http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...
>
> > > Yup. We get that a lot.
>
> > > >>> I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups
>

> > > >>>http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/becausealthoughtheirgoal is

What's aggravating is that my hijinks do not practically harm or even
affect anyone else - practically. But they *do* elevate my experience
from what may be at best merely pleasant to indescribably joyous
exultation.

What my hijinks *do* do is offend the sensibility of people with
serious control hangups (Hall Monitors, especially). Fuck 'em. Ride
Bike!

[Dan O]

And yes, I absolutely do incorporate elements of VC right out of the
book... though that's not where I got them. At times I am the most
compliant and sedate thing imaginable. It depends.

[Dan O]

Me, me, me - it's all about me. (Calm down, self. Perspective. Get
a grip.)

[Dan O]

On May 3, 5:10 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> ... Hall Monitors...

Rooney, Strickland, Krygowski - classic fuddy-duddy antagonists.

> Fuck 'em. Ride
> Bike!
>

<snip>

[Dan O]

On May 3, 5:47 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 5:10 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > ... Hall Monitors...
>
> Rooney, Strickland, Krygowski - classic fuddy-duddy antagonists.
>

Frank, jus tin case (ha!) you don't get the reference, google "Rooney
Ferris" and "Strickland Slacker".

>
> <snip>

[Dan O]

On May 3, 5:14 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 5:12 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> > ...

> > compliant and sedate thing imaginable. It depends.
>

> ... Calm down, self. Perspective. Get
> a grip.)
>

http://www.google.com/search?q=why+are+you+running+away+pink

<snip>

[Király]

Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that
> really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that
> bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many
> bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it
> pleases tthem.
>

> http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cyclists-141704036.html

Ha. Vancouver is at the top with the most collisions. Nowhere in the
article does it say that that's almost certainly because Vancouver has a
lot more year-round cyclists than any other Canadian city. Sure your
city's stats are going to be lower if cyclists aren't out for eight
months of the year.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[Dan O]

On May 3, 2:30 pm, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) wrote:

> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that
> > really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that
> > bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many
> > bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it
> > pleases tthem.
>

> >http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...

>
> Ha. Vancouver is at the top with the most collisions. Nowhere in the
> article does it say that that's almost certainly because Vancouver has a
> lot more year-round cyclists than any other Canadian city. Sure your
> city's stats are going to be lower if cyclists aren't out for eight
> months of the year.
>

The data worshipers kill me; it's not as if they really know anything.

(Wait for it... )

[Frank Krygowski]

On May 3, 3:36 pm, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/2013 3:25 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>

> > Per frkry...@gmail.com:

It's rather odd to think that using the most commonly accepted term
constitutes "joining the cult."

Are you comfortable riding without a bike lane? Do you understand the
downsides of "cycle tracks" that hide cyclists from path-crossing
motorists? Can you properly merge into a left turn lane? Do you ride
far enough left to be safe, especially in a narrow-lane situation?

If so, you may be a vehicular cyclist, no matter how much you dislike
the term. If not, you have much to learn.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

One pertinent question is, to get the attention of a texting driver,
is it better to be at the edge of the road, in a territory they
generally ignore? Or is it better to be closer to lane center, where
they have to look from time to time to stay on course?

Deaths while cycling are extremely rare, on the order of one per 10 or
15 million miles ridden. And by your anecdote (and others) riding on
the shoulder, or in a bike lane, doesn't necessarily defend against
those rare occurrences. Personally, I think it's better to be
conspicuous.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On May 3, 9:51 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 3:36 pm, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5/3/2013 3:25 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
> > > Per frkry...@gmail.com:
>
> > >> However, that's not the same as absolving or arguing in favor of riding salmon-style head-on at other cyclists; or riding drunk at night without lights; or blowing through traffic lights at whim. Competent "vehicular cyclists" don't, AFAIK, approve of riding like that. And of course, the dolts who ride like that don't approve of vehicular cycling.
>
> > > Nice post.
>
> > > The post gave me a much-improved understanding of "Vehicular Cycling" -
> > > which I had previously take to be soon-to-be-short-lived people trying
> > > to act just like motor vehicles.
>
> > That comment would have been just as valid by replacing Vehicular
> > Cyclists with "competent cyclists" and Vehicular Cycling with "competent
> > cycling."
>
> > You don't have to join the cult to be a competent cyclist.
>
> It's rather odd to think that using the most commonly accepted term
> constitutes "joining the cult."
>

Actually, that's a charitable characterization.

> Are you comfortable riding without a bike lane?

Yes.

> Do you understand the
> downsides of "cycle tracks" that hide cyclists from path-crossing
> motorists?

Duh.

> Can you properly merge into a left turn lane?

(I think I see where this is going... )

> Do you ride
> far enough left to be safe, especially in a narrow-lane situation?
>

Still alive and kicking, so I guess so.

> If so, you may be a vehicular cyclist,

And I "may be" a redneck, too (but I'm not). So what? Got any more
"It's been said:... "

> ... no matter how much you dislike

> the term. If not, you have much to learn.
>

Everyone *always* has much to learn. Do you?

[Dan O]

On May 3, 10:04 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 3:42 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Per Andre Jute:
>
> > >But I think nothing of riding on the pavement to keep safe in places where the traffic is too heavy and traveling too fast. Even without malice most people here don't know how wide/long their cars and especially vans are.
>
> > A close-family-member-who-shall-remain-unnamed has no idea whatsoever -
> > zero, zilch, bupkis, nada... - where their left wheels are when driving
> > an automobile. Potholes that are way beyond the ghost line, curbs...
> > you name it. The right-side tires on that car really catch hell. Woe
> > be undo the poor cyclist....
>
> > That plus knowing that cell phone use, texting while driving, and doing
> > email while driving have become significantly-common informs my riding
> > today.
>
> > My suspicion is that the rules for safe riding are still evolving and
> > were not formulated in the context of, for instance, the study by
> > somebody somewhere that indicated 30 percent of people under 30 years of
> > age admitting to texting while driving within the last 30 days.
>
> > Couple years back, a guy I windsurfed with got his while riding the
> > shoulder of a flat, dead-straight stretch of road. Seemed like the
> > only plausible explanation was the driver of the pickup truck texting,
> > dialing, or emailing.
>
> One pertinent question is, to get the attention of a texting driver,
> is it better to be at the edge of the road, in a territory they
> generally ignore? Or is it better to be closer to lane center, where
> they have to look from time to time to stay on course?
>

Are you fucking kidding me? It's better to be in the middle of the
lane to be safe from inattentive drivers?

> Deaths while cycling are extremely rare, on the order of one per 10 or
> 15 million miles ridden. And by your anecdote (and others) riding on
> the shoulder, or in a bike lane, doesn't necessarily defend against
> those rare occurrences. Personally, I think it's better to be
> conspicuous.
>

Got any statistics on lane position and those fatalities? Don't
forget to factor exposure time in each position.

[John B.]

What in the world is a "vehicular cyclist" and how is he different
from any another individual that rides a bicycle?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 5/4/2013 12:18 AM, Dan O wrote:
> On May 3, 9:51 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

-snip-

>> ... no matter how much you dislike
>> the term. If not, you have much to learn.
>>
>
> Everyone *always* has much to learn. Do you?
>

Semantically, "you have much to learn" rubs people the wrong
way when it's not learning as the term is commonly used.
What to do at any moment for a cyclist is always
situational because whatever rule we use cannot account for
the increasing anomalies of the addled pilots among us.

Expressing an opinion about general riding habits is one
thing (and I probably share almost all of those opinions
with both Frank and Dan, whose practical differences are
small) but telling a guy who actually rides a bike every day
that he's both wrong and ignorant is something else and
probably isn't helpful.

You can learn pi to however many places but you can't learn
bus on left, broken pavement every meter or so, car door
maybe about to open ahead, another bike with/behind you, etc
etc. Even the same rider on the same street may well react
differently with different weather, speed etc from day to day.

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

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>One pertinent question is, to get the attention of a texting driver,
>is it better to be at the edge of the road, in a territory they
>generally ignore? Or is it better to be closer to lane center, where
>they have to look from time to time to stay on course?
>
>Deaths while cycling are extremely rare, on the order of one per 10 or
>15 million miles ridden. And by your anecdote (and others) riding on
>the shoulder, or in a bike lane, doesn't necessarily defend against
>those rare occurrences. Personally, I think it's better to be
>conspicuous.

