avag...@gmail.com

unread,

May 27, 2015, 7:54:48 PM5/27/15

to

I now activate the flasher system when spotting an possibly errant cyclist.

Traffic behind responds as who wants to ruin their day with a bicycle accident.

Recommend you try this and observe.

John B.

unread,

May 27, 2015, 8:27:17 PM5/27/15

to

I suspect that the "Ride like you're invisible to motorists"
suggestion actually means something more like "ride like the motorist
doesn't notice you while texting, applying makeup, etc."

Your suggestion to ride in a conspicuous road position relies on the
driver being aware of his surroundings, which apparently isn't always
true given the large number of auto accidents where the driver says "I
didn't see him/it".
--
Cheers,

John B.

Andre Jute

unread,

May 27, 2015, 11:51:09 PM5/27/15

to

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 11:46:41 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute

Audi, as it happens, at one stage also made the biggest selling military vehicle in its class, the Iltis.

Andre Jute

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 27, 2015, 11:56:52 PM5/27/15

to

On 5/27/2015 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 16:13:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2015 1:56 PM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ride like you're invisible to motorists
>>
>> "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" is obviously nonsense. What
>> would you do - come to a stop every time a motor vehicle comes into view?
>>
>> "Ride in a prominent, conspicuous road position, one that makes you
>> visible" is a lot more reasonable. In addition to drawing attention and
>> generating early notice, a prominent road position also gives you a lot
>> more escape room should something go wrong.
>>
>> http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/
>
> I suspect that the "Ride like you're invisible to motorists"
> suggestion actually means something more like "ride like the motorist
> doesn't notice you while texting, applying makeup, etc."

FWIW, this has been discussed on various (and more serious) bike
education forums that I'm part of.

"Ride like your invisible" is most often interpreted as "Stay completely
out of the way no matter what. Ride in the gutter, or better yet on the
sidewalk. Ride facing traffic so you can bail out in the grass if a car
comes at you." And so on. It pretty clearly says "Act as if you have
no right to the road." It sends precisely the wrong message.

> Your suggestion to ride in a conspicuous road position relies on the
> driver being aware of his surroundings, which apparently isn't always
> true given the large number of auto accidents where the driver says "I
> didn't see him/it".

Everyone I know who has tried it - and there are many - report that
riding more prominently gets them much more passing clearance from
motorists, and fewer crashes and close calls. For one thing, it's
obvious from much further back that the presence of the cyclist will
require some attention.

Review the article and video in the link above. Or check out this one:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/08/19/we-learned-to-get-along-on-sesame-street/

If that woman had taken Jute's advice literally, she probably would have
been riding to the right of the right-turn-only lane at the video's
beginning. She certainly would have been skimming the curb on other
sections of the road; and motorists would have been skimming her left elbow.

If someone said "Keep alert for motorist mistakes," I certainly wouldn't
object. I do that all the time. But pretending invisibility simply
makes no sense. It stinks even as a joke.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Duane

unread,

May 28, 2015, 8:15:38 AM5/28/15

to

On 27/05/2015 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 16:13:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2015 1:56 PM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ride like you're invisible to motorists
>>
>> "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" is obviously nonsense. What
>> would you do - come to a stop every time a motor vehicle comes into view?
>>
>> "Ride in a prominent, conspicuous road position, one that makes you
>> visible" is a lot more reasonable. In addition to drawing attention and
>> generating early notice, a prominent road position also gives you a lot
>> more escape room should something go wrong.
>>
>> http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/
>
> I suspect that the "Ride like you're invisible to motorists"
> suggestion actually means something more like "ride like the motorist
> doesn't notice you while texting, applying makeup, etc."
>

Basically to ride defensively. I agree.

> Your suggestion to ride in a conspicuous road position relies on the
> driver being aware of his surroundings, which apparently isn't always
> true given the large number of auto accidents where the driver says "I
> didn't see him/it".
> --

There's the rub.

John B.

unread,

May 28, 2015, 8:32:53 AM5/28/15

to

Kill file him.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,

May 28, 2015, 8:32:54 AM5/28/15

to

On Wed, 27 May 2015 23:56:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski

I suggest that it is largely a matter of semantics. "Ride like you are
invisible" can be interpreted equally well as "ride like they don't
see you", which is a pretty sensible attitude, as if they don't see
you then "taking the lane" could also be translated as "Suicide".

I've always felt and suggested that when something is larger than you,
faster than you, more powerful than you and harder than you that it
behooves you to avoid this thing.

Not hope that the thing will avoid you.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AMuzi

unread,

May 28, 2015, 8:51:30 AM5/28/15

to

Perhaps it's time to go full Lampre:
http://www.procyclingstats.com/team/Lampre_Merida_2015

It's a growing sentiment:
http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/wisconsin-lawmakers-encourage-people-to-hunt-pink/article_e8d0b729-38ae-5c3d-b511-fe205794c3ac.html

If it's good visibility for firearms it ought to work for
texting mommyvan pilots.

