AG: Aunt Granny's Advice, or How to become an elderly cyclist:

[Joy Beeson]

This post is the first of a weekly series of grandmotherly aphorisms.
Each subject line will begin "AG:" for your killfiling convenience.

It seems obvious that the first thing you have to do is to learn and
obey the traffic laws, but it isn't that easy. You have to learn,
UNDERSTAND, and RESPECT the traffic laws.

If you don't understand a rule, you can't possibly obey it, nor can
you tell when it applies and when it doesn't.


--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.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.

[Brad Rogers]

On Monday 18 Aug 2014 23:48 in message
<vj05v99462hngfk3b...@4ax.com>,

Joy Beeson wrote:

> If you don't understand a rule, you can't possibly obey it, nor can
> you tell when it applies and when it doesn't.

All, possibly, true. The law usually has a workaround though; Ignorance
(of the law) is not a defense.

--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
I hope I live to relive the days gone by
Old Before I Die - Robbie Williams

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 19:48:28 -0300, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>
>This post is the first of a weekly series of grandmotherly aphorisms.
>Each subject line will begin "AG:" for your killfiling convenience.
>
>It seems obvious that the first thing you have to do is to learn and
>obey the traffic laws, but it isn't that easy. You have to learn,
>UNDERSTAND, and RESPECT the traffic laws.
>
>If you don't understand a rule, you can't possibly obey it, nor can
>you tell when it applies and when it doesn't.

How come "Aunt Granny"?

It would seem to reference some hooky-pooky somewhere on the family
tree :-)

Aunty Bee sounds right and proper though :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

All of that is quite correct Joy but how many cyclists do you know that obey the traffic laws to the letter?

Traffic laws for cyclists are invented by non-cyclists and while they make sense in heavy traffic conditions they often make no sense at all on empty streets.

For instance - cars should ALWAYS stop completely at stop signs but bicyclists go a great deal slower, are generally higher above street level and can see opposing traffic more clearly. Also cyclists are the one's that would suffer from dangerously running stop signs. So their judgement is a great deal better than some traffic planner in an office somewhere.

Also - just the other day I was walking to a coffee shop early in the morning. There was a police car pulled over and they were apparently upbraiding a man for riding on the sidewalk. He was traveling opposite the direction of traffic on a one way street. The sidewalk was not only very wide but I was the only pedestrian on the street for three blocks in any direction.

While I was observing this a worker on a bicycle pulled out of a dangerous stream of traffic onto the sidewalk. The second cop started yelling at him to get in the street. He was a workman working three doors down from the corner from which he entered the sidewalk. And during this time the commute traffic continued to go through this section 10 mph or more above the speed limit with no action by the officers. And even worse - these cars are speeding through this section that contains small businesses and pedestrians and multiple crosswalk DESPITE the fact that they know that the lights are timed to give red lights on every single corner. And this is done to discourage cars from using city center side streets as commute lanes.

Until traffic laws are enforced in such a way that makes some sort of sense you are not going to find people that understand them in such a way to make traffic laws workable.

There doesn't seem to be any controls at all on speeders anymore in California. As a cyclist I used to see cars rolling stop signs. Now I see them not even slowing up even on busy main streets.

Well, I know the neighborhoods in which to watch for that kind of thing. And for the most part because bicycles are getting more popular traffic is growing more accepting and more polite to cyclists in general.

And now that certain people are growing older and riding slower this is a great deal more noticeable.

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:00:54 +0700, John B. Slocomb
<sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:

> How come "Aunt Granny"?

Particularly when I've never even *seen* a bottle of Bitter Brittle
Root.

[Joy Beeson]

I once witnessed an egregious example of not understanding the rules:
A traffic light changed and a car stopped in the intersection to wait
for it to turn green again.

Though we call it a stop light, a red light doesn't mean "stop". It
means "it is not your turn to use the intersection". Had the driver
understood this, he wouldn't have remained in the intersection when it
wasn't his turn.

The most-common way to avoid entering an intersection is to stop, but
it's also permitted to move slowly enough that the light turns green
just as you reach it, or to turn off on a side road if one presents
itself.

Likewise, a green light isn't a command to shut your eyes and plow
straight ahead. A green light grants permission to enter the
intersection if it is, in your considered opinion, safe to enter the
intersection.

[Mr Pounder]

"Joy Beeson" <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ng1lv9hmn42q8sp25...@4ax.com...

>
>
> I once witnessed an egregious example of not understanding the rules:
> A traffic light changed and a car stopped in the intersection to wait
> for it to turn green again.
>
> Though we call it a stop light, a red light doesn't mean "stop". It
> means "it is not your turn to use the intersection". Had the driver
> understood this, he wouldn't have remained in the intersection when it
> wasn't his turn.
>
> The most-common way to avoid entering an intersection is to stop, but
> it's also permitted to move slowly enough that the light turns green
> just as you reach it, or to turn off on a side road if one presents
> itself.
>
> Likewise, a green light isn't a command to shut your eyes and plow
> straight ahead. A green light grants permission to enter the
> intersection if it is, in your considered opinion, safe to enter the
> intersection.

Prick.

[Joy Beeson]

When overtaking a parked car, treat it as though its door were already
open. There is no way to be quite certain that there is nobody in the
car.

Ride down the center of the lane, allowing as much space for the
parked car as for the oncoming traffic. Closing speeds are greater
for the oncoming traffic, but it's only in spy movies that moving cars
suddenly change shape.

Do not allow yourself to be overtaken while overtaking. If you have
to stop dead and wait for traffic to clear, stop dead and wait for
traffic to clear. If you have to get off and walk around the car on
the sidewalk, get off and walk around the car on the sidewalk. If you
have to take another route, take another route.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 21:08:23 -0300, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>
>When overtaking a parked car, treat it as though its door were already
>open. There is no way to be quite certain that there is nobody in the
>car.
>
>Ride down the center of the lane, allowing as much space for the
>parked car as for the oncoming traffic. Closing speeds are greater
>for the oncoming traffic, but it's only in spy movies that moving cars
>suddenly change shape.
>
>Do not allow yourself to be overtaken while overtaking. If you have
>to stop dead and wait for traffic to clear, stop dead and wait for
>traffic to clear. If you have to get off and walk around the car on
>the sidewalk, get off and walk around the car on the sidewalk. If you
>have to take another route, take another route.

I read something in the "Old Farmer's Almanac" that might pertain to
your advice. It said, "Never corner anything bigger or meaner than you
are".

I can assure you that, having grown up in rural New England, the old
fellow certainly knew what he was talking about :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joy Beeson]

When riding on a road, the default position is the right-hand wheel
track -- that is, you put your rightmost wheel where everybody else
puts his rightmost wheel. (Change "right" to "left" if your country
drives on the left.)