Since discovering the wonders of a rear-view mirror, I have come around
to a modified version of that.

Closest I've come to death have been situations where something passed
me when there was insufficient room. In those cases, if I had been
"taking the lane", the drivers would not have been tempted to pass me
unsafely. OTOH, the on-in-ten-thousand psycho would have just run me
down.... -)

"Modified" because, when riding on a road street, although I do take the
lane, when I see closing traffic I let it by at the first opportunity
which, 99.9% of the time is before they have to slow down - I just jump
up onto a sidewalk or slow down and take to the gravel and/or weeds. The
slowing down part has to be done well before the closing traffic
establishes "contact" - so it does not mess up the driver's perception
of closing time.

Another reason for "taking the lane" vs riding too far over to the right
at speed is that traffic pulling out from side streets is more likely to
see the rider that is not hugging the shoulder.

OTOH, you don't want to be in the left wheel track of the lane going
around corners because, at least around here, a lot of people cut their
corners - coming around the curve at you 2-3 feet over the line. I
almost got nailed a couple of times before this reality sunk in.
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dan O:

>
>> Deaths while cycling are extremely rare, on the order of one per 10 or
>> 15 million miles ridden. And by your anecdote (and others) riding on
>> the shoulder, or in a bike lane, doesn't necessarily defend against
>> those rare occurrences. Personally, I think it's better to be
>> conspicuous.
>>
>
>Got any statistics on lane position and those fatalities? Don't
>forget to factor exposure time in each position.

Whenever I hear statistics on cycling accidents my reflex reaction is
that maybe people are attributing much more
sophistication/granularity/accuracy to the collection system than is
actually there.

I actually know *nothing* about those systems; but, based on what I do
know, I would not give them much credit without reliable information to
the contrary.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Jay Beattie]

Being conspicuous is important, even when you are not in the traffic
lane, but taking the lane center to be conspicuous makes no sense when
there is an ample shoulder and no cross-traffic (the straight road
scenario).

If a driver is so inattentive as to leave the road and hit a rider on
the shoulder, then that driver is going to hit the rider on the road,
too. And while I have no statistics to back this up, it has been my
experience that "minor inattention" --people who look down or reach
for a cup or answer a phone (not texting) -- try hard to keep going
straight and often end up causing rear end collisions. People who
leave the lane are drunk, night blind, confused by the roadway,
startled, falling asleep, etc. Not much you can do about them.

But, IMO, conspicuity on the shoulder is very important and taking the
lane is reasonable at intersections or any place there is entering or
exiting traffic that doesn't have a good sight line down the road.
Then you have to make a judgment as to whether taking the lane is
going to expose you to more danger from through traffic. It all
depends on road and traffic conditions.

-- Jay Beattie.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:18:25 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>
> Everyone *always* has much to learn. Do you?

I do, and I try to learn.

For example, in the past 12 months, I've attended two separate cycling education events. I'm talking about events that I traveled hundreds of miles to get to, organized on a statewide or nationwide basis, and attended and run by people who are nationally prominent in bicycling advocacy and education. I got additional training in both riding and teaching.

And you? What steps have you taken to learn more?

(I'm not talking about claims that you're thinking deeply. Anybody can claim that. I'm talking about gaining knowledge from recognized sources outside of yourself.)

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

Yes, absolutely right - you, Pete, Andy, et al - even much of what
Frank says.

There are situations where it makes sense to "take the lane"; but for
me, the purpose is almost never to "take the lane" - that I have taken
it is just incidental to the fact that my lane position does not leave
room for cars to pass me in that same lane; I almost *never* do it to
"control" traffic.

And I try to keep such lane taking to a minimum. The reasons for
keeping as far right as practicable (or out of the lane or even off
the road completely) are at least twofold: One, it's just gonna piss
cagers off and they're already intolerant enough as it is, and Two...
well, let me start another paragraph for this:

About inattentive drivers and keeping yourself from getting creamed by
them: Most of the action you can watch ahead for and observe /
predict / anticipate (possibilities / probabilities / eventualities) /
take action to deal with. (If most of the action that could affect
you is coming from behind, I look for a more preferable route.) Those
coming from behind, you just kind of have to trust in Providence to
keep from creaming you; and you can largely do this (trust in
Providence), because drivers are largely paying enough attention to
keep from mowing things down in their path. But if they're not paying
enough attention to keep from mowing things down in their path, I want
to be incidentally out of their path when they our paths in space /
time ~coincide. It just happens that even inattentive drivers are far
more apt (at any moment in time) to be occupying the middle of the
lane than the road edge.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Jay Beattie:

>Being conspicuous is important, even when you are not in the traffic
>lane,

The two close calls I've had in the past year have both been
attributable to the colors of what I was wearing: Olive cargo pants and
a dark green or blue long-sleeved shirt.

After one, the guy actually chased me down to apologize profusely "I
just did not see you....". In the other I'm pretty sure the kid behind
the wheel was high. But I attribute both to my lack of visibility.

Now I take pains to wear a bright red jacket or shirt.
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Phil W Lee:
>You mean you saw them coming, and were able to move safely out of
>their way.

No. Actually they were upon me before I knew what was happening 10
inches more and I'd probably be dead or quadriplegic.

Call me selfish, but martyrdom holds no appeal for me.
--
Pete Cresswell

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 7:58:55 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>
>
> What in the world is a "vehicular cyclist" and how is he different
>
> from any another individual that rides a bicycle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling gives some explanation.

The individual who was riding his bike facing traffic right toward my bike, when I was being passed by a car this Tuesday, was not a vehicular cyclist. Neither is a person who zooms up onto and off of sidewalks whenever it strikes his fancy. Nor a person who says he rides only on bike paths, or only where there are bike lanes. Nor a person who runs red lights at whim, or rides without legal lighting at night. Nor any person who will endanger or greatly inconvenience himself to avoid slowing or inconveniencing any motorists - like the ex-racer I know whom I watched "holding his line" about 6" from a right side pavement dropoff with an 8.5 foot truck behind him, rather than ride at the center of the 10 foot lane.

Those are some examples. I could give others.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 8:04:12 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/4/2013 12:18 AM, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 9:51 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
>
>
> >> ... no matter how much you dislike
>
> >> the term. If not, you have much to learn.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Everyone *always* has much to learn. Do you?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Semantically, "you have much to learn" rubs people the wrong
>
> way when it's not learning as the term is commonly used.
>
> What to do at any moment for a cyclist is always
>
> situational because whatever rule we use cannot account for
>
> the increasing anomalies of the addled pilots among us.
>
>
>
> Expressing an opinion about general riding habits is one
>
> thing (and I probably share almost all of those opinions
>
> with both Frank and Dan, whose practical differences are
>
> small) but telling a guy who actually rides a bike every day
>
> that he's both wrong and ignorant is something else and
>
> probably isn't helpful.

Of course, there are people who ride bikes every day and who do it very, very badly. I seldom say anything to them, unless (like Tuesday's salmon rider) they actually endanger me.

But I think cycling and cyclists would be better off if there were a way for people to hear when they're doing things wrong. To take one easy example: Wouldn't it be better if somehow, everyone got the message that riding in the door zone is bad? It might eventually convince riders to stop running into doors - a large percentage of serious crashes in some cities - and it might eventually convince people to stop asking for (or providing) bike lanes in door zones.

(And yes, there are "bicycle advocates" who demand door zone bike lanes. They want bike lanes everywhere, dammit, even if those lanes steer riders into popped-open doors.)

Unfortunately, in the U.S. almost nobody gets taught anything about cycling. And everyone who rides for more than about a year seems to think that they are perfectly competent. So competent that they'll argue loudly against even the number one rule of the road (which direction one should ride). They'll complain long and loud about all their problems on the road, never realizing that with more competence, they could solve those problems themselves.

> You can learn pi to however many places but you can't learn
>
> bus on left, broken pavement every meter or so, car door
>
> maybe about to open ahead, another bike with/behind you, etc
>
> etc.

I think you _can_ learn to stay out of reach of car doors, to not let a bus squeeze you to the curb, to watch for broken pavement, etc. These things are certainly teachable, and much more useful than the tenth digit of pi!