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

jbeattie

unread,

May 28, 2015, 10:27:28 AM5/28/15

to

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 8:56:52 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/27/2015 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 May 2015 16:13:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Everyone I know who has tried it - and there are many - report that
> riding more prominently gets them much more passing clearance from
> motorists, and fewer crashes and close calls. For one thing, it's
> obvious from much further back that the presence of the cyclist will
> require some attention.
>

Although passing clearance often has nothing to do with road position. I have been passed closely while riding lane center -- taking the entire lane. Numerous times. Taking the lane makes sense in places, but it is no guaranty of safe passes. People who want to pass will pass, and if you're traveling slowly down the middle of a lane, you will get passed -- sometimes closely and aggressively. The frequency of unsafe passes will depend on the local driver population and the model number of the truck, e.g. 150, 250 350 etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

Duane

unread,

May 28, 2015, 10:45:58 AM5/28/15

to

We were on two lane highways on Sunday. There's no shoulder and we were
about 3 feet from the fog line. So about 1 foot to the right of lane
center. Drivers had to go into the oncoming lane to pass us, as per the
law and many did. A few noticeable ones didn't. Usually accelerating
and sitting on their horn as they went only far enough left to not
actually hit us.

This is a long windy road through the corn fields and with the corn
still low you can see for quite a distance. Moving left 1 foot wouldn't
have mattered. The idiots that don't like waiting for a safe pass are
going to react the same.

FWIW, I would prefer the guy screaming by with his horn blaring. At
least I know he sees me. This road is similar to the one where the
girls doing the triathalon training were mowed down a couple years ago
by the guy that fell asleep with his cruise control on.

But what I wanted to address Jay, was that it isn't just trucks.
Rednecks seem to have access to SUVs, UPS vans, tractor trailers,
motorcycles and all sorts of vehicles. And they wear disguises now.
Some are even dressed as soccer moms or college students.

The other thing is that you're right about the local driver population.
We know how the drivers are in this area and expect this behavior.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,

unread,

May 28, 2015, 4:57:46 PM5/28/15

to

On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:37:49 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>My local poh-lees (as I understand is now the approved street corner
>manner of describing the keepers of the peace) disapprove severely
>of fireams on the streets. (They themselves in the main go unarmed.)

Well, ok. That's a problem. Instead, I suggest you simply install
the visible gun mounts to give the impression that you prefer violent
solutions to social problems. I don't know the legality, but a row of
shotgun shells and possibly some (empty) leather pistol holder mounted
in conspicuous locations might also be helpful. Image is everything.

>However, I have found the 300mm length of Abus Granit X 54 U lock
>a useful tool, socially imperceptible except to drivers who come
>within the legally required clearance zone of one meter of me,
>and 12" extension of the tool itself is rather useful.

You get 1 meter (39.37 inches) clearance and we only get 36.0 inches?
This has some serious implications, such as the cost of building your
roads 3 inches wider in order to comply with the required clearances.
Have you considered abandoning metric and going back to imperial
measures? It might be cheaper.

My weapon of choice is a cable lock, with a heavy lock on the end.
I've considered adding spikes to the lock and a wooden handle, but
that would be a bit too mediaeval and obvious. The cable lock is not
as secure as a U-lock, but is considerably cheaper. That's a major
requirement because I have the incurable habit of loosing my cable
locks on rides. At about $30 for a generic U-Lock and about $5 for a
home made cable lock with Nicopress fittings, I can lose 5 cable locks
to break even.

Sir Ridesalot

unread,

May 28, 2015, 7:01:23 PM5/28/15

to

Like when you are approaching a narrow bridge, an 18 wheeler is barreling down on you, you're lane centre but the 18 wheeler isn't slowing so just before you get onto the bridge you elect to leave the lane so's not to have that run down feeling, you then get told that a, you should have stayed lane center as the 18 wheel would have slowed so's not to run you over, and b, that you're "a scardy ct and shouldn't be riding in traffic because you elected to bail rather than stay in the lane". Never mind that the 18 wheeler just missed hitting you as it was.

Cheers

Sir Ridesalot

unread,

May 28, 2015, 7:13:11 PM5/28/15

to

As you often ask, where's the proof that if you were not lane center you'd have been in danger. You say, "I belive..." yet many times you ask others for empiracal prrof that their belief is fact.

In many locales riding in the center of a lane in traffic for any distance is very likely to have very unpleasant results for many bicyclists.

Alos, in many locales it is against the law to ride lane center if it impedes traffic and it's also against the law to ride two abreast a t any time.

cheers

James

unread,

May 28, 2015, 8:20:21 PM5/28/15

to

Yes, I've noted there are efforts to improve visibility, and yes
distraction seems to be a mounting problem, with additional distraction
sources these days. Once upon a time the biggest distraction, aside
from passengers, was the car radio. I know of a few who killed them
selves turning a tape over, for example.

--
JS

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 29, 2015, 12:26:48 AM5/29/15

to

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 7:13:11 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 4:21:51 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >
> > Today I did a club ride (retirement is nice!), about 25 miles on mostly
> > narrow rural roads, plus a state highway or two. About a dozen riders.
> > I don't think there was a moment when we didn't control the lane, i.e.
> > ride near lane center, often two abreast. We suffered zero close
> > passes, and I believe every motorist went as far left as possible to
> > pass us.
> >
> > No, it's not always 100%. About two weeks ago I led a club ride and had
> > one pickup truck driver (with a "handicapped" plate) deliberately pass
> > me with about a foot of clearance, despite having an open left lane on
> > the low-traffic four-lane road. Jerks exist. But even in that case, my
> > leftward position gave me room to move right if I'd really needed it.
> >
> > If I'd ridden a foot from the gutter - default position for many
> > cyclists - I would probably have endured many more passes about that
> > close. The difference would have been that those motorists wouldn't
> > have thought they were doing anything wrong.
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> As you often ask, where's the proof that if you were not lane center you'd have been in danger. You say, "I belive..." yet many times you ask others for empiracal prrof that their belief is fact.

Well, here's some video showing the difference in behavior between riding more
toward the right, vs. riding more prominently:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/
At about 2 minutes, you'll see the closer passes from riding further right.