Many people believe that "default position" means "the position I grab
with both hands and my teeth, close my eyes, and hang onto no matter
what".

What "default" means is "what I do WHEN I HAVE NO REASON TO DO
SOMETHING ELSE".

We could list reasons to do something else all week and never run out.
The first one to come to mind: that track *is* where everybody puts
his rightmost wheel, and, on many roads, pounds it into rubble. In
such a case, I usually ride on the comparatively-smooth path between
the wheel tracks -- unless the track is broken so badly that it's
hazardous to cross it, in which case I ride just outside the track and
grimly vow to find another road next time.

Left turns are another reason to leave the default path. The correct
line for approaching an intersection where you intend to turn left
might be the middle of the lane, the left-hand wheel track, the next
lane over, or something else -- but it's *never* as far right as the
right-hand wheel track. (Unless it's such a difficult turn that you
mean to turn right and make a U-turn, or get off the bike and press
the pedestrian button.)

When other traffic is continuous and there is a wide shoulder, your
place is four feet from the line of motorized traffic. That's four
feet between his outside mirror and your elbow, NOT four feet between
wheel tracks.

[Joy Beeson]

Take the first sip of water as you are rolling out the driveway. It
sets the proper rhythm, and lets you know you forgot to clean your
bottle while you can still go back and do something about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A man riding his first September Century complained to another rider
that the water he'd been drinking was sloshing in his stomach. The
more-experienced rider said "You're supposed to take it in small sips,
not big gulps." The first man thought that he'd been advised to
replace each big gulp with one small sip, and would have been in dire
straits if the place where he ran out of steam and had to get off the
bike had not been serving his favorite beverage. He sat for a hour
sipping slowly, then got back on the bike and finished the ride --
taking small sips *frequently*.

[Joy Beeson]

If you lock your lock to your frame or a wire pannier, it won't fall
out and get lost -- and it guarantees that you won't look the bike to
something when you haven't got the key.

[John D. Slocomb]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 23:39:32 -0300, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>
>If you lock your lock to your frame or a wire pannier, it won't fall
>out and get lost -- and it guarantees that you won't look the bike to
>something when you haven't got the key.

A combination lock solves a lot of "can't find the key" problems :-)
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[Andrew Chaplin]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote in

news:gu2v1a1sp2909t8iv...@4ax.com:

> If you lock your lock to your frame or a wire pannier, it won't fall
> out and get lost -- and it guarantees that you won't look the bike to
> something when you haven't got the key.

I cannot abide rattling from my bicycle, so I put my U-lock in my pack. I
also carry a cable to secure the front wheel.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Joy Beeson]

When you are riding in a narrow bike lane and hear a car behind you,
watch until you see it in your rear-view mirror, then reflect that you
are smaller than a car and wait a bit longer. When you are quite sure
that the driver can see you clearly, wobble over the bike-lane line
into his lane, then immediately wobble back to the middle of the bike
lane. When you can see that the driver has selected his route and
decided on how much clearance to give you, move as far toward the edge
of the road as you dare -- that six inches might matter.

[Joy Beeson]

When you can't match the weather perfectly, overdress below the waist
and under-dress above. It's easier to change your shirt than your
pants, and it's very important to keep your knees warm.

[Joy Beeson]

Paper handkerchiefs go all to lint in your pocket. Carry table
napkins or paper towels.

If you dry your hands on a paper towel, trash the snotty paper in your
pocket and keep the merely-wet paper.

Vasomotor rhinitis would be a great way to drain out a stuffy head --
if I had a nurse following me around in a motor home so that I could
lie down the instant I'd had enough exercise.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote in

news:hgtj3ahm23l6qjeh3...@4ax.com:

> Paper handkerchiefs go all to lint in your pocket. Carry table
> napkins or paper towels.

Cotton handkerchiefs work, too.

> If you dry your hands on a paper towel, trash the snotty paper in your
> pocket and keep the merely-wet paper.
>
> Vasomotor rhinitis would be a great way to drain out a stuffy head --
> if I had a nurse following me around in a motor home so that I could
> lie down the instant I'd had enough exercise.

I reduce its severity by wearing eye protection that restricts air flow
around the eyes, and something--generally just my helmet, but, in colder
weather, a wool cap or balaclava--to cover the sinuses.

[Joy Beeson]

Autumn's leaves can be as slippery as winter's ice. Even when the
pavement is dry, leaf-on-leaf doesn't have a very high coefficient of
friction, and when there's a layer of slimy rotten leaves hiding under
the dry fluffy leaves, you haven't got a chance.


As dramatic as it would be to say that the incident on the boardwalk
last November was the reason that the rides long enough to record in
my diary at
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/~joybeeson/CENT2014/
didn't start until August[1], there were other factors: the weather
turned nasty just as rehab had begun, the winter's supply of snow was
doled out to keep the roads slick almost every day, and in March I
slipped on snow I'd tracked into the kitchen, twisted my knee, and had
to ride a flatfoot instead of walking well into spring.

I heartily recommend the flatfoot/comfort/step-through/semi-recumbent
bike for rehab, by the way -- it allows you to exercise a leg without
putting weight on it, and you can't strain muscles because it won't
allow you to push the pedals with anything resembling force. Though I
did once instinctively pull back on the handlebars until I almost rose
in the saddle when I wanted to charge the transition from sod road to
asphalt, and it worked.

But you do have to be able to walk at least a little before you can
ride, and if there is an upslope along your route you have to be able
to walk at least that far -- but a flatfoot is an excellent wheeled
cane.


[1] The reports start in September because the routes of the warm-up
rides in August were boring. Also, September was when I got the idea
of writing up my quarter centuries.

[Joy Beeson]

When someone is stuck behind you and can't get around, keep your eyes
peeled for a place to pull off and let him pass.

Never mind that it's the only polite thing to do. Never mind that
most state laws say that slow-moving vehicles must not hold up traffic
any more than they have to. You want those guys out in front where
you can keep an eye on them!

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:17:36 -0300, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>
>When someone is stuck behind you and can't get around, keep your eyes
>peeled for a place to pull off and let him pass.
>
>Never mind that it's the only polite thing to do. Never mind that
>most state laws say that slow-moving vehicles must not hold up traffic
>any more than they have to. You want those guys out in front where
>you can keep an eye on them!