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On May 4, 8:32 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:18:25 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>
> > Everyone *always* has much to learn. Do you?
>
> I do, and I try to learn.
>
> For example, in the past 12 months, I've attended two separate cycling education events. I'm talking about events that I traveled hundreds of miles to get to, organized on a statewide or nationwide basis, and attended and run by people who are nationally prominent in bicycling advocacy and education. I got additional training in both riding and teaching.
>

Oooooooo... "prominent" :-)

> And you? What steps have you taken to learn more?
>

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/ee1137e0abb06f74

> (I'm not talking about claims that you're thinking deeply. Anybody can claim that. I'm talking about gaining knowledge from recognized sources outside of yourself.)
>

Ooooo... "recognized" :-)

[Dan O]

On May 4, 10:20 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 8:32 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:18:25 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>
> > > Everyone *always* has much to learn. Do you?
>
> > I do, and I try to learn.
>

<snip>

>
> > And you? What steps have you taken to learn more?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/ee1137e0abb06f74
>

Test me. Come on, ask me something. See if I know (I *promise* to
answer straight out of my head without looking *anything* up.)

<snip>

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>
>
>

> http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cyclists-141704036.html
>
>
>
> Cheers

Hmm, so many interesting posts. I don't know which one to comment on.

Here's the thing I find interesting. The only time I ever had a collision with another vehicle whilst riding my bicycle it was because an idiot bicyclist going the WRONG way zoomed out of a quiet side street to cross a busy multi-lane road (multiple lanes both) ways. There was absolutely no way to avoid hitting this cretin. The corner of the street he exited from in the WRONG direction was also a blind corner.

I do not have nearly the same number of close calls with motorists that I do with bicyclists. At nightstealth bicyclists will ride along the sidewalk and then suddenly move onto the roadway. I've even had them do a 90 degree turn in order to sprint from the sidealk to a store across the street.

So many times I've seen a bicyclist appear seemingly out of nowhere (wormhole? Time warp?) in a manner that no other road user would expect.

As a motor vehicle passenger I have seen bicyclists doing trackstands at an intersection and their front wheel is wobling a bit on its contact point with the road. Almost without fail the non bicyclist driver says on or more of the following: "What the H**l is he doing? Where's he going? Is he going straight or is he going to turn?"

A lot of bicyclist ride as if they were surrounded by tank steel. They think they are invincible.

It would be very nice if all road users were to behave in a manner that is predictable to other road users. That is, save the acrobatics for the streets when they are empty of traffic not in the midst of a rush hour.

Cheers

[Dan O]

On May 4, 10:41 am, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>

> >http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...

>
> > Cheers
>
> Hmm, so many interesting posts. I don't know which one to comment on.
>
> Here's the thing I find interesting. The only time I ever had a collision with another vehicle whilst riding my bicycle it was because an idiot bicyclist going the WRONG way zoomed out of a quiet side street to cross a busy multi-lane road (multiple lanes both) ways. There was absolutely no way to avoid hitting this cretin. The corner of the street he exited from in the WRONG direction was also a blind corner.
>

Hey, there's a side street. Something *could* zoom out from it.
There are no wormholes or time warps or...

That said, the unexpected / improbable bites us sometimes. That's
life. Live and learn. Do better next time.

> I do not have nearly the same number of close calls with motorists that I do with bicyclists. At nightstealth bicyclists will ride along the sidewalk and then suddenly move onto the roadway. I've even had them do a 90 degree turn in order to sprint from the sidealk to a store across the street.
>
> So many times I've seen a bicyclist appear seemingly out of nowhere (wormhole? Time warp?) in a manner that no other road user would expect.
>

I get this, too, but more usually from possums and skunks and raccoons
and deer and... What's the point in bitching about it? I guess I
could take the attitude that cagers take with me - that these critters
don't belong on *our* road, but...

> As a motor vehicle passenger I have seen bicyclists doing trackstands at an intersection and their front wheel is wobling a bit on its contact point with the road. Almost without fail the non bicyclist driver says on or more of the following: "What the H**l is he doing? Where's he going? Is he going straight or is he going to turn?"
>
> A lot of bicyclist ride as if they were surrounded by tank steel. They think they are invincible.
>

Channeling Nate? What you describe - if it actually existed - would
be a self-correcting problem. Otherwise, live and let live.

> It would be very nice if all road users were to behave in a manner that is predictable to other road users. That is, save the acrobatics for the streets when they are empty of traffic not in the midst of a rush hour.
>

I understand, except that it would be less desirable for me (see
"chaos" below). Note upthread where I said I am often the most
compliant and sedate thing imaginable. I do consider
"appropriateness", but my sense of propriety differs vastly from e.g.
Frank's.

I do hope that things are at least well enough in hand that there's
never critical mass to crack down on the tremendous freedom I
currently enjoy riding my bike. That would suck. And I try not to
push it (Andy is right that the practical differences between Frank
and I are small), but I won't be repressed.

One of the most important things that I have learned is that no matter
how much I may want to impose order on the world, ultimately, chaos
rules - and that's a good thing.

[Dan O]

On May 4, 11:06 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 10:41 am, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>
> > >http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cycli...
>
> > > Cheers
>
> > Hmm, so many interesting posts. I don't know which one to comment on.
>
> > Here's the thing I find interesting. The only time I ever had a collision with another vehicle whilst riding my bicycle it was because an idiot bicyclist going the WRONG way zoomed out of a quiet side street to cross a busy multi-lane road (multiple lanes both) ways. There was absolutely no way to avoid hitting this cretin. The corner of the street he exited from in the WRONG direction was also a blind corner.
>
> Hey, there's a side street. Something *could* zoom out from it.
> There are no wormholes or time warps or...
>
> That said, the unexpected / improbable bites us sometimes. That's
> life. Live and learn. Do better next time.
>
> > I do not have nearly the same number of close calls with motorists that I do with bicyclists. At nightstealth bicyclists will ride along the sidewalk and then suddenly move onto the roadway. I've even had them do a 90 degree turn in order to sprint from the sidealk to a store across the street.
>
> > So many times I've seen a bicyclist appear seemingly out of nowhere (wormhole? Time warp?) in a manner that no other road user would expect.
>
> I get this, too, but more usually from possums and skunks and raccoons
> and deer and... What's the point in bitching about it? I guess I
> could take the attitude that cagers take with me - that these critters
> don't belong on *our* road, but...
>
> > As a motor vehicle passenger I have seen bicyclists doing trackstands at an intersection and their front wheel is wobling a bit on its contact point with the road. Almost without fail the non bicyclist driver says on or more of the following: "What the H**l is he doing? Where's he going? Is he going straight or is he going to turn?"
>
> > A lot of bicyclist ride as if they were surrounded by tank steel. They think they are invincible.
>
> Channeling Nate? What you describe - if it actually existed - would
> be a self-correcting problem. Otherwise, live and let live.
>
> > It would be very nice if all road users were to behave in a manner that is predictable to other road users. That is, save the acrobatics for the streets when they are empty of traffic not in the midst of a rush hour.
>

I would add that "the midst of rush hour" is frequently when the
cagers are most obnoxious and unreasonable, stewing in a cesspool of
their own making, and have it coming (their noses rubbed in their
miserable constraints).

Even so, and still, I try to be context selective and take effects
(especially, but by no means exclusively, directly practical effects).

[Dan O]

On May 2, 8:14 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>

> Yep. Two days ago, I was on a narrow-ish two lane street that I frequently ride. One car was hanging back behind me, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, then began to go around just as a punk on a mountain bike was heading right at me, riding facing traffic.
>
> As we all passed, I said "What are you doing on the wrong side of the road???" He immediately began yelling at me, claiming he knew what he was doing, and that I was on the wrong side of the road.
>

That seems like a lot of dialog "as we... passed". I usually only
have time for, "<expletive deleted>!" - if that.

Moreover, how did it play out? Personally, when that happens to me
(and it does), I usually shoulder check to see if I can move out and
give this salmon the gutter; if not, I stay right and let him veer
into traffic (or more usually up onto the sidewalk).