Here are some sources of advice:
http://azbikelaw.org/blog/where-to-ride-on-the-road/

Here's another, with a graphic showing some data on passing clearance vs.
cyclist lane position. You may want to blow up the graphic and study it.
Some people find it tricky to interpret.
http://isocrates.us/bike/2011/07/lane-positioning-101/

> In many locales riding in the center of a lane in traffic for any distance is very likely to have very unpleasant results for many bicyclists.

Yeah, I know. Danger! Danger!

> Alos, in many locales it is against the law to ride lane center if it impedes traffic and it's also against the law to ride two abreast a t any time.

In (almost?) every state, two abreast riding is legal, since the typical
statute prohibits "more than two abreast." And in my state (and many others)
it's _specifically_ legal for cyclists to control the lane when the lane is
too narrow to be safely shared.*

IIRC, you're in Canada. Perhaps my statewide cycling advocacy organization
has done a better job than yours?

*BTW, on my way to a club ride last week, I was at the center of a narrow lane,
and a guy in an SUV blared his horn at me. When it was clear, he passed me,
then pulled into a plaza parking lot.

Since I had time, I pulled in after him and asked "Were you having trouble
with your horn?"

He said "You have to give room to pass."

I said "Actually, state law 4511.55 says a bicyclist is allowed to ride at
lane center when the lane's too narrow to share."

He said "Oh. I didn't know that. My mistake, then."

- Frank Krygowski

Duane

unread,

May 29, 2015, 8:42:55 AM5/29/15

to

8-tracks eating your tape used to be a common cause of rear enders.
Cell phones and gps devices seem to be more significant though. I don't
get why people can't wait until they are at least at a stop light to
reply to a freaking text message. A guy here was on the news today for
contesting a ticket he got because he was using his apple watch to
change tunes. His argument is that the law specifies hand held
telephones. So he'll get off and the law will change to include it.
But wtf?

Duane

unread,

May 29, 2015, 8:50:14 AM5/29/15

to

Yeah but you're talking about one opinionated troll that there's no
point responding to. And anyway if you followed that advice and were
killed you would be written off as an insignificant statistic and any
argument to the contrary would bring up Danger! Danger! rants and more
bullshit statistical misinterpretations and miles traveled and walking
helmets and all sorts of other nonsense.

IMO if you think that truck isn't stopping you need to deal with that
the best way you know how and also IMO letting him go is probably the
best choice.

John B.

unread,

You mean to say that in the face of arguments to the contrary, I'd bring
in data.

And you've shown time and again that you have no appreciation of data.
In general, its use or analysis just drives you into ranting - generally
because available data shows your arguments are so often wrong.

I understand that this situation frustrates you. But it doesn't make
you any more correct.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 29, 2015, 4:31:00 PM5/29/15

to

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:29 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

First, rather little cycling is done on highways with high speed limits.
Perhaps that means you don't, in fact, disagree with lane control when
necessary at slower speeds. I hope that's the case.

In the case of a higher speed highway, IME they seldom have blind curves
that hide cyclists until the last second. That's based on my riding in
47 U.S. states (so far) and about a dozen foreign countries. High-speed
roads that do have blind curves or sharp hill crests almost always have
low traffic, meaning the problem you cite comes up infrequently.

In the unusual instances where those problems arise, I've done fine by
paying attention to the possibility of traffic from behind. For sharp
curves, one can adjust road position to be visible. That almost always
means moving closer to the center line, which makes one visible further
around the curve. I suppose for a sharp crest with a motorist flying up
from behind, one could be ready to bail onto the shoulder if necessary.
I doubt that it's frequently necessary.

(FWIW, our club's annual century, which I ran for about 8 years, went
partly through Amish country, including hilly roads where Amish buggies
obviously cannot share the lane. There's never been tons of carnage,
either of cyclists or of buggy riders.)

If these dire situations were as common as some here pretend, we wouldn't
have over 10 million miles ridden per bike fatality.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 29, 2015, 4:36:06 PM5/29/15

to

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:06:34 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> I have nor read every state's traffic regulations but the three I did
> read all stated that "thou shall not impede other traffic" (in
> Biblical terms :-) so while the three states did specifically state
> that bicycles had a right to use the road none of them gave the
> bicycle a right to impede other users.

Courts have decided otherwise, setting useful legal precedents when
doing so.

This man was instrumental in one of the more important cases.
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategorized/2010/09/share-the-road-stinks/

Essentially (IIRC) the appeals court judges ruled that the capabilities of
the vehicle must be taken into account. So farm tractors, delivery vans,
post office trucks, garbage trucks, heavy loads, scooters and bicyclists
are not required to abandon their rights to the road because they
can't go fast. The few exceptions are usually limited access highways.
But even those are legal for cyclists in many western U.S. locations.

- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,

May 29, 2015, 5:27:22 PM5/29/15

to

Well, it looks like Florida and Commute Orlando are leading the way for bicycle safety -- unfortunately, the wrong way: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/cycling-fatalities-highest-in-florida-25385/
http://www.southfloridapersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2012/02/florida-bicycle-accidents-amon.html

Mode share in Orlando: .4% Wow! That's awesome! Its also amazing considering that the place is dead flat, sunny all the time and has roads with incredibly long site lines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ib5Ny5-kBs (and these guys are in the left lane because?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8eCmVpzFSk -- snore. Wake me up when I get home.

Portland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI7T2iuGjjc We're serious around here. I podiumed this morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3nMnr8ZirI

-- Jay Beattie.