Well stated and undoubtedly makes more sense then to ride out in the
middle of the road with a long tail of infuriated drivers that you
can't watch without turning your head :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote in

news:prpo4apu784qa1f87...@4ax.com:

> When someone is stuck behind you and can't get around, keep your eyes
> peeled for a place to pull off and let him pass.
>
> Never mind that it's the only polite thing to do. Never mind that
> most state laws say that slow-moving vehicles must not hold up traffic
> any more than they have to. You want those guys out in front where
> you can keep an eye on them!

Chaplin's Philosophy for Bicycling:

1. Keep out from underneath other vehicles.
2. Do not unreasonably impede anyone else's progress.
3. Yield the right of way to the less aware so that you can keep them
where you can see and then avoid them as required.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/25/2014 11:17 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>
> When someone is stuck behind you and can't get around, keep your eyes
> peeled for a place to pull off and let him pass.

... but don't endanger yourself for someone else's convenience.

>
> Never mind that it's the only polite thing to do. Never mind that
> most state laws say that slow-moving vehicles must not hold up traffic
> any more than they have to. You want those guys out in front where
> you can keep an eye on them!

I've heard the following: "Ride far enough right to be courteous. But
first, ride far enough left to be safe." (Brits and Aussies need to
reverse right vs. left, of course.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

I prefer the "Old Farmer's Advice". "Never mess with anything bigger
or meaner then you are".
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joy Beeson]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:14:17 +0700, John B. Slocomb
<sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:

> I prefer the "Old Farmer's Advice". "Never mess with anything bigger
> or meaner then you are".

I prefer "ride far enough to the left that they can see that you have
moved over for them". They are more likely to realize that you are as
far right as is safe if they see you move.

Also helps to turn the head as if just now noticing them before
shifting right, to emphasize that you are moving for the overtaker's
convenience, but I'm always and forever forgetting that part.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/27/2014 7:27 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:14:17 +0700, John B. Slocomb
> <sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> I prefer the "Old Farmer's Advice". "Never mess with anything bigger
>> or meaner then you are".
>
> I prefer "ride far enough to the left that they can see that you have
> moved over for them". They are more likely to realize that you are as
> far right as is safe if they see you move.
>
> Also helps to turn the head as if just now noticing them before
> shifting right, to emphasize that you are moving for the overtaker's
> convenience, but I'm always and forever forgetting that part.

Good idea.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joy Beeson]

Nothing will guarantee that you won't get run over. There were two
incidents within walking distance of my house where a driver came
right through the wall of a building.

By great good luck, the boy who usually slept in the room that one
driver demolished was elsewhere that night.

The other driver smashed through the wall of a tavern. With even
better luck, nobody was in the space the car came to occupy -- one
patron told many times how he had been about to walk through that
space when an acquaintance spoke to him and he turned back.

Sometimes the inhabitants of the building aren't lucky, and then the
incident gets into the newspapers.

So does this mean that taking a nap in the middle of a road is just as
sensible as sleeping in your own bed?

You can't guarantee absolute safety, but learning how things work and
behaving sensibly can improve your odds.

[Joy Beeson]

Don't count on water fountains in public parks; they are apt to be
turned off in the fall.

Once I found that a special event had put the only water fountain in
the City-County Athletic Complex behind a paid-admission fence; on a
previous occasion I had arrived to find that the other fountain had
been ripped out because, the groundskeeper said, there was frequently
a line to use it.

[Joy Beeson]

One day while strolling down the center of a recreationway without a
thought in my head, I was startled by the whirr of off-road tires to
my right: two bike riders were overtaking me.

I was only mildly startled, so it was only mildly rude -- but suppose
a squirrel in the trees to my right had done something cute and I had
swerved in that direction to look? Both riders could have ended up in
the hospital or, with only a little bad luck, the morgue.

Before you overtake someone, MAKE SOME NOISE. "Hi!" is popular for
this purpose when overtaking another bicycle on the road. When
overtaking a pedestrian on a recreationway, I like to give a little
more information. After experimenting with many phrases, I settled on
"I am on your left". This usually elicits a smile and a step to the
right.

Cyclists who train in a pack often say "left!" or "on your left!" when
overtaking. If you address either remark to a random stranger, he
will jump to his left.

By the way, *always* overtake on the left, unless you are across the
pond or in the 5-Boro Bike Tour. On that tour, the cry when
overtaking was "Keep Straight!" (It would have been a *much* more
pleasant ride if they had told us that the front was being motor-paced
to a maximum speed of six miles per hour. For one thing, I'd have
worn walking shoes.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote in

news:d08g6a9738ak0qskd...@4ax.com:

>
> One day while strolling down the center of a recreationway without a
> thought in my head, I was startled by the whirr of off-road tires to
> my right: two bike riders were overtaking me.
>
> I was only mildly startled, so it was only mildly rude -- but suppose
> a squirrel in the trees to my right had done something cute and I had
> swerved in that direction to look? Both riders could have ended up in
> the hospital or, with only a little bad luck, the morgue.
>
> Before you overtake someone, MAKE SOME NOISE. "Hi!" is popular for
> this purpose when overtaking another bicycle on the road. When
> overtaking a pedestrian on a recreationway, I like to give a little
> more information. After experimenting with many phrases, I settled on
> "I am on your left". This usually elicits a smile and a step to the
> right.
>
> Cyclists who train in a pack often say "left!" or "on your left!" when
> overtaking. If you address either remark to a random stranger, he
> will jump to his left.
>
> By the way, *always* overtake on the left, unless you are across the
> pond or in the 5-Boro Bike Tour. On that tour, the cry when
> overtaking was "Keep Straight!" (It would have been a *much* more
> pleasant ride if they had told us that the front was being motor-paced
> to a maximum speed of six miles per hour. For one thing, I'd have
> worn walking shoes.)

If you're on foot, cyclists should overtake you on your right and they
should sound a bell or other warning close enough that you should hear it
but far enough away that they will still have time to evade should you
move to the right.

Multiuse pathways are like rural roads, and the watchword should be that
wheeled traffic keeps right and foot traffic keep left. When suburds
without sidewalks were in vogue in the '50s and '60s, the Ontario Ministry
of Transport ran public service ads on TV exhorting us, "Where there are
no sidewalks, walk on the left facing traffic." I would propose that modus
vivendi be observed on multi-use paths.

[Frank Krygowski]

I agree in theory; but I'm sure it would never work in practice.

For whatever reason, American pedestrians tend to stay to the right on
walking facilities, passing opposite direction walkers left shoulder to
left shoulder. It's not 100%, but it's the strong trend, even in places
like indoor shopping malls. And that same scheme is socially enforced on
the local multi-user paths. I don't think signs or rules are likely to
succeed in changing it.

I remember (somewhere out in the central U.S.) encountering a MUP that
had signs telling cyclists to ride on the left, and walkers to keep
right! I suppose the motivation was the same - let the peds see the
oncoming cyclists - but that was even worse. We don't need to be
training any more cyclists to ride on the left side of roads.