And this driver that was so reasonably "hanging back", waiting for a
good opportunity to pass: They suddenly decided to stuff it in there
at the worst possible juncture (?) (This sort of thing happens to me,
too, but it's inconsiderate cager idiocy, not solely the salmon's
fault.) Sounds like the cager wasn't hanging back to cooperatively
share the road with you; sounds more like he regarded you as "in his
way" and just waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so he could get
around your road hogging ass and the hell with those damned
bicyclists.

Let me guess? The salmon passed on your right - because you're no
"gutter bunny".

<snip>

[Radey Shouman]

frkr...@gmail.com writes:

> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that
>> really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that
>> bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many
>> bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it
>> pleases tthem.
>>
>
> Yep. Two days ago, I was on a narrow-ish two lane street that I
> frequently ride. One car was hanging back behind me, waiting for
> oncoming traffic to clear, then began to go around just as a punk on a
> mountain bike was heading right at me, riding facing traffic.
>
> As we all passed, I said "What are you doing on the wrong side of the
> road???" He immediately began yelling at me, claiming he knew what he
> was doing, and that I was on the wrong side of the road.
>

> Of _course_ he felt that he was really competent. They all do.

A few years ago, shortly after daylight savings time had passed, and a
little while after the sun had gone down, I was heading home down an
unlighted road. I had a nice front light, two rear lights, a bright
yellow jacket, reflectors, all that jazz. In the gloaming ahead I
managed to see a ninja-clad bike salmon, with no jazz at all.

I slowed a bit, because you never know which side they're going to want,
and we passed each other without injury. I said not a word, but he
shook his head sadly and said "Gotta ride slower in the winter time,
bro".

--

[Dan O]

On May 4, 12:33 pm, Radey Shouman <shou...@comcast.net> wrote:

I was riding one morning on the narrow paved shoulder of a fairly
busy, high-speed road with deep, steep ditches. A guy on a bike with
no lights emerged out of the darkness coming at me head on.
"<Expletive deleted>!", I ejaculated as passed.

Trouble is he was out there day after day - I just could never know
precisely when or where.

However, I have had more trouble with non-human creatures doing
effectively the same thing (although most of thsoe are either smart
enough or lucky enough not to pop out when there are cars coming).

Oh, well. I judge such critters (even salmon) less harshly than
asshole cagers.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:26:37 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>
> Test me. Come on, ask me something. See if I know (I *promise* to
>
> answer straight out of my head without looking *anything* up.)

OK. How many crashes have you had in the past ten years?

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

Hmm... more than ten, less than a hundred.

How does this question bear on my learning?

C'mon, professor.

[Dan O]

A: I have had *far* more opportunity to know all the factors that
acually result in crashes, and *far* more experience with the actual
results than you have in your entire life.

Seems you have a lot to learn before you start presuming to know the
first thing about it.

> C'mon, professor.

[Lou Holtman]

After a week skiing the wife of my friend once said, 'I didn't crash this
week at all'. After ten years she still skis like a beginner.... On
beginners slopes.

--
Lou

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 2:51:50 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> On May 2, 8:14 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>
> >
>
> > Yep. Two days ago, I was on a narrow-ish two lane street that I frequently ride. One car was hanging back behind me, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, then began to go around just as a punk on a mountain bike was heading right at me, riding facing traffic.
>
> >
>
> > As we all passed, I said "What are you doing on the wrong side of the road???" He immediately began yelling at me, claiming he knew what he was doing, and that I was on the wrong side of the road.
>
> >
>
>
>
> That seems like a lot of dialog "as we... passed". I usually only
>
> have time for, "<expletive deleted>!" - if that.
>
>
>
> Moreover, how did it play out? Personally, when that happens to me
>
> (and it does), I usually shoulder check to see if I can move out and
>
> give this salmon the gutter; if not, I stay right and let him veer
>
> into traffic (or more usually up onto the sidewalk).

I already knew I couldn't move over. I had been glancing at the car just behind in my mirror, and I heard him moving forward just as the punk passed me. Those few blocks have a curb, but no sidewalk.

And yes, we had time for more dialog, because when I yelled something back at him, he turned around and tried to catch up to me, yelling as he was riding, something like "What are you going to tell me??? Come on, tell me!!" aggressive as hell and apparently itching for a fight. I had been riding slow (especially because of the near-head-on conflict), but I raised my speed to stay just in front of him (which required only about 18 mph). He followed me, yelling, for about a city block. Muscular, heavily tattooed, sort of scrappy clothes, and loudly aggressive and obnoxious. A punk.

>
>
>
> And this driver that was so reasonably "hanging back", waiting for a
>
> good opportunity to pass: They suddenly decided to stuff it in there
>
> at the worst possible juncture (?) (This sort of thing happens to me,
>
> too, but it's inconsiderate cager idiocy, not solely the salmon's
>
> fault.) Sounds like the cager wasn't hanging back to cooperatively
>
> share the road with you; sounds more like he regarded you as "in his
>
> way" and just waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so he could get
>
> around your road hogging ass and the hell with those damned
>
> bicyclists.

I don't recall quite as much about the motorist, but I had no problem with his behavior.

> Let me guess? The salmon passed on your right - because you're no
>
> "gutter bunny".

Correct. I'm not going to scrape the curb to avoid such a twerp. I've heard of other people forcing the salmon out into oncoming traffic, but I didn't do that.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

I've had one in the last ten years, when the forks on our tandem failed catastrophically without warning. I've had two moving on-road falls in my life.

This provides some evidence of who is a competent rider and who's not.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On May 4, 1:53 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 4, 1:50 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:26:37 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>
> > > Test me. Come on, ask me something. See if I know (I *promise* to
>
> > > answer straight out of my head without looking *anything* up.)
>
> > OK. How many crashes have you had in the past ten years?
>
> Hmm... more than ten, less than a hundred.
>

... probably less than thrity, though - naybe less than twenty (that's
pretty iffy, though), including this day:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5895fb10aea46f08

<snip>

[Dan O]

On May 4, 2:07 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 4, 2013 2:51:50 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> > On May 2, 8:14 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> > > > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>
> > > Yep. Two days ago, I was on a narrow-ish two lane street that I frequently ride. One car was hanging back behind me, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, then began to go around just as a punk on a mountain bike was heading right at me, riding facing traffic.
>
> > > As we all passed, I said "What are you doing on the wrong side of the road???" He immediately began yelling at me, claiming he knew what he was doing, and that I was on the wrong side of the road.
>
> > That seems like a lot of dialog "as we... passed". I usually only
>
> > have time for, "<expletive deleted>!" - if that.
>
> > Moreover, how did it play out? Personally, when that happens to me
>
> > (and it does), I usually shoulder check to see if I can move out and
>
> > give this salmon the gutter; if not, I stay right and let him veer
>
> > into traffic (or more usually up onto the sidewalk).
>
> I already knew I couldn't move over. I had been glancing at the car just behind in my mirror, and I heard him moving forward just as the punk passed me. Those few blocks have a curb, but no sidewalk.
>
> And yes, we had time for more dialog, because when I yelled something back at him, he turned around and tried to catch up to me, yelling as he was riding, something like "What are you going to tell me??? Come on, tell me!!" aggressive as hell and apparently itching for a fight. I had been riding slow (especially because of the near-head-on conflict), but I raised my speed to stay just in front of him (which required only about 18 mph). He followed me, yelling, for about a city block. Muscular, heavily tattooed, sort of scrappy clothes, and loudly aggressive and obnoxious. A punk.
>

What, you mean *other* people react to your supercilious Hall Monitor
crap like I do? Ithought it was just me.

>
>
>
>
> > And this driver that was so reasonably "hanging back", waiting for a
>
> > good opportunity to pass: They suddenly decided to stuff it in there
>
> > at the worst possible juncture (?) (This sort of thing happens to me,
>
> > too, but it's inconsiderate cager idiocy, not solely the salmon's
>
> > fault.) Sounds like the cager wasn't hanging back to cooperatively
>
> > share the road with you; sounds more like he regarded you as "in his
>
> > way" and just waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so he could get
>
> > around your road hogging ass and the hell with those damned
>
> > bicyclists.
>
> I don't recall quite as much about the motorist, but I had no problem with his behavior.
>

You mena he couldn't see the oncoming bicyclist and you and... and he
stuffed it in there at the worst possible moment?