P.S. dissenting opinion on taking the lane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS1yP8jJXIs Kind of goofy, but fun.

jbeattie

unread,

May 29, 2015, 8:10:03 PM5/29/15

to

That Ohio case applies in Ohio and clearly does not represent the law in most states. The standard UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code) provisions apply to bicycles, including the prohibitions on impeding traffic and failing to yield to overtaking traffic. Again, one must look to state law. There are fifty states with different versions of the UVC, and I think a few states that don't follow the UVC at all.

-- Jay Beattie.

John B.

unread,

May 29, 2015, 10:02:21 PM5/29/15

to

You are correct. Just as I stated "bicycles had a right to use the
road". Shoot, in a farming community you didn't need a Judge to tell
you that you could drive your tractor on the road, you just "knew" it.

But the point that you leave out is that there equally isn't a law
that gives a farm wagon, or a bicycle, the right to deliberately
impede other traffic, which in essence you are encouraging by arguing
that "take the lane" is the perfect solution. In fact I distinctly
remember signs posted by the Highway Department that said "Slow
Traffic Keep Right", in other words "do your best not to impede
others".
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,

May 29, 2015, 10:02:21 PM5/29/15

to

That is, in a left handed way, exactly what I meant. I might add that
much, perhaps most of my cycling is done on roads that are as
described, but that isn't the point.

The point is that, as I said, you appear to preach "take the lane" as
a mantra to solve all bicycle-motor vehicle interaction and it
obviously isn't, as you seem to admit above.

If, as you do not say, the mantra went something like "take the lane
where it is safe to do so" than I wouldn't comment, but you don't say
that.

You describe the wide truck and the narrow road and say, "take the
lane".

I described an incident where two women and two kids, on a 100 cc
motorcycle did exactly that and the results was one truck turned over
and the driver injured sufficiently to be admitted to the hospital,
one woman and one child killed in the crash and the other woman and
child were admitted to the hospital "in critical condition".

You replied to my post saying, "they shouldn't have done that".

So, essentially your "take the lane" advice, while perhaps logical in
certain situations is not the cure all solution that you seem to be
trying to market it as.

>In the case of a higher speed highway, IME they seldom have blind curves
>that hide cyclists until the last second. That's based on my riding in
>47 U.S. states (so far) and about a dozen foreign countries. High-speed
>roads that do have blind curves or sharp hill crests almost always have
>low traffic, meaning the problem you cite comes up infrequently.

I'm in Phuket at the moment and I can assure you that on the "road to
town" where traffic is usually passing me when I'm doing 80 KPH in my
old pickup, there are at least three places where the road curves
sufficiently that you cannot see a cycle 100 Meters ahead and several
hills that are sufficiently abrupt that the same conditions apply.

>In the unusual instances where those problems arise, I've done fine by
>paying attention to the possibility of traffic from behind.

But Frank, you don't say that, you say, "take the lane". You imply
that in the wide truck, narrow road situation, that you describe, that
every thing will be hunky-dory if one just takes the lane.

Now you say "take the lane, but watch your arse" which is a
significantly different thesis.

> For sharp
>curves, one can adjust road position to be visible. That almost always
>means moving closer to the center line, which makes one visible further
>around the curve. I suppose for a sharp crest with a motorist flying up
>from behind, one could be ready to bail onto the shoulder if necessary.
>I doubt that it's frequently necessary.
>
>(FWIW, our club's annual century, which I ran for about 8 years, went
>partly through Amish country, including hilly roads where Amish buggies
>obviously cannot share the lane. There's never been tons of carnage,
>either of cyclists or of buggy riders.)
>
>If these dire situations were as common as some here pretend, we wouldn't
>have over 10 million miles ridden per bike fatality.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

--
Cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 29, 2015, 11:46:36 PM5/29/15

to

On 5/29/2015 5:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 8:50:14 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>>> ... any
>>> argument to the contrary would bring up Danger! Danger! rants and more
>>> bullshit statistical misinterpretations and miles traveled and walking
>>> helmets and all sorts of other nonsense.
>>
>> You mean to say that in the face of arguments to the contrary, I'd bring
>> in data.
>>
>> And you've shown time and again that you have no appreciation of data.
>> In general, its use or analysis just drives you into ranting - generally
>> because available data shows your arguments are so often wrong.
>>
>> I understand that this situation frustrates you. But it doesn't make
>> you any more correct.
>>
>
> Well, it looks like Florida and Commute Orlando are leading the way for bicycle safety -- unfortunately, the wrong way: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/cycling-fatalities-highest-in-florida-25385/
> http://www.southfloridapersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2012/02/florida-bicycle-accidents-amon.html

It's pretty silly to blame Commute Orlando for Florida's relatively high
bike crash counts, don't you think? After all, it's not like even half
of Florida cyclists use their techniques. In fact, it's not like half
of one percent of Florida cyclists use their techniques.

The Commute Orlando crew is pretty brilliant, IME. But their problem is
the same as the problem with every other cycling education effort:
Nobody's interested, because everybody THINKS they already know all
about bicycling.

We can discuss the reasons for Florida's high bike crash count, if you
like. But as a hint, I'll note that California is typically second in
bike crashes. Texas is often third. Now why would that be?

> Mode share in Orlando: .4% Wow! That's awesome! Its also amazing
considering that the place is dead flat, sunny all the time and has
roads with incredibly long site lines.

Have you ridden there?