Unfortunately, the root problem is that bikes and pedestrians don't mix
very well. Bikes actually mix much better with motor vehicles. This is
why I almost always prefer riding on roads, not MUPs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

On 11/16/2014 10:23 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:

In Montreal pedestrians usually walk toward oncoming traffic on roads.
(In fact, some people riding bikes consider themselves pedestrians and
do the same but that's a different issue.) On multi-use paths I find
that joggers tend to run against traffic but others aren't so consistent.

[John D. Slocomb]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:47:32 -0500, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
wrote:

Probably the walkers/runners should "take the lane" as it is popularly
known to solve all problems :-)

--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[Duane]

Not to get into this debate on yet another newsgroup, but if you look at
what happens when pedestrians walking at 4-6km/h "take the lane" where
bikes are riding at the legally limited 20k/h you begin to see a pattern...

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/19/2014 12:20 PM, Duane wrote:
>
>
> Not to get into this debate on yet another newsgroup...

Of course not. You prefer to have nobody question your ideas.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John D. Slocomb]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:20:34 -0500, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>

Hmmm.... I would imagine it will be much the same as a bicycle taking
the lane on a highway where motor vehicles are whizzing by at 80 or 90

[Duane]

That's the pattern I was referring too.

[Duane]

On 11/19/2014 3:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/19/2014 12:20 PM, Duane wrote:
>>
>>
>> Not to get into this debate on yet another newsgroup...
>
> Of course not. You prefer to have nobody question your ideas.
>
>

Troll.

[dgk]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:35:17 -0500, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
wrote:

>>> Not to get into this debate on yet another newsgroup, but if you look at
>>> what happens when pedestrians walking at 4-6km/h "take the lane" where
>>> bikes are riding at the legally limited 20k/h you begin to see a pattern...
>>
>> Hmmm.... I would imagine it will be much the same as a bicycle taking
>> the lane on a highway where motor vehicles are whizzing by at 80 or 90
>> :-)
>> --
>> cheers,
>>
>
>That's the pattern I was referring too.
>

On the bike lane (not shared with pedestrians/runners) it works well
if the pedestrian stays to the right in either direction. The type A
who insists on running in the center is a big problem since we don't
know which side to pass on.

[Rolf Mantel]

Am 20.11.2014 15:08, schrieb dgk:
>The type A
> who insists on running in the center is a big problem since we don't
> know which side to pass on.

I solve this by calling out loud 'Which side an I supposed to pass on?'
while I'm still far enough away to react on their decision; normal
pedestrians get a 'Hi' or 'Good day' or equivalent.

Rolf

[Duane]

Usually it's not the runners who bother me as they seem to keep to one
side. It's the inline skaters that tend to take up the whole path going
side to side. And I find that a large percentage of these are wired for
sound and don't hear me.

I try to avoid multi-use paths where possible.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/19/2014 8:17 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:20:34 -0500, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2014 7:48 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Probably the walkers/runners should "take the lane" as it is popularly
>>> known to solve all problems :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>

>> Not to get into this debate on yet another newsgroup, but if you look at
>> what happens when pedestrians walking at 4-6km/h "take the lane" where
>> bikes are riding at the legally limited 20k/h you begin to see a pattern...
>
> Hmmm.... I would imagine it will be much the same as a bicycle taking
> the lane on a highway where motor vehicles are whizzing by at 80 or 90
> :-)

OK, let's develop the analogy.

If the path narrows down so much that there's no room for a bicyclist to
pass the pedestrian, should the pedestrian be required to jump off the
path when a bicyclist approaches? If that's not possible (say, if the
path crosses a very narrow, three-foot-wide bridge) should the
pedestrian squeeze off to the side and tempt bicyclists to pass at speed?

We know that if there's lots of pavement to share, these situations are
much less critical. The slower traveler can stay close to the side and
the faster traveler can easily pass. It's when the passageway is too
narrow, for example, that one must engage one's brain.

Oh, and let's note who started this debate "on yet another newsgroup."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John D. Slocomb]

Well O.K., lets develop the analogy a bit further.

In another group, that will not be mentioned, every time someone
reports an accident where a cyclist is hurt or killed, a number of the
denizens, without knowing any details other than "cyclist dies",
immediately call for lynching the motor vehicle driver. People talk
about hitting cars that come too close to them with metal devices,
etc.

Perhaps in fair play we should be crying out for lynching, or at least
tar and feathering, of any cyclist that hits a pedestrian?

Or suggest that the pedestrians carry a cane to beat off the attacking
cyclists?
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[NFN Smith]

Joy Beeson wrote:
> Before you overtake someone, MAKE SOME NOISE. "Hi!" is popular for
> this purpose when overtaking another bicycle on the road. When
> overtaking a pedestrian on a recreationway, I like to give a little
> more information. After experimenting with many phrases, I settled on
> "I am on your left". This usually elicits a smile and a step to the
> right.

Or the classic handlebar bell.

Last time I was in the Netherlands, I noticed that even racing bikes
have them. I didn't confirm, but I'm guessing that it's a legal
requirement.

Smith

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, what I've called for is this: If a person kills or seriously
injures another person while driving a car, they should be forbidden to
drive for life.

We can work on details, if you like. Things like, how bad would a
"serious" injury have to be to qualify? (Death certainly qualifies.)
How would we handle victim culpability? (e.g., someone deliberately
jumping in front of a car, someone who blatantly and egregiously
violated a law that caused the crash, etc.)

But once such details are worked out, I'd be happy to apply that same
punishment to bicyclists who kill or seriously injure other road users.
That is, if your bike kills a pedestrian, you're never allowed to ride a
bike again.

There won't be many such cases anyway. I suspect that cycling causes
perhaps a few thousand serious injuries and maybe a handful of deaths of
non-cyclists per year in the U.S. It's a far cry from driving, since in
the U.S., cars kill over 4000 pedestrians and over 30,000 other
motorists per year.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John D. Slocomb]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:12:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski

How about doing away with any "death by auto" charges and fall back
on Murder and/or Manslaughter? If you were to be, for example, driving
too fast for existing conditions and you hit someone then you go to
jail.

It does appear to me though that in the U.S. death by auto seems to
have become some sort of a misdemeanor, if not an outright act of God.
Funny though, When I was in the Air Force we were told that only about
1 - 2% of accidents were actually an act of God and the rest were due
to unsafe pacts or practices.