> > Let me guess? The salmon passed on your right - because you're no
>
> > "gutter bunny".
>
> Correct. I'm not going to scrape the curb to avoid such a twerp. I've heard of other people forcing the salmon out into oncoming traffic, but I didn't do that.
>

Well, it's not forcing (I don't *really* control them, and won't pinch
myself into the curb), but yeah I figured you for the type to "take
the lane" even with overtaking traffic.

[Dan O]

In your rmind. But that's okay. The world *needs* all kinds to be
what it is.

I'm going to try and stop now. Peace out. Where have I been all
week? In a class (gasp). Mostly it's a lot of playing with the
pencils and listening to the "instructor" - noticing how he starts to
gloss over the stuff he doesn't really understand with "yada-yada-
yada". It was about computer intrusion prevention systems and network
firewalls - stuff that I have quite a sound fundamental understanding
of plus experience from kernel hacking to ipfilter in BSD and ipchains
in Slackware and... but this class was on the spiffy big bucks point-
and-click whiz bang thing most people need to do everything for them,
which my employer is springing for; and it's pretty cool stuff (man,
they really have to trust their IPS admin - even though they have no
idea how much).

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 2:51:30 PM UTC+1, (PeteCresswell) wrote, commenting on Krygowski spraying statistics at random:

> Whenever I hear statistics on cycling accidents my reflex reaction is
>
> that maybe people are attributing much more
>
> sophistication/granularity/accuracy to the collection system than is
>
> actually there.
>
>
>
> I actually know *nothing* about those systems; but, based on what I do
>
> know, I would not give them much credit without reliable information to
>
> the contrary.
>
> --
>
> Pete Cresswell

Oh, the large national number set that I analyzed a few years ago, when I discovered Krygowski was actually making cycling out to be more dangerous than it really is, is more than good enough, and the longterm New York study didn't even use a sample, it simply studied the entire universe of cyclist accidents over a multi-year period: it is utterly reliable regardless of what the anti-helmet zealots try to tell you (they hate it because those numbers suggest very strongly that wearing a helmet will contribute significantly to saving your life in accidents where otherwise you may succumb to a head injury). For a few years I was in charge of a $160m annual research budget (yeah, you read that right, a statistician's wet dream), but even I never had the money to make a study as big as that New York study. Instead I worked on the principle that reality for the very richest commercial clients is a properly stratified nation-wide sample of 3000 respondents, the sort of luxury that few statisticians outside the Census Office can afford even once in their working lives.

However, whether you think cycling is safe depends on whether you accept that the relevant number is deaths per million miles, or deaths per million hours, or deaths per million distinct bicycle journeys. Franki-boy always chooses the number most favourable to his case, but he has zero understanding of what the numbers mean, which accounts for him *overstating* the danger of cycling until I straightened him out.

***However, regardless of the statistical probity of number I'm willing to recommend to you (which doesn't include those smallscale studies Frank continually lies about and misinterprets), there is something seriously wrong with our picture from the statistics of how safe cycling is.***

How do I arrive at this startling conclusion? Well, count up the members of RBT, all cyclists, with other cyclists as their friends, and then count up the number of serious accidents and fatalities we know about in these close circles. There are too many -- many, many too many. In statistics there is no such thing as coincidence, and in real life, no coincidence that big. Only a fool dismisses anecdotal evidence as "unscientific" (as Krygowski will instantly do; the guy's a jumped-up welder with the imagination of a sprat). Jobst's accident is a fact, the dead brother of another poster is a fact, the dead policeman I know about is a fact, your late mate is a fact. If the statistics, even the national ones I've just declared copacetic above, were trustworthy for us as cyclists, rather then merely respectable as statistics, these facts in our immediate environs would not be so many, would in fact be none or at most one, considering the low count of RBT's membership.

In addition, I can see for myself that the roads I ride year by year are becoming more hostile to cyclists. The police have a study to show that average speeds and the amount of traffic the roads carry have both increased hugely in the last thirty years. That has to have a safety effect. Also, the speed limits have in fact been raised quite substantially without the roads being upgraded.

I can only laugh at suggestions by Franki-boy that I take the lane. A truck coming around a corner or over a hill, traveling 100kph faster than me, minimum, will splat me on Day Zero.

***

Yo, Danno: I was struck by your remark that, if all the threats are coming from behind the cyclists, he should ride elsewhere. 95% of the threats on my roads come from behind, and there isn't anywhere else to ride. I ride with one eye on the mirror all the time.

Andre Jute

[AMuzi]

You might consider the fickle nature of life, chaos and
randomness before attributing everything to skill.

Did you avoid dangerous situations or escape them by skill?
Probably yes.

But you (so far) weren't subject to a fatal unavoidable
event either. That's not skill.

What should this rider have done differently?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxunqmd

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

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 5:15:02 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> On May 4, 2:07 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, May 4, 2013 2:51:50 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 8:14 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>
> >
>
> > > > Yep. Two days ago, I was on a narrow-ish two lane street that I frequently ride. One car was hanging back behind me, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, then began to go around just as a punk on a mountain bike was heading right at me, riding facing traffic.
>
> >
>
> > > > As we all passed, I said "What are you doing on the wrong side of the road???" He immediately began yelling at me, claiming he knew what he was doing, and that I was on the wrong side of the road.
>
> >
>
> > > That seems like a lot of dialog "as we... passed". I usually only
>
> >
>
> > > have time for, "<expletive deleted>!" - if that.
>
> >
>
> > > Moreover, how did it play out? Personally, when that happens to me
>
> >
>
> > > (and it does), I usually shoulder check to see if I can move out and
>
> >
>
> > > give this salmon the gutter; if not, I stay right and let him veer
>
> >
>
> > > into traffic (or more usually up onto the sidewalk).
>
> >
>
> > I already knew I couldn't move over. I had been glancing at the car just behind in my mirror, and I heard him moving forward just as the punk passed me. Those few blocks have a curb, but no sidewalk.
>
> >
>
> > And yes, we had time for more dialog, because when I yelled something back at him, he turned around and tried to catch up to me, yelling as he was riding, something like "What are you going to tell me??? Come on, tell me!!" aggressive as hell and apparently itching for a fight. I had been riding slow (especially because of the near-head-on conflict), but I raised my speed to stay just in front of him (which required only about 18 mph). He followed me, yelling, for about a city block. Muscular, heavily tattooed, sort of scrappy clothes, and loudly aggressive and obnoxious. A punk.
>
> >
>
>
>
> What, you mean *other* people react to your supercilious Hall Monitor
>
> crap like I do? Ithought it was just me.

Not "other people," Dan. One other person. This incident was absolutely unique.

I've said "You're on the wrong side of the road!" to a fair number of salmon riders over the years. Most said nothing. Some have said "It's so I can see the cars coming." One woman said "I'm sorry, I know, I'll get over." I recall (maybe astonishingly) only one "Fuck you." But I've never had anyone else yell at me then turn around and chase me.

Makes me seriously wonder what chemicals were in this guy's bloodstream.

(Perhaps you'll say that's all good, too - that crack contributes to chaos, and chaos is good?)

- Frank Krygowski

[Lou Holtman]

For some of my riding crashing is a part of the learning experience. Dan's
and my riding is so different from yours that it silly to discuss this. You
never crashed when you were riding your ATB off road? You never
fell/crashed when skiing?

--
Lou

[Jay Beattie]

Road crashes often have nothing to do with cars, traffic, vehicular
cycling or traffic skills. They have more to do with snow and ice and
other crap on the road. Many times its the bad-boy, salmoning, wheelji
king cyclists who can cope best with lost traction. The hand signal
and flippy-flaggers go down.

Now, crashing in to other cyclists, pedestrians, cars, etc. may
indicate a lack of skill -- or a high degree of impatience, which is
sort of in the same category. Getting hit by a car may indicate lack
of skill or just bad luck. You can be doing everything just right --
even according to the vehicular cyclists -- and still get nailed.