Problem #1 is that the "modern" recently developed areas of Florida (at
least, in my experience) are all car-centric, in the sense that shopping
centers, office buildings, housing complexes etc. are spread out at much
lower density than where I live or where you live. They are frequently
connected by super-wide, super-high-speed roads that look and feel like
freeways. They are really not pleasant for riding. Even if you're not
afraid of the traffic, it's far from aesthetically pleasing.

Problem #2 is that the heat and humidity are pretty brutal. One guy I
know well was a longtime cyclist before he moved there. He's done quite
a lot of riding with me, including at least one century ride. But he
feels he can't possibly ride the five miles (IIRC) to his professional
job, because of the heat, humidity and roads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ib5Ny5-kBs (and these guys are in the
left lane because?)

Because they are getting ready to make a left turn, Jay.*

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8eCmVpzFSk -- snore. Wake me up when I get home.

And isn't that part of the point? So many people expect constant
terror. The reality is actually boring.

>
> P.S. dissenting opinion on taking the lane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS1yP8jJXIs
Kind of goofy, but fun.

Goofy is right. He shows so many car crashes you'd think he's trying to
say motoring is foolish. And it's interesting that a video of a cyclist
running into the back of a car is "proof" that you shouldn't take the
lane!

Note: When I ride near lane center, I always take care to have my eyes
open.*

(*The things you have to explain to some people!)

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 30, 2015, 12:14:26 AM5/30/15

to

IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong) you eventually said they pulled out
from a side road almost directly in front of the truck. And it's true,
they shouldn't have done that. Nobody is advising such a move.

> So, essentially your "take the lane" advice, while perhaps logical in
> certain situations is not the cure all solution that you seem to be
> trying to market it as.

I've never marketed it as a cure all solution. FWIW, as safety chairman
of my bike club, I've written articles almost every month on some aspect
of bike safety. There's been far more to say than just "take the lane."

OTOH, when teaching in any field, the principles that are most important
and most often ignored are the ones that should get the most emphasis
and repetition. (I was noted for hammering into my students that I
wanted them to always explicitly show units of measurements and their
conversions in every calculation.) And any casual observation of
American cyclists will show that there are far more gutter bunnies than
riders properly controlling lanes. Heck, look at the arguments the lane
control idea gets in this forum, despite links to dozens of
corroborating sources, despite examination of crash causes, despite
citations of legal decisions, etc.

>
>> In the case of a higher speed highway, IME they seldom have blind curves
>> that hide cyclists until the last second. That's based on my riding in
>> 47 U.S. states (so far) and about a dozen foreign countries. High-speed
>> roads that do have blind curves or sharp hill crests almost always have
>> low traffic, meaning the problem you cite comes up infrequently.
>
> I'm in Phuket at the moment and I can assure you that on the "road to
> town" where traffic is usually passing me when I'm doing 80 KPH in my
> old pickup, there are at least three places where the road curves
> sufficiently that you cannot see a cycle 100 Meters ahead and several
> hills that are sufficiently abrupt that the same conditions apply.

unread,

May 30, 2015, 12:48:55 AM5/30/15

to

If you're trying to justify riding right at the edge, you'll need to try
again. The UVC says to ride "as close as practicable" to the curb or
edge. That doesn't mean to ride right at it. In fact, given that some
degree of wobble is unavoidable on a bicycle, it's clear that riding
right at the edge is not "practicable."

AFAIK, nobody with any official standing requires edge riding. And
incidentally, some of my riding buddies are cops, ex-cops, professors of
criminal justice, highway patrolmen, lawyers, etc.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

unread,

May 30, 2015, 9:05:39 AM5/30/15

""11-1205-Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to

the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except ... [in]

substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the
right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard
width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor
vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

Pay very, very close to the word "except."

> You keep trotting out that 10 feet (not foot btw as feet is plural)
wide lane and 8.5 feet wide truck. The UVC says that if it's not safe
to share that lane then tthe bicyclist can ride further left. BUT that
does NOT mean that a bicyclist can ride in the center of every lane which
is what you continually espouse no matter the conditions or width of the
lane.

Nope. I've repeatedly said that I share lanes that are wide enough to
be safely shared. You need to stop arguing against what you _think_ I
say (or pretend I say), and address my actual statements. Oh, and the
actual statements of essentially every adult cycling education program
or book in the English speaking world.

I know there are plenty of cyclists who think "Oooh, I'd never want to
inconvenience any driver, and I'll risk my own life so they don't try to
kill me." But those milquetoasts never manage to get publishers for
their ideas. Do you wonder why?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 30, 2015, 12:26:55 PM5/30/15

to

So tell us, Duane, in my test case - 10' lane, 8.5' truck - where _do_
you ride? How close to the curb, or dropoff, or parked car?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 30, 2015, 12:42:27 PM5/30/15

to

On 5/30/2015 9:05 AM, John B. wrote:

> On Sat, 30 May 2015 00:14:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2015 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I described an incident where two women and two kids, on a 100 cc
>>> motorcycle did exactly that and the results was one truck turned over
>>> and the driver injured sufficiently to be admitted to the hospital,
>>> one woman and one child killed in the crash and the other woman and
>>> child were admitted to the hospital "in critical condition".
>>>
>>> You replied to my post saying, "they shouldn't have done that".
>>
>> IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong) you eventually said they pulled out
>>from a side road almost directly in front of the truck. And it's true,
>> they shouldn't have done that. Nobody is advising such a move.
>>
>
> No Frank, that wasn't what happened and I doubt very much that I would
> have described it in such terms. They entered via a slip road at
> perhaps a 10 or 15 degree angle to the main road.