But I guess with auto's it is an accident :-(

>We can work on details, if you like. Things like, how bad would a
>"serious" injury have to be to qualify? (Death certainly qualifies.)
>How would we handle victim culpability? (e.g., someone deliberately
>jumping in front of a car, someone who blatantly and egregiously
>violated a law that caused the crash, etc.)

There was a trial in San Francisco involving an accident to a cable
car operator. the Court ruled that the amount owing to the individual
injured was the difference he could have earned in his remaining
lifetime if he was uninjured less the amount he could earn after being
injured. Perhaps a judgment like that for car accidents would work.

>But once such details are worked out, I'd be happy to apply that same
>punishment to bicyclists who kill or seriously injure other road users.
>That is, if your bike kills a pedestrian, you're never allowed to ride a
>bike again.
>
>There won't be many such cases anyway. I suspect that cycling causes
>perhaps a few thousand serious injuries and maybe a handful of deaths of
>non-cyclists per year in the U.S. It's a far cry from driving, since in
>the U.S., cars kill over 4000 pedestrians and over 30,000 other
>motorists per year.

This primitive country I now live in takes the same attitude toward
injuring someone with a vehicle as they do to any other injury you
might inflect. And, they have this ruling that initially and until
proved different, the biggest vehicle is at faulty. A bicycle hits a
pedestrian, it is the bicycle's fault. If a car hits a bicycle the car
is at fault, a truck hits a car...

Note that this is "initially" and evidence may well prove the larger
vehicle not to be at fault, but it does, I believe temper some of the
aggressiveness that I read here about U.S. traffic.

Either that or the people here are just nicer :-)
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/22/2014 6:44 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
>
> This primitive country I now live in takes the same attitude toward
> injuring someone with a vehicle as they do to any other injury you
> might inflect. And, they have this ruling that initially and until
> proved different, the biggest vehicle is at faulty. A bicycle hits a
> pedestrian, it is the bicycle's fault. If a car hits a bicycle the car
> is at fault, a truck hits a car...
>
> Note that this is "initially" and evidence may well prove the larger
> vehicle not to be at fault, but it does, I believe temper some of the
> aggressiveness that I read here about U.S. traffic.

That sounds good to me!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joy Beeson]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:23:31 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Chaplin
<ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:

> Multiuse pathways are like rural roads, and the watchword should be that
> wheeled traffic keeps right and foot traffic keep left.

That makes almost as much sense as "semis keep right, pickups keep
left."

The quaint superstition that walking on the left has magical qualities
infests, as near as I can tell, the entire United States. I once had
a deputy stop his patrol car to order me to cross a state road twice
because it was "safer" than walking ten feet on the right shoulder!

Thoughtlessly walking on the left worked fairly well in the
nineteen-forties, when gas was expensive, and it was very rare that a
family had more than one car. When I was first allowed to walk along
a road by myself, Mother told me that if I heard a car coming, I
should get completely out of the road, press up against the fence, and
wait there until that car was completely out of sight.

Walking on the left is ONLY for occasions when you intend to yeld
right-of-way to everything that comes along, and it isn't for all of
those occasions. When I'm walking up Sunday Lane, for example, I walk
in the center of the lane so that I can step to the side that the car
isn't using, or to the side where it's possible to get out of the
street. (It usually turns out that the driver intends to park in the
place where I went to get out of his way. Sunday Lane is )

[Joy Beeson]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:26:56 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

Something that absolutely was not intended to be sent. Some arcane
combination of keystrokes caused a half-written draft to vanish, and I
found it in the "sent" folder.

Please delete it unread. My first drafts nearly always say the exact
opposite of what I intended.

--
Joy Beeson

[John D. Slocomb]

Another novel thing that they do here. If a vehicle should hit another
vehicle, or pedestrian and someone dies the police immediately take
the offending vehicle operator into custody.

They may decide later that there is no reason to arrest the operator
and release him but the initial act is "grab him" and that way, if
they later decide that they do want him, they've got him.
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[Joy Beeson]

My favorite way to protect expensive pants is to carry them in my
pannier. If you have to look respectable between the place where you
park your bike and the place where you can change pants, you can wear
your suit pants over your riding shorts.

But if you don't sweat a lot and if you don't mind wearing the pants
out in the saddle area, you *can* buy a pants protector. This is a
sort of half gaiter that you can strap on to protect the inside of
your ankle and shin.

(I'm wearing a home-made pants protector in this picture:
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/~roughsewing/IMAGES/LINJERSF.JPG
back view:
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/~roughsewing/IMAGES/LINJERSB.JPG )
(store-bought varieties are only half as high)

If you are wearing black work pants, all you need is two safety pins
and two pieces of tape or ribbon that are long enough to wrap around
your leg twice.

My tapes are three and a half feet long; even if your legs are
thicker, a three-yard packet of tape should be plenty. It should be
half an inch wide, as knots in narrower tape tend to jam.

Sit down with your knees bent and form a pleat on the outside of your
leg. It's easiest to just stick a pin close to and parallel to your
leg, leaving the excess fabric sticking out like wings, but it looks a
little less dorky to smooth the excess into a dart and pin it flat.
The wing method is a trifle more reliable.

Next, smooth your pants upward, stroking any excess fabric to above
your knee, and wrap a tape around your leg in the notch below the
knee. For some reason I've never heard explained, garters *must* wrap
around twice or they won't hold. No matter how wide or narrow the
tape is, it must go around twice. Mysterious, but experience shows
that it's true.

Put the middle of the tape where you want the knot to be, then hold
the ends together and pull to make them even. Cross, bring them back
to the beginning point, and tie a bow knot. (Same knot you tie in
shoelaces.) Tension must be just so: you should be able to feel the
tape while you are tying the knot, then be completely unaware of it
afterward. Be sure your knees are bent while tying the tape: its
purpose is to keep your pants loose over the knee so that they don't
pull while you are riding.

When you get to work, pull both bows undone, use the safety pins to
fasten the tapes together, and put the whole mess into your pocket.

I'm awkward about getting on and off; if I mount and dismount a lot of
times during a ride, the right pin is likely to bump against the
saddle and open. It's best to look down each time you mount and make
sure the pins are still there and still closed. A spare pin in your
wallet is a good idea -- or three or four; safety pins have a lot of
uses.

--

joy beeson at comcast dot net

[Andrew Chaplin]

NFN Smith <worldo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:m4o0cq$6pp$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

A warning device such as a bell or horn certainly is required in Ontario and
most other provinces in Canada under their various versions of a "Highway
Traffic Act." If you strike a pedestrian or another cyclist and do not have
one, they will likely charge you. The warning device does not have to be
eleborate, just a single-dinger will do. Mine is a compact bell, and I had
to attach it to the handlebar stem since it will not fit around the Cinelli
bars I ride.