Ride note: sunny and beautiful here in PDX about 80F, big east wind
-- I mean blow you over big. Everyone is out -- it's a freak show of
cyclists, runners, motorists. Everybody. The suburban cowboys in Ram
tough pick-ups out in Clackamas county were trying to teach me and my
lycra-wearing faggot buddies a lesson, usually by passing an inch away
and belching diesel exhaust. It's usually some paunchy guy in his 40s
croaking obscenities with Honey Boo Boo in the front seat. Great
lesson to teach a kid. The passes occurred regardless of whether we
were riding vehicularly in the middle of the lane -- and occurred
without regard to center lines, turns, hill tops or on-coming traffic.
It was just good ol' boy f*** you passing. If I had made any last
second changes in my road position, I would have been plastered -- and
with all the wind, I couldn't hear approaching traffic until it was on
top of me.

-- Jay Beattie.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 5:51:21 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:

> On 5/4/2013 4:11 PM, fk wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, May 4, 2013 4:53:02 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>

> >> On May 4, 1:50 pm, fk wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:26:37 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Test me. Come on, ask me something. See if I know (I *promise* to
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> answer straight out of my head without looking *anything* up.)
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> OK. How many crashes have you had in the past ten years?
>
> >>
> >
> >> Hmm... more than ten, less than a hundred.
>
> >> How does this question bear on my learning?
>
>

> > I've had one in the last ten years, when the forks on our tandem failed catastrophically without warning. I've had two moving on-road falls in my life.
>
> >
>
> > This provides some evidence of who is a competent rider and who's not.
>
> >
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> >
>
>
>
> You might consider the fickle nature of life, chaos and
>
> randomness before attributing everything to skill.
>
>
>
> Did you avoid dangerous situations or escape them by skill?
>
> Probably yes.
>
>
> But you (so far) weren't subject to a fatal unavoidable
>
> event either. That's not skill.

We might consider the differences between terms such as skill, knowledge, awareness, preparedness, etc.

Regarding physical skills - reflexes, coordination, balance, bike handling, etc. - I think I'm no slouch. But while that's occasionally saved me from a crash (e.g. jumping over a small dog in my path when I was hemmed in by riders on each side), using skill to avoid a crash has been rare.

I think most of my good luck comes from watching the development of situations in traffic, and acting tactically so nothing extreme becomes necessary. For example, I dimly recall a few years ago a poster here talking about his crash or near-crash. IIRC, he was passing a line of stopped cars on the right, at speed, and I think one pulled out in front of him. I mentioned that I wouldn't pass such a line at speed. It just rings alarm bells.

Similarly, two nights ago, my wife and I were driving the twisty inner-city freeway. There was very little traffic. A guy on a Harley started to pass us slowly, got alongside, then just matched our speed as he weaved through a couple fairly tight turns. Then he got just past us, got in front in our lane, and actually slowed by about five mph. I chose to just pass him, add ten mph and get the heck away from him. Sure, I wasn't at risk; but when on my motorcycle, I'd never do what he'd done. I'll do what I can to ride where cars are not. Tactics.

I think by playing ahead several moves (as in chess) one can avoid most situations where emergency action would be needed. It's better to be the guy whose strategy means he never needs quick reflexes, rather than the guy who relies on his skill and reflexes to save himself time and again.

And the more knowledge one has about situations that might bring trouble, the better one gets at choosing the best strategy. People who have never heard of dooring _must_ be more likely to skim past parked cars. People who have never heard of controlling the lane _must_ be more likely to ride the gutter, and complain about the rude motorists who brush their elbows. (Keri Caffrey, whom I've met, explains a bit about her growing knowledge in this talk:
http://vimeo.com/43603867 One of her points is that once you do the right things on the bike, motorists "magically" get more cooperative.)

And yes, there's always that literally microscopic chance I'll have a semi-trailer topple off an overhead bridge and squash me. But again, there's something like 10 to 15 million miles ridden between fatalities, and that best applies to cyclists of _average_ skill. I try to be in the far right tail of that Gaussian curve.

I'll note that the insurance industry makes a lot of money betting on past performance. That is, they tend to charge higher premiums to drivers who have more crashes, more tickets, etc. They bet their stockholders' money that past performance bears some relation to future events. I've never heard of an insurance company that says "Wow, you've had lots of crashes. You must know all about crashing, so we're going to give you a big discount."

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 5:56:23 PM UTC-4, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>
> For some of my riding crashing is a part of the learning experience. Dan's
>
> and my riding is so different from yours that it silly to discuss this. You
>
> never crashed when you were riding your ATB off road? You never
>
> fell/crashed when skiing?

Skiing is a different sport. Let's put that in a separate thread, OK?

Back when I did a fair amount of mountain biking, I did fall from time to time. I did challenge my skills and take some risks, but even then, most of my falls involved the bike dumping as I hopped off it. I never injured myself at all. There's a forest preserve very near my home, and I used to like to ride the single track trails and try the "observed trials" thing, the "can I make it down this steep drop, then hop my front wheel up onto the narrow tilted boardwalk, and ride the boards over the swampy section without dabbing?" And yes, it took me a dozen tries to get that specific trick accomplished.

But I'm a pretty old guy now. I ride my mountain bike much less, and when I do, I ride much more conservatively. I haven't even had a mountain bike fall in at least ten years.

If you want absolutely full disclosure, I had one stationary on-road fall once, maybe 25 years ago. I was riding home from work, and was the first vehicle stopped at a five-way intersection's red light. I'd been hearing some soft scraping sound from my back wheel, maybe a leaf or something stuck to the brake shoe? As I waited in traffic with one foot still in my toe clip, I tried to turn around to see the brake. Lost my balance and toppled over. It was hard to make it look look like I meant to do that!

- Frank Krygowski

[David Scheidt]

frkr...@gmail.com wrote:

:If you want absolutely full disclosure, I had one stationary on-road

:fall once, maybe 25 years ago. I was riding home from work, and was the
:first vehicle stopped at a five-way intersection's red light. I'd been
:hearing some soft scraping sound from my back wheel, maybe a leaf or
:something stuck to the brake shoe? As I waited in traffic with one foot
:still in my toe clip, I tried to turn around to see the brake. Lost my
:balance and toppled over. It was hard to make it look look like I meant
:to do that!

I fell over the other day coming home from work. I had a bunch of
crap on the rear rack. I forgot it was there, and tried to dismount
normally, by passing my right leg over the rear wheel. I hit the
boxes of shoes my firlfriend keeps having sent to my office, and fell
over. No way I made that look what I meant to do.


--
sig 67

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 6:06:12 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>
> Road crashes often have nothing to do with cars, traffic, vehicular
>
> cycling or traffic skills. They have more to do with snow and ice and
>
> other crap on the road.

You're correct, most bike crashes by far are caused by problems with pavement. We have only two wheels. We have to watch where we put them.

Here's a graphic showing overall crash causes on the left, car-bike crashes in more detail on the right: http://www.labreform.org/blunders/crash-charts.gif

And yes, as someone said earlier, there are lots of bike-bike crashes. Watch who you ride with.

> Many times its the bad-boy, salmoning, wheelji
>
> king cyclists who can cope best with lost traction. The hand signal
>
> and flippy-flaggers go down.

The careful riders may go down IF they get themselves into a lost traction situation. But I think any honest count will show wheelie kings crashing much more than careful riders.

One way to put it might be this: A person crashes at the moment his risk-taking demands more than his physical skill. So the wheelie king, in search of "Lookit me!" glory, takes more and more risks to practice being on the edge more and more. Eventually, he can raise his skill to the Hans Rey level, and if it becomes necessary, can use that skill to avoid a crash.

OTOH, a wise old guy can say "That's dumb. I'm just going to learn to read the road surface, read traffic, be careful and ride within my existing skills." If he's good enough at that, he'll probably crash far less than Mister Trickster.

> Now, crashing in to other cyclists, pedestrians, cars, etc. may
>
> indicate a lack of skill -- or a high degree of impatience, which is
>
> sort of in the same category. Getting hit by a car may indicate lack
>
> of skill or just bad luck. You can be doing everything just right --
>
> even according to the vehicular cyclists -- and still get nailed.

Yes, for a certain value of "can." But look at those crash chart graphics again. Almost all of the individual causes are avoidable.

For example, how does one avoid bike-bike crashes? OK, I admit one way might be to spot the oncoming salmon earlier than I did last Tuesday, even though I didn't crash. But another is by not riding near squirrely riders. I was on a club ride a couple weeks ago when I noticed a new woman on the ride who was extra-twitchy, riding a slightly zig-zag line and swerving slightly without warning. I simply chose other people to talk to on the ride, and in fact made sure she was well behind me most of the time.