<sigh> The point was, did they yield to the oncoming truck, or did they
pull directly in front of him? I thought you said it was the latter.
And again, nobody is claiming a cyclist should suddenly pull in directly
in front of a high speed vehicle directly behind him.

> Frank you just went on at some length about the wide truck and the
> narrow road, a somewhat similar incident to what I described. and you
> said "Take the Lane!"

"Somewhat similar" except in the most critical aspect. Again, nobody's
ever said taking the lane should be a sudden move directly in front of a
passing vehicle.

> Frank, we weren't trying to analyze bicycle fears. Simply trying to
> determine why someone chants the mantra "Take the Lane; Take the Lane;

> Take the lane" as, apparently, a all purpose act...

That's straw man nonsense. I've written here, and in many other places,
quite a lot about other techniques of competent riding.

However, riding too far right for safety is very common, and it does
encourage dangerously close passes, right hooks and left crosses.

Riding facing traffic is also the root cause of lots of car-bike
crashes. But warnings against that practice generate fewer online
debates. I suppose those dudes aren't into cycling enough to discuss
their ideas; but they, too, think they already know everything about how
to ride, despite never having actually taken a cycling class, read a
proper book (or even pamphlet) on riding.

>> I do like my eyeglass mirror and do
>> keep an eye on rearward traffic, but I can't think of a situation where
>> it's really made a difference. So I don't think it deserves as much
>> emphasis.
>
> Gee Frank, you seem to have a very selective memory. I remember a big
> to-do over "right turn" crashes a while ago and I seem to remember
> that you had something to say in that furor. Now, it has been my
> experience that looking behind you to see if anyone is overtaking and
> looks as though he might turn is very helpful in avoiding these type
> of accidents, but apparently you see no need for that sort of
> foolishness.

Hmm. OK, we seem to be shifting the topic of discussion. That's fine;
but why not look back and see what I actually said on that topic, rather
than giving more "I seem to remember" straw man stuffing?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Message has been deleted

jbeattie

unread,

May 30, 2015, 4:20:53 PM5/30/15

to

You need to read the statutes more carefully. There is no common law of traffic. It's statutory. The Ohio statute is peculiar and is not the law in every state -- or anywhere else from what I can tell.

Under the UVC, slow moving vehicles must yield to faster traffic on one-lane (each way) roads -- without regard to the physical fitness of the driver, except in Ohio. in your scenario, the slow moving tractor on a one lane road must yield to faster traffic. In other words, it has to pull of when it is safe and let traffic by. Tractor drivers often fail to do that, but it doesn't mean they're following the law.

The Oregon statute gives a bicyclist the right to take the lane to avoid "unsafe operation" within a lane that is too narrow to share. Crossing the center line to pass is not unsafe operation -- so if there is room to pass (no oncoming traffic), the statute does not give riders a free pass to take the lane -- not as written.

The take-away from all of this is that the rules of the road for bicyclists can vary significantly from one state to another. You cannot tell a rider in another state how he or she should ride -- not without looking at state and local law. In fact, city ordinances may affect where an how a bicyclist can use the roads or sidewalks.

-- Jay Beattie.

Message has been deleted

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 30, 2015, 11:39:34 PM5/30/15

to

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 4:20:53 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
>
> You need to read the statutes more carefully. There is no common law of traffic. It's statutory. The Ohio statute is peculiar and is not the law in every state -- or anywhere else from what I can tell.
>
> Under the UVC, slow moving vehicles must yield to faster traffic on one-lane (each way) roads -- without regard to the physical fitness of the driver, except in Ohio. in your scenario, the slow moving tractor on a one lane road must yield to faster traffic. In other words, it has to pull of when it is safe and let traffic by. Tractor drivers often fail to do that, but it doesn't mean they're following the law.
>
> The Oregon statute gives a bicyclist the right to take the lane to avoid "unsafe operation" within a lane that is too narrow to share. Crossing the center line to pass is not unsafe operation -- so if there is room to pass (no oncoming traffic), the statute does not give riders a free pass to take the lane -- not as written.
>
> The take-away from all of this is that the rules of the road for bicyclists can vary significantly from one state to another. You cannot tell a rider in another state how he or she should ride -- not without looking at state and local law. In fact, city ordinances may affect where an how a bicyclist can use the roads or sidewalks.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Jay, I realize you're a lawyer and I'm not. But I also realize that Steve
Magas is a lawyer. So is Bob Mionske. So are a couple of the guys I ride with.
So are people on staff at the League of American Bicyclists, other guys on
the board of the Ohio Bicycle Federation, other folks in other state
bicycling advocacy organizations.

Despite what you say, your view on controlling a narrow lane seems to be
in disagreement with what all those people say. Don't pretend that I'm
the only person recommending riding far enough left to control a lane.
It's the standard advice in the League's education programs, in the
Cycling Savvy courses, in CAN-BIKE, and in similar cycling courses in
other countries. Are all the lawyers associated with all those
education programs wrong? I doubt it.

To paraphrase and old joke: I don't think everyone's out of step except
our little Jay.

- Frank Krygowski

Joy Beeson

unread,

May 30, 2015, 11:39:55 PM5/30/15

to

On Fri, 29 May 2015 23:46:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Have you ridden there?

Been about sixty years since I did, but I'll bet one thing about
Florida hasn't changed: If you leave the pavement, you sink deep into
loose sand.