I am off for a ride. Here's hoping it's not the last of the year.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/canada/ontario/ottawa

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/23/2014 7:34 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>
> A spare pin in your
> wallet is a good idea -- or three or four; safety pins have a lot of
> uses.
>

Instead of all that, I simply use safety pins to pin my pants leg more
tightly around my ankle - or ankles, depending on how narrow the pants
legs are.

Now, I lube my chain using a hot wax/oil mix, so it's much less likely
to smear black stuff on my cuffs.

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar bags.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andrew Chaplin]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:m4sv7m$6n1$1@dont-
email.me:

On the very rare occasions that I ride in trousers, I use the same Terry's
pant clips that I bought for about 20 cents in 1971.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/23/2014 10:38 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>
> A warning device such as a bell or horn certainly is required in Ontario and
> most other provinces in Canada under their various versions of a "Highway
> Traffic Act." If you strike a pedestrian or another cyclist and do not have
> one, they will likely charge you. The warning device does not have to be
> eleborate, just a single-dinger will do. Mine is a compact bell, and I had
> to attach it to the handlebar stem since it will not fit around the Cinelli
> bars I ride.
>

When I looked up the bicycle ordinances in our little town, I found that
not only was a bell required, but it was actually illegal to verbally
warn a pedestrian! The ordinance said a bicyclist must warn a
pedestrian, and "the warning must be made only by a bell." In effect,
it was illegal to say "I'm passing on your left," or even "Excuse me."

And that wasn't the most ludicrous ordinance, either. Fortunately, it
wasn't too difficult for me to get Council to repeal _all_ the local
bicycle ordinances. That's because the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a
law passed that prohibited local bike ordinances that are fundamentally
different from state laws.

So now, the local cops are supposed to enforce only the much more
logical state laws.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andrew Chaplin]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in

news:m4t363$o9i$1...@dont-email.me:

Canada's constitutional set up has long precluded most such nonsense,
except where it concerns people riding on sidewalks. Tots on little
bicycles present not much of a hazard, yet some of their elders think they
can ride on the pavements or sidewalk at a rate of knots and incommode the
passers-by.

[John D. Slocomb]

Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain? I
thought all you "old Fellows" had one of those :-)\
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[Frank Krygowski]

As an old fellow, those are what I used way back in the 1970s. They
kept irritating me because my pants would gradually work their way out
of the clips, then get either caught or stained by the chain and chainring.

Then I tried large (2") safety pins. No more problems. And the safety
pins are lighter! ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Rolf Mantel]

Am 24.11.2014 16:11, schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> On 11/24/2014 6:34 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski

>>> I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar
>>> bags.
>>
>> Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
>> hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain? I
>> thought all you "old Fellows" had one of those :-)\
>
> As an old fellow, those are what I used way back in the 1970s.
>

> Then I tried large (2") safety pins. No more problems. And the safety
> pins are lighter! ;-)

At least during the cool season (temperature below 10°C / 50F), I put
the socks around the pants. OK, it looks horrible but it keeps me warm
and the pants stay outside the chain.

[Joy Beeson]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:34:24 +0700, John D. Slocomb
<sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
> hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain?

Pants clips stopped working when cuffs went out of style.

--
Joy Beeson

[John D. Slocomb]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:11:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Or a turn or two of twine and a bow knot :-)
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[John D. Slocomb]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:25:07 +0100, Rolf Mantel <Rolf....@web.de>
wrote:

Hard to do if your wearing knee socks and sock garters :-)
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[John D. Slocomb]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:03:01 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Rolf Mantel <Rolf....@web.de> considered Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:25:07

>Back when I was a kid, my mum used to tell me off for that, because it
>stretched out the socks so they kept slipping down :-)
>
I thought knee socks slipped down around the ankles was traditional
dress. At least that's the way mine worked when I wore "knickers" as
they were called in the U.S.. :-)
(For our English friends, "knickers" was a USian name for knee length
pants. Perhaps "Plus Fours" in the Queen's Own.


>On a more recent cycle promotion in Cambridge, I got (free, which is
>always the best price) some "slap-wrap" retroreflective leg bands,
>which work very well. Being low on the bike, they light up like
>beacons in a dipped beam headlight.
>The inside is coated with some kind of flock material, which is very
>good at stopping them slipping when worn as trouser bands, although
>I've used them every time I've ridden at night since I got them for
>the visibility benefit, even when in shorts.
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[Frank Krygowski]

But once knickers (or for the Brits: plus-fours) come back into style
for men, these problems will be a thing of the past.

(I guess in Britain, if a guy's wearing knickers, it signifies something
entirely different.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John D. Slocomb]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:03:41 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:34:24 +0700, John D. Slocomb
><sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
>> hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain?
>
>Pants clips stopped working when cuffs went out of style.

Cuffs are out of style? You mean I can't cuff my levis up a turn to
show off my new alligator skin boots?
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

[Duane]

On 11/24/2014 6:03 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:34:24 +0700, John D. Slocomb
> <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
>> hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain?
>
> Pants clips stopped working when cuffs went out of style.
>

http://www.amazon.ca/ROSWHEEL-Cycling-Bicycle-Velcro-Elastic/dp/B00JKE24BK/ref=sr_1_14/185-9947417-4978208?ie=UTF8&qid=1416921607&sr=8-14&keywords=bike+straps


http://www.amazon.com/Green-Guru-Narrow-Ankle-Strap/dp/B005QKWSAY/ref=pd_sim_sg_1/177-9235875-2676922?ie=UTF8&refRID=1WRJNXWPCNW237HPX9HX


http://www.bikelegstrap.com/

http://www.mec.ca/product/4001-405/cactus-creek-scotchlite-ankle-strap/?q=cycling%2Bpants%2Bstraps

My favorite LBS has a candy jar on the counter full of these fluorescent
green wide elastics with Velcro fasteners. I don't remember the brand.
Seems like there are a lot of options that aren't clips.

[dgk]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:27:51 -0500, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
wrote:

In long pants season I always wear the reflective bands just above the
shoes. I've only lost one in many years of using them.

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:06:59 +0700, John D. Slocomb
<sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Or a turn or two of twine and a bow knot :-)

I lost a safety pin on the "I forgot my wallet" shopping tour. (Not
one red cent to spend, &*%#&!!!) Lacking a pin, I tied a square rag
from my emergency kit around my ankle. Worked better than the pin,
but had people asking how I got injured.

(There are now both money and safety pins in my emergency kit -- which
is slowly regenerating after a tragic loss; perhaps I should keep a
list of what's in it in an off-site backup. I've replaced the
tube-repair kit, but the only list of what was in the hide-repair kit
was written on the box.