But the bigger point is that in all those common causes of crashes, most are avoidable. Simple falls? Learn to watch the road surface and corner carefully enough (and avoid streetcar tracks in Portland) and your crash odds are twice better than average. Stay out of the door zone and that hazard goes away, etc.

Regarding car-bike crashes in the right graphic, if you don't do the stuff in blue, those crashes won't happen to you, period. Regarding the items in red, most of those are defended against by being more visible in the lane - that is, by riding more toward the center, not hugging the gutter.

And I know that there are bound to be people reading this who will refuse to believe it. But time after time after time I've talked or corresponded with dedicated vehicular cyclists who have learned it all just WORKS. Again, Keri Caffrey mentions this in that talk I linked to earlier. We just have so few problems compared to people who think they must defer to drivers, hug the curb, seek out special infrastructure, etc.

> Ride note: sunny and beautiful here in PDX about 80F, big east wind
>
> -- I mean blow you over big.

Great weather and east winds here too, although they can't be the same wind. I was flying along to the hardware store today, and grinding my way back upwind on the way home. Wildflowers are out in the Forest, and we saw three young Great Horned Owls today. A beautiful time of year.

- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

I don't want to beat this to death, but really knowledge,
awareness, preparation and skill are sonmetimes simply not
sufficient given the anomalies and vicissitudes of traffic:

http://subscriber.dailyherald.com/story/?id=291185

She was properly stopped at the stop line but dead anyway. I
had close friends who died in absolutely rider-unavoidable
conditions with zero, truly zero, rider fault.

But they are still dead. Your skills are admirable. I
sincerely hope you do not find yourself in a similar
situation where rider skill is simply not a factor.

[Dan O]

On May 4, 4:16 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, May 4, 2013 6:06:12 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > Road crashes often have nothing to do with cars, traffic, vehicular
>
> > cycling or traffic skills. They have more to do with snow and ice and
>
> > other crap on the road.
>
> You're correct, most bike crashes by far are caused by problems with pavement. We have only two wheels. We have to watch where we put them.
>
> Here's a graphic showing overall crash causes on the left, car-bike crashes in more detail on the right:http://www.labreform.org/blunders/crash-charts.gif
>
> And yes, as someone said earlier, there are lots of bike-bike crashes. Watch who you ride with.
>
> > Many times its the bad-boy, salmoning, wheelji
>
> > king cyclists who can cope best with lost traction. The hand signal
>
> > and flippy-flaggers go down.
>
> The careful riders may go down IF they get themselves into a lost traction situation. But I think any honest count will show wheelie kings crashing much more than careful riders.
>

Duh. While "careful riders" may have more problems handling a bike, a
couple of crashes is probably the most it would take to get most of
them off the bike for good (not wheelie king, though), and even if
they *do* hang in and keep riding, they're *never* going to understand
the reward that wheelie king risks crasjhing for.

> One way to put it might be this: A person crashes at the moment his risk-taking demands more than his physical skill.
>

Or his luck (which he pushes)... or his judgment of conditions (which
he also demands *much* more of than more "careful riders")... or...
(I'm giving this too much time already, but the point is you'd better
stick to the shallow end of the pool when discussing crashing.)

> So the wheelie king, in search of "Lookit me!" glory, takes more and more risks to practice being on the edge more and more. Eventually, he can raise his skill to the Hans Rey level, and if it becomes necessary, can use that skill to avoid a crash.
>
> OTOH, a wise old guy can say "That's dumb. I'm just going to learn to read the road surface, read traffic, be careful and ride within my existing skills." If he's good enough at that, he'll probably crash far less than Mister Trickster.
>

Correct. Risk / Reward. Different strokes for different folks.

Let's look at it another way: Mr. Trickster might easily be able to
outperform wise old guy at his own game (though almost certainly not
the other way 'round) - don't you think? So who's the more competent
bike rider. It's merely a matter of purposes.

Heck, Mr. Trickster may even acknowledge wise old guy's acumen at wise
old guy's particular purpose. Can wise old guy acknowledge Mr.
Trickster must also know a thing or two - that in fact Mr. Trickster's
activities are many times more demanding of "watching the development
of situations in traffic, and acting tactically", etc.?

It would seem that wise old guy cannot.

<snip>

>
> And I know that there are bound to be people reading this who will refuse to believe it. But time after time after time I've talked or corresponded with dedicated vehicular cyclists who have learned it all just WORKS. Again, Keri Caffrey mentions this in that talk I linked to earlier. We just have so few problems compared to people who think they must defer to drivers, hug the curb, seek out special infrastructure, etc.
>

Hmm... the subject seems to have veered to the polar opposite of
wheelie king; now you're on about "careful riders".

> > Ride note: sunny and beautiful here in PDX about 80F, big east wind
>
> > -- I mean blow you over big.
>
> Great weather and east winds here too, although they can't be the same wind. I was flying along to the hardware store today, and grinding my way back upwind on the way home. Wildflowers are out in the Forest, and we saw three young Great Horned Owls today. A beautiful time of year.
>

I remember one day riding home in a ferocious sidewind (not a nice,
sunny day, either - but a cold, ~wet, nasty one) - complete with hard,
sudden gusts. It was bad enough that I crossed over the far other
(wrong) side of the four-lane divided highway so that if I was picked
up and blown away it wouldn't be into the high speed motor traffic.

Yeah, it's a beautiful time of year (here in N America) - on that we
can agree :-)
--
Cheers... and regards

[Joy Beeson]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 11:50:03 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

> Now I take pains to wear a bright red jacket or shirt.

Red is too dull. I wear taxicab orange -- but only because
fabricstore.com didn't have any lime-yellow linen.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

[Dan O]

My first day skiing I never figured out how to turn - just slid across
the slope, threw myself to the ground to stop, got up pointed the
other way, and did it again.

(Fortunately this chick that I used to go with before happened to be
there, took pity on me, and the day was not a total waste :-)

The second time I went skiing, I got off the chair lift first thing,
slid down the ramp as before, but - and maybe there was a bank of
camber from other skiers turning off there, but I got just enough
cornering action to feel it in my ankles: "Hey! It's the same as
roller skating! I can do that!"

Later that day I was on the black runs. Some "wise old guy" saw me
going great gonzo in my jeans and long hair, and made some smiling
remark about us freestylers.

Mmmmmmmm... Freestyle...

[Dan O]

Roller skating. (Frank will love this.) As teenagers, my girlfriend
and I used to put on skates summer nights after dark, fill our 32 oz
plastic mugs with, um... ice cold beverage, and the streets were our
playground - zooming on and off sidewalks, round and round inside the
deserted laundramat, take the elevator back to the top at the
mall... :-)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=roller+girl+she+taking+chances

(As you may imagine, my plastic mug acquired some wicked scuffs and
gouges. And then there was that rose bush incident - ouch!)

[Dan O]

Remember my story about "Aunt Bea" with the flowery hat and her trike
parading down the main road in the farming community? Well, just the
other day I'm coming through the same stretch of road, notice cars
coming to a complete stop. What is it this time? A whale of a lady
salmon riding her crappy MTB the wrong way up the lane - both hands on
the same side of the bars trying to unscrew the cap on her soda.

[Joy Beeson]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 20:48:14 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> But they are still dead. Your skills are admirable. I
> sincerely hope you do not find yourself in a similar
> situation where rider skill is simply not a factor.

Not even staying at home on your sofa will save you from reckless
drivers. When I lived in New York, there were two instances of cars
crashing through walls within walking distance of my house. In
neither case were there fatalities -- in the first case because a man
stopped to talk to a friend on his way back from the rest room, in the
second because the boy who normally slept in the room closest to the
road wasn't home.

The contractor who winched the house back onto its foundation and
repaired the crushed sleeping porch is reported to have said that what
appeared to be brick facing was really brick foundation wall -- all
the way up.

Despite these incidents, I always looked both ways before crossing the
road to pick up my mail.