--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- needlework
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange

jbeattie

unread,

May 31, 2015, 2:13:59 AM5/31/15

to

Wake me up when Bob has any published opinions -- or even a case on any Oregon docket. BTW, it's not just little Jay that thinks impeding traffic is an infraction. http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/2002/a115242.html

Note the absence of any reference in that opinion of Ohio law, Bob Mionske or Steve Magas -- or Frank Krygowski. I'm not saying that "controlling the lane" doesn't make sense -- it does sometime -- but it's also illegal sometimes. If you want to parse the language of a statute and argue what it means, that's one thing, but don't be an ass and drop names (or insults). I couldn't imagine getting in front of a judge and arguing the meaning of Oregon statute based on a Velo News column or a Commute Orlando YouTube video. I don't know about your friends, but in the last 29 years of arguing in front of judges and appellate courts, I have never once relied on material published by Cycling Savvy.

Now, if I'm trying to prove the standard of care (rather than the requirements of the Oregon VC), I might call an expert on riding technique -- and I've done that a few times. But that has nothing to do with what a statute says or requires. That's where you keep going south -- arguing about the "right way" rather than what the express terms of a statue say. The "right way" would get me in to trouble in Oregon, particularly with our bike lane laws.

--Jay Beattie.

Andre Jute

unread,

May 31, 2015, 4:03:44 AM5/31/15

to

Interesting to see whether Franki-boy has the sense to shut up.

Andre Jute

Sir Ridesalot

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:45:03 AM5/31/15

to

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 4:03:44 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> Interesting to see whether Franki-boy has the sense to shut up.
>
> Andre Jute

Short answer = No.

In many things it;s his way or you're wrong. Never mind if your experiences trying his way are different or if it's illegal to do it his way im your locale - you're still wrong.

Cheers

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:04:01 PM5/31/15

to

OK, you said "I'm not saying that "controlling the lane" doesn't make

sense -- it does sometime -- but it's also illegal sometimes."

Then perhaps we're in violent agreement once again. I've never said
it's _never_ illegal to control a lane. The case you cited was a
Critical Mass ride, in which the defendant was apparently convicted for
doing what CM riders purposely do: obstruct traffic unnecessarily, yell
at police officers, and generally make asses of themselves in order to
make a point. That's FAR different from what I advise.

So what do I advise? Let's review. I say that when a lane is too
narrow to be safely shared by the cyclist and a passing motor vehicle,
the cyclist should ride far enough left to strongly discourage the
motorist from passing too close. I also say that when a lane is wide
enough to be safely shared, I _do_ share the lane and I advise others to
do the same.

(And for further parenthetical details: 1) In those very few instances
where I've had many cars backed up behind me, I have pulled over when
safe to let them pass. 2) I'm counting a usable bike lane as if it were
part of "the lane," which means I wouldn't generally need to be far left
of a decent bike lane. 3) And I've never ridden in a Critical Mass
ride, and don't advise doing so as they are normally organized.)

Unless I misunderstand your posts, you have been claiming that
controlling even an obviously too-narrow lane is illegal. (Correct me
if I'm wrong about that.) I dispute that, and judging by their
behavior, their discussions with me, their writing or their legal work,
so does every bike riding lawyer I'm aware of. So does every cop and
former cop I've ridden with. Hell, I've attended bike events where cops
who had developed well-reputed bike education programs gave exactly the
same advice I give.

Furthermore, even if a lawyer can work the algebraic equations of law to
show that the behavior I advise is prohibited by law, I doubt it makes a
practical difference in even one situation out of ten thousand. There
have been many times I've controlled narrow lanes in front of cop cars,
as well as when riding with cops and lawyers. The practice is even more
reasonable than, say, staying clipped in and balancing at 1 mph at a
stop sign. (Something else I've done directly in front of a cop car,
BTW.) I think citations are essentially nonexistent for controlling an
obviously narrow lane.

You don't like my name dropping. Sorry about that. But you haven't
explained why the advice given by all those lawyers and cops I mentioned
is different than your own. Do you want to do that now?

--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:15:21 PM5/31/15

to

And let me be clear that I'm not arguing over the "standard of care," viz., what a skilled rider "should do." I'm just saying that local law may prohibit a cyclist from "controlling the lane" if that means impeding traffic or riding outside a bike lane.

As a general rule, its permissible to ride on sidewalks so long as you don't exceed the speed of pedestrian traffic. It's illegal in downtown Portland, however. It is generally illegal to ride on interstate highways. It is legal in most rural areas in Oregon. Passing on the right on a one-lane road is generally illegal, except that is legal for bicycles in Oregon. Running stops on a bicycle is illegal in Oregon, but rolling stops are legal in many other states. Impeding and passing laws are all over the map -- Washington (where I might ride today -- still thinking about it) has a "five car" rule. http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427 If you are moving slowly on a one lane (each way) road and five "vehicles" stack up behind you, you have to move off the road and let them pass. No "controlling the lane" parades for Frank in Washington -- even if he's just holding up five other bicycles.

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:41:25 PM5/31/15

to

It's simple -- you're citing supposed experts on the standard of care. I'm talking about the language of particular statutes. It's ships passing in the night.

Generally speaking, you can "control" an obviously too narrow lane for a period of time until it becomes impeding or failure to allow passing or whatever approach is taken in the particular state. Parades require a permit -- most places, but perhaps not in Ohio under your impeding law.

Remember that when you control the lane, you control it for everybody -- including other cyclists. This is probably not much of a concern for you (or even part of your consciousness) because, AFAIK, you don't ride in an area with lots of other cyclists. I get the pleasure of plodding along in traffic (or forced filtering) every morning because some flower child is controlling traffic at 10mph. It upsets motorists and puts me in what amounts to a three lane cattle drive with lots of angry cows trying to get around an obstacle. I suppose I'm upset because it's a downhill, and you have to work to gum-up traffic at morning commute speeds -- but people do that because they're bicycles, damn it, and they're entitled to take the lane.