--
Joy Beeson

[Joy Beeson]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Instead of all that, I simply use safety pins to pin my pants leg more
> tightly around my ankle - or ankles, depending on how narrow the pants
> legs are.

On last Friday's Tour d'Warsaw, I used only pins because there were
too many layers for garters to work. My pants rubbed on my knees even
though the two innermost layers were tights.

Not so I couldn't stand it, though. It helped, perhaps, that the
outermost layer was ripstop that slid easily over the sweat pants
underneath.

The pins left holes in the ripstop, so I'm going to have to think up
something else -- after I get through my three-page "to sew" list.

--
Joy Beeson

[Joy Beeson]

While dressing by dawn's early light, I picked up jeans that I'd
dropped on the floor while undressing in the dark the previous
evening. Something black lay crumpled under them. ?? -- I'd hung up
all my black garments, what could this be? A closer look revealed a
white line against the black, and I realized that it was a bright-red
T-shirt with an outline map of Indiana printed on the back.

Red makes you stand out in a crowd, but it turns black at sunset, and
even in bright daylight, red isn't all that visible from a distance.

Orange is famous for visibility.

My spouse and I used to wear matching orange T-shirts on organized
rides. He was easily visible to the casual glance on a hilltop a good
mile away.

Once, when I was a passenger on a multi-day drive on I 90, a fleck of
orange at the edge of a woods in the distance caught my eye. Careful
observation revealed that it was a hunter in a blaze-orange vest
walking toward me. He was far enough away to stay in sight for quite
a while and I had nothing to do, so I watched him. Something seemed
odd about the way he moved; eventually I realized that he was paying
attention to something to his right. I looked at the focus of his
attention and managed to make out a hunter in a bright red vest.

Orange is required by law in a great many places because tests have
shown that it's the most-visible color -- but only in bright daylight
when seeing isn't much of a problem. At twilight, orange is
indistinguishable from khaki.

Yellow is my default.

By day, yellow is second only to orange. At night, yellow is almost
as visible as white and much less likely to be mistaken for a shred of
fog or a reflection off a wet leaf. And yellow is the only color that
can shine through rain and fog, hence its frequent use in raincoats
and firemen's turnout gear.

Green is the color to which the human eye is most sensitive, and green
can be perceived as colored far later into dusk than any other color.
"Slime green" *does* stand out on a city street, and I admired the
visibility of a lime-green jersey I once followed through the
Voorheesville "tunnel" in my car.

But we evolved sensitivity to green because there is a *lot* of green
around. Once, looking out an airplane window, I saw a column of
smoke. Trash-burning or disaster? I could see flames, but from
nearly straight overhead I couldn't see what was burning. A thread of
white against the flames: ah, someone is trying to put it out. I
followed the stream of water to see who, and saw a lime-green fire
engine. It didn't contrast with the grass-green vegetation at all
well. I don't think I'd prefer a lime-green jersey for a ride in the
country.


I don't think anybody has ever proposed blue or violet as a visible
color. Pity, because they are right purty -- but purple doesn't wash.
That is, when it fades, even a tiny little bit, it looks dirty.

A light shade of any color beats the deleted out of black.



--

joy beeson at comcast dot net

[Joy Beeson]

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you have
done. They don't care.

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you are
doing. They can see that for themselves.

You signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you intend to
do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

When I started riding, I used the signals given in the driver's
manual. I pretty soon noticed that whenever I signaled a right turn,
car drivers waved back.

So I started signaling right turns by pointing right with my right
arm, a mirror image of the left-turn signal given in the book. A few
weeks ago I downloaded the Indiana drivers' manual, and was delighted
to see that this signal had been legalized for the operators of
two-wheeled vehicles.

I don't think the book mentioned the "I'm going straight" signal:
point straight ahead, raising the arm a bit if it needs to be seen by
operators behind you. This is frequently useful information, but
impossible to convey with tail lights.

After I begin a left turn at The Entrance, I swing my arm to point at
my exact destination so that the drivers draining out of the tunnel
know how to be where I ain't. At less-complex intersections, there is
seldom need to signal after entering the intersection.

[John B. Slocomb]

I think that the important thing about hand signals is that other
people understand what you intend to do. If it takes bouncing up and
down and waving your arms over head to indicate that you intend to
turn across six lanes of traffic than I suggest that it is the correct
thing to do.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/6/2014 10:44 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>
> You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you have
> done. They don't care.
>
> You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you are
> doing. They can see that for themselves.
>
> You signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you intend to
> do.

There are a few situations where I use signals to tell motorists what
_they_ are supposed to do.

The simplest situation occurs at a four-way stop. Often a motorist will
approach from my right to arrive the same time, or just before, I do, so
he has the right of way. Many of those motorists won't proceed, perhaps
because they expect me to run the stop sign. Some will enter
"politeness wars" ("You go." "No, you go.") that delay everyone. I
solve this by waving "Go ahead" as I'm coming to a stop, so they know I
won't ride in front of them.

The newest situation occurs at our new roundabout, the first in our
county. Our motorists are not geniuses, and many are not using it
properly. Usually their mistake is to treat the yield signs as stop
signs and delay everyone, but I've seen cars approach far too fast when
I'm in the circle, as if they're not going to yield to me. In that
case, I've held up my hand in a traffic cop's "Stop!" gesture.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[smharding]

Here in Massachusetts, it seems traffic circle, or roundabout Yield signs are
interpreted by motorists as "everyone must stop for me".

This is true when I'm in the rotary whether I'm on a bicycle or in my big
honkin', global warming, Dodge Ram 4x4 hemi!

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

[John B. Slocomb]

A couple of countries I've lived in have a unique method of training
drivers. They post a couple of cops at the round-a-bout and everyone
that does it wrong gets fined.

A couple of days and everyone is merrily going 'round" and no more
problems :-)

But, I'm wondering. What happens if you "hold up your hand like a
traffic cop" and the guy doesn't stop?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:55:03 -0500, smharding <smha...@verizon.net>
wrote:

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[dgk]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
<sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:

>>I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
>>vehicle does (or should).
>>
>>
>>SMH
>
>Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?

Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
people are too important to use them.

[Frank Krygowski]

We'll see if that ever happens, I guess. I haven't had to do this more
than a couple times, and I hope and expect people will get better at
roundabout rules.

But if a motorist failed to yield, I suppose I'd evade by moving onto
the circular center island. It has no curbs. And if there were a
crash, at least it would be a glancing blow, not a 90 degree or head-on
collision.