[Dan O]

On May 4, 8:42 pm, Joy Beeson <jbee...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 20:48:14 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > But they are still dead. Your skills are admirable. I
> > sincerely hope you do not find yourself in a similar
> > situation where rider skill is simply not a factor.
>
> Not even staying at home on your sofa will save you from reckless
> drivers. When I lived in New York, there were two instances of cars
> crashing through walls within walking distance of my house. In
> neither case were there fatalities -- in the first case because a man
> stopped to talk to a friend on his way back from the rest room, in the
> second because the boy who normally slept in the room closest to the
> road wasn't home.
>
> The contractor who winched the house back onto its foundation and
> repaired the crushed sleeping porch is reported to have said that what
> appeared to be brick facing was really brick foundation wall -- all
> the way up.
>
> Despite these incidents, I always looked both ways before crossing the
> road to pick up my mail.
>

It's that "inverse lottery" that Peter spoke of.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/c66fe30024ca7ca1

"Get it while you can."

[Dan O]

Actually, I'd say that crack contributes to rather extreme
predictability. Once again, you're out of your depth.

[Dan O]

Must be past bedtime in Ohio. Boy, this is legendary OT stuff.

[davethedave]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 16:51:21 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

> What should this rider have done differently?
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxunqmd

Purple shorts?
--
davethedave

[Duane Hébert]

On 5/4/2013 1:21 AM, Dan O wrote:
> On May 3, 10:04 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 3, 3:42 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Per Andre Jute:
>>>> But I think nothing of riding on the pavement to keep safe in places where the traffic is too heavy and traveling too fast. Even without malice most people here don't know how wide/long their cars and especially vans are.
>>> A close-family-member-who-shall-remain-unnamed has no idea whatsoever -
>>> zero, zilch, bupkis, nada... - where their left wheels are when driving
>>> an automobile. Potholes that are way beyond the ghost line, curbs...
>>> you name it. The right-side tires on that car really catch hell. Woe
>>> be undo the poor cyclist....
>>> That plus knowing that cell phone use, texting while driving, and doing
>>> email while driving have become significantly-common informs my riding
>>> today.
>>> My suspicion is that the rules for safe riding are still evolving and
>>> were not formulated in the context of, for instance, the study by
>>> somebody somewhere that indicated 30 percent of people under 30 years of
>>> age admitting to texting while driving within the last 30 days.
>>> Couple years back, a guy I windsurfed with got his while riding the
>>> shoulder of a flat, dead-straight stretch of road. Seemed like the
>>> only plausible explanation was the driver of the pickup truck texting,
>>> dialing, or emailing.
>> One pertinent question is, to get the attention of a texting driver,
>> is it better to be at the edge of the road, in a territory they
>> generally ignore? Or is it better to be closer to lane center, where
>> they have to look from time to time to stay on course?
>>
> Are you fucking kidding me? It's better to be in the middle of the
> lane to be safe from inattentive drivers?

Well that's really what another Frank that I respect much more than this
one refers to as the "crux of the biscuit" and I don't mean the
apostrophe. Andre has a much more lucid comment about that below but
for me that "take the lane to avoid being hit by inattentive drivers" is
the height of ignorance and clear evidence of ignoring reality to
propagate some cultist bullshit. I seriously hope that no children are
injured following these instructions.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dan O:

>Remember my story about "Aunt Bea" with the flowery hat and her trike
>parading down the main road in the farming community? Well, just the
>other day I'm coming through the same stretch of road, notice cars
>coming to a complete stop. What is it this time? A whale of a lady
>salmon riding her crappy MTB the wrong way up the lane - both hands on
>the same side of the bars trying to unscrew the cap on her soda.

Devil's Advocate Question: Doesn't the definition of "Salmon" depend on
speed? Seems like, below a certain speed, somebody on a bike is just
another pedestrian or jogger - albeit with somewhat diminished lateral
mobility.
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per AMuzi:

>
>What should this rider have done differently?
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxunqmd

Not ridden that stretch? Ridden it on the dirt instead of on the
pavement?

Maybe it's the camera angle, but it looked to me like there was less
than 18" of pavement outside of the ghost line, maybe less than 10" -
and that the riders were on or to the left of the ghost line with some
enough vertical drop between the pavement and the dirt by the side of
the road to be a problem for a road bike.

Given blind curves, no shoulder to retreat to, single-lane, and traffic
closing at speed diffs of 50+, it looks like a risky proposition.

What happens when two semis go head-to-head with a rider in the mix?
--
Pete Cresswell

[Andre Jute]

You're wasting your time, Dan, trying to educate Krygo. That man is absolutely, totally, utterly, irredeemably risk-averse, and too thick to grasp that no one can totally avoid risk (a separate point Andrew Muzi has already made very strongly), and that playing with risk might be a worthwhile thrill. Krygoswki already lives a life drained of glee. It makes him ineducable. I laughed out loud when I read he went on courses to learn something; I bet the lecturers got utterly fed-up with Franki-boy claiming to know more than they did.

Mind you, I admire your persistence. But, if you won, it would be an exception to the nature of idiocy, as so perfectly realized in the person of Krygowski. Such successes against idiocy are so few and far between, that statistically they are negligible (a technical way of saying nil, nada, zilch, won't happen in this life).

Andre Jute
I almost became an actuary. But I preferred to take my own risks.

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 1:07:26 PM UTC+1, Duane Hébert wrote about Frank Krygowski's riding advice:

> for me that "take the lane to avoid being hit by inattentive drivers" is
>
> the height of ignorance and clear evidence of ignoring reality to
>
> propagate some cultist bullshit. I seriously hope that no children are
>
> injured following these instructions.

Ditto. Well said, Duane.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

My cycling jacket is bright sunshine yellow.

Unfortunately, the typical hedge beside the road where I live is gorse, which flowers profusely all year round in precisely that shade of yellow...

Andre Jute

[Ralph Barone]

Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that really
>> get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that bicyclists do
>> NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many bicyclists delight in
>> flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it pleases tthem.
>>
>>
>>

>> http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canada-s-most-dangerous-city-for-cyclists-141704036.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>
> Hmm, so many interesting posts. I don't know which one to comment on.
>
> Here's the thing I find interesting. The only time I ever had a collision
> with another vehicle whilst riding my bicycle it was because an idiot
> bicyclist going the WRONG way zoomed out of a quiet side street to cross
> a busy multi-lane road (multiple lanes both) ways. There was absolutely
> no way to avoid hitting this cretin. The corner of the street he exited
> from in the WRONG direction was also a blind corner.
>
> I do not have nearly the same number of close calls with motorists that I
> do with bicyclists. At nightstealth bicyclists will ride along the
> sidewalk and then suddenly move onto the roadway. I've even had them do a
> 90 degree turn in order to sprint from the sidealk to a store across the street.
>
> So many times I've seen a bicyclist appear seemingly out of nowhere
> (wormhole? Time warp?) in a manner that no other road user would expect.
>
> As a motor vehicle passenger I have seen bicyclists doing trackstands at
> an intersection and their front wheel is wobling a bit on its contact
> point with the road. Almost without fail the non bicyclist driver says on
> or more of the following: "What the H**l is he doing? Where's he going?
> Is he going straight or is he going to turn?"
>
> A lot of bicyclist ride as if they were surrounded by tank steel. They
> think they are invincible.
>
> It would be very nice if all road users were to behave in a manner that
> is predictable to other road users. That is, save the acrobatics for the
> streets when they are empty of traffic not in the midst of a rush hour.
>
> Cheers

Agreed. My riding rules are to be visible, predictable and legal. While the
three are hardly ever contradictory, I think I would also prioritize them
in that order too.

[Dan O]

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/f985fa2c2a28cca5

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a1e35e761890cf75

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 9:48:14 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>
>
> I don't want to beat this to death, but really knowledge,
>
> awareness, preparation and skill are sonmetimes simply not
>
> sufficient given the anomalies and vicissitudes of traffic:
>
>
>
> http://subscriber.dailyherald.com/story/?id=291185
>
>
>
> She was properly stopped at the stop line but dead anyway. I
>
> had close friends who died in absolutely rider-unavoidable
>
> conditions with zero, truly zero, rider fault.

Of course people are sometimes killed or seriously injured despite every skill and precaution. That happens in countless activities, even (as you cited above) sitting on a stopped motorcycle. Nothing new there.

That doesn't change the facts that 1) the benefits of regular cycling greatly outweigh the risks, as proven by every study ever done on that topic; and 2) cyclists with more competence are far less likely to be injured or killed compared to "average" cyclists.

Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

- Frank Krygowski