If I get in a crash there, I'll report it here.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

Truly? In the small 3rd world country I reside in use of "turn lights"
is nearly universal even when only changing lanes on the highway.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Really, the use of turn signals is amazingly uncommon in the U.S. (I
was going to write "in Ohio," but it occurs to me it's been the same
everywhere.)

It's most frustrating to me when leaving our little neighborhood, trying
to turn out onto the busy five lane road. I'll be waiting for one last
car coming from the left to pass by, so I can scoot out into a brief
clear space. And the car will slow, and slow further; then turn into
the street I'm trying to exit. Some drivers seem to flick the turn
signal on at the same time they begin cranking the wheel to the right.
Many others will never signal at all.

We had friends from Ireland visit us a few years back. The lack of turn
signals caused some astonishment in our friends. "They don't use their
indicators!"

On the plus side, it's not that uncommon for cops to use this as
justification for stopping a known bad guy. Newspaper reports sometimes
say "XXXX was cited for an improper turn, possession of narcotics,
possession of drug paraphernalia..." If these guys were smart enough to
drive really carefully, they'd last longer on the streets.

But as one of my cop friends told me, "They're not Einsteins, Frank."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

I would have to say that turn indicators are nearly universally used
here, by both private and commercial vehicles. In fact, it would be
very, very rare to see a large truck even change lanes without using
his turn lights.

Re criminals, I once had a conversation with a Maine State Policeman
and had a remark like, "some of these guys seem kinda slow", referring
to some of the state prisoners. He replied, "that's why they are in
here". I assumed that he meant that anyone that was half smart didn't
get caught.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[dgk]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 07:19:34 +0700, John B. Slocomb

<sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:48:15 -0500, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
>><sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
>>>>vehicle does (or should).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>SMH
>>>
>>>Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?
>>
>>Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
>>people are too important to use them.
>
>Truly? In the small 3rd world country I reside in use of "turn lights"
>is nearly universal even when only changing lanes on the highway.

Sorry, I was referring to the US, New York City in particular. I'd say
40% of drivers signal their turn early enough for me to find it
useful. I don't trust their signals, but I do factor them into how I
react to them.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/10/2014 2:33 PM, dgk wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I was referring to the US, New York City in particular. I'd say
> 40% of drivers signal their turn early enough for me to find it
> useful.

I agree with that estimate.

> I don't trust their signals, but I do factor them into how I
> react to them.

Ditto.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

I'm surprised, really. I remember way back when I was in High School
they started a "Driver's Training" course. The school even had a car
with dual controls. I had assumed that by now USians all had formal
driver's training and were aware of all the do's and don't
--
Cheers,

John B.

[dgk]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:15:23 +0700, John B. Slocomb

They may have been trained to use them but they don't find it
necessary in real life. Probably because they never get ticketed for
that.

[John B. Slocomb]

You need to implement the "free enterprise" system that we have here.

You do something wrong; the cop stops you; you pay him the fine and go
your way; or you do something wrong; you surrender your drivers
license and must report to the Police Officer's home office in 3 days
time to pay the fine and have your license returned.

Of course, if you pay on the spot the fine goes into the "Police
Benevolence" fund and is used to improve the life of the police
officers, which provides a certain amount of enthusiasm, in the Police
ranks, for law enforcement.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joy Beeson]

There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

[Duane]

On 12/14/2014 7:25 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>
> There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
> the silliest term of art ever?"
>
> I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
> control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
> you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.
>
> Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
> riding.
>
>

Well said.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/11/2014 8:14 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>
>
> You need to implement the "free enterprise" system that we have here.
>
> You do something wrong; the cop stops you; you pay him the fine and go
> your way; or you do something wrong; you surrender your drivers
> license and must report to the Police Officer's home office in 3 days
> time to pay the fine and have your license returned.
>
> Of course, if you pay on the spot the fine goes into the "Police
> Benevolence" fund and is used to improve the life of the police
> officers, which provides a certain amount of enthusiasm, in the Police
> ranks, for law enforcement.

So, the free market philosophy applied to policing! I think that would
be approved by roughly half the American public.

Until the first time they were pulled over, that is.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/14/2014 7:25 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>

> There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
> the silliest term of art ever?"
>
> I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
> control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
> you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.
>
> Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
> riding.

Well, when I ride in the middle of a narrow lane, it seems to adequately
communicate that there's insufficient room to pass unless the passers
leave the lane.

Call it what you will; it works.

And for the situation I usually ask about - an 8.5 foot truck coming up
behind me in a 10 foot lane - I don't know a better alternative.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

Foreigners complain loudly about the "corruption", but I always
wondered. The purpose of a fine is to impress on the evildoer that
this is not a good thing to do. Does it matter who, in the end,
receives the money?

As paying the fine is the punishment, whether this money goes into the
government coffers to be spent on the minister's upcoming trip to
London (with wife and family) or goes into the pockets of the poor
policeman would seem immaterial.

And, it does make for very industrious policemen, eager to enforce the
law.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014

>20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>>There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
>>the silliest term of art ever?"
>>
>>I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
>>control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
>>you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.
>>
>>Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
>>riding.
>

>If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
>you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
>than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

That's the common fear, of course: "What if they don't slow down or
change lanes? What if they run me over?" It's why most cyclists will
balance on a 4" fog line 2" away from a pavement dropoff as motor
vehicles squeeze by inches from their elbow, rather than ride centered
in a narrow lane.

Those of us who have learned to ride in the "primary position" know that
the "What if..." is superstition. It probably happens much less often
than hits-from-behind while riding in a bike lane. Riding in primary
position soon becomes much less scary than edge riding.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:32:37 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. Slocomb <sloc...@invalid.com> considered Tue, 16 Dec 2014

>You are worrying about something that happens so rarely that it barely
>even has any place in the statistics.
>The risk of getting wiped out by someone trying to squeeze past in an
>inadequate space is certainly many times greater.
>Which is why it is recommended practice in every reputable cycle
>training course I know of.

No, that isn't really true. Both John Forester and Kenneth Cross
discussed it in their writings and strangely they draw different
conclusions with one arguing that the overtaking risk is negligible,
and on the other hand an analysis that characterizes the overtaking
collision as the most deadly of all car-bike crashes.


--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

But Frank, I described an accident that happened where a little
village road joined a main highway - two women and two kids on a small
motorcycle "seized the lane" and were hit by an overtaking truck
traveling probably 50 or 60 KPH. Two dead at the site and two taken to
the hospital.

When I described the accident you replied with something like - "well
they shouldn't have done that".

Now you say it is the best option. But your "best option" resulted in
two dead at the scene and two with severe injuries who may have died
later.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

> If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
> you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
> than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

You are violently agreeing with me.

I'm usually a spectator at these strange, but oddly-common, events.

--
Joy Beeson