-- Jay Beattie.

Sir Ridesalot

unread,

May 31, 2015, 12:54:34 PM5/31/15

to

Used to get those plodding bicyclist holding up ALL other traffic in Toronto on a very busy east-west main road. It really irked me that it was so hard to pass them even though I was on a bicycle. Fortunately I was able to use, once I discovered it, a very nice country-like road that paralelled that mani road. It's bicyclists that insist on "taking and controlling the lane" even when there is traffic backing up behind them that gives all bicyclists a bad name and leads to many motorists demanding that bicycles be bannished from the roads and/or the licensing of all bicyclists. The licensing bit is so that law breaking bicyclists including those impedeing the flow of traffic can be reported and/or ticketed and/or lose their priviledge just like motorists.

Cheers

sms

unread,

May 31, 2015, 1:09:52 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/30/2015 7:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Frank, we're talking about impeding laws -- and this is why Ohio is unusual. Note section (C) please:

<snip huge response>

> -- Jay Beattie.

You got sucked into data-centric responses to a clever troll who hates
facts and data. Don't they teach you not to do that in law school.

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 31, 2015, 2:28:52 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 12:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:

> I'm just saying that local law may prohibit a cyclist from "controlling the lane"
if that means impeding traffic or riding outside a bike lane.

If that's all you're saying - that local law _may_ be against it - yes,
I agree. That's obvious, because tremendously stupid laws exist. (For
example, in Oregon, it's illegal for a motorist to pump his own gas.
And of course, it's illegal for a kid to ride his bike from his driveway
to his friend's driveway across their cul-de-sac residential street
unless the kid straps on a helmet for the five second trip.)

Until last year, it was illegal in my town for a cyclist to ride a bike
across a "through intersection." It was illegal for a cyclist to ride
on the street if there was a sidewalk. It was illegal to park a bike
without locking it. It was illegal for a cyclist to say "Excuse me" to
warn a pedestrian. (Only horns or bells could be used for pedestrian
warnings.)

The list of foolish laws went on and on, and was completely ignored by
everyone. I got the laws repealed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 31, 2015, 2:45:42 PM5/31/15

to

On 5/31/2015 12:41 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>
> It's simple -- you're citing supposed experts on the standard of care.
I'm talking about the language of particular statutes. It's ships
passing in the night.

OK. In the post I just finished, I agree that there can be a law
against safely controlling a lane, just as there can be a law against
pumping gas into one's own car. Stupid laws do exist.

> Generally speaking, you can "control" an obviously too narrow lane for
a period of time until it becomes impeding or failure to allow passing or
whatever approach is taken in the particular state.

Nice, thank you. I think I'll save that quote.

> Remember that when you control the lane, you control it for everybody --
including other cyclists. This is probably not much of a concern for you
(or even part of your consciousness) because, AFAIK, you don't ride in an
area with lots of other cyclists. I get the pleasure of plodding along in
traffic (or forced filtering) every morning because some flower child is
controlling traffic at 10mph. It upsets motorists and puts me in what
amounts to a three lane cattle drive with lots of angry cows trying to
get around an obstacle. I suppose I'm upset because it's a downhill,
and you have to work to gum-up traffic at morning commute speeds -- but
people do that because they're bicycles, damn it, and they're entitled
to take the lane.

We don't have nearly the density of bicyclists that you do (in fact, no
place in the U.S. does, AFAIK). So my riding among other cyclists is
usually confined to club rides and a rare mass cycling event. (I tend
to stay away from those, except when doing volunteer support.)

On club rides, I tend to converse with almost everyone at various times.
I do encounter times when I'm behind a clot of riders going much
slower than I like, usually on uphills. My usual solution is to say "On
your left" and go around. At times, that means I'm passing them by
using the oncoming lane of a two lane road. For me, it's never a big
problem.

But then, Ohio law is on my side. (I can't be ticketed for leaving a
bike lane, for example.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

John B.

unread,

May 31, 2015, 9:22:08 PM5/31/15

to

Ships passing :-)

The internationally accepted "rules of the Road", The Merchant
Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations,
that control ship traffic specify that a "sailing vessel" has the
right of way over motor vessels, with, of course, many exceptions, but
an "overtaking Vessel" always has the obligation to avoid the
overtaken vessel.

Perhaps the inclusion of some such language in the road traffic rules
would reduce bike accidents.

>Generally speaking, you can "control" an obviously too narrow lane for a period of time until it becomes impeding or failure to allow passing or whatever approach is taken in the particular state. Parades require a permit -- most places, but perhaps not in Ohio under your impeding law.
>
>Remember that when you control the lane, you control it for everybody -- including other cyclists. This is probably not much of a concern for you (or even part of your consciousness) because, AFAIK, you don't ride in an area with lots of other cyclists. I get the pleasure of plodding along in traffic (or forced filtering) every morning because some flower child is controlling traffic at 10mph. It upsets motorists and puts me in what amounts to a three lane cattle drive with lots of angry cows trying to get around an obstacle. I suppose I'm upset because it's a downhill, and you have to work to gum-up traffic at morning commute speeds -- but people do that because they're bicycles, damn it, and they're entitled to take the lane.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.

--
cheers,

John B.

jbeattie

unread,

May 31, 2015, 10:27:06 PM5/31/15

to

Frank, do you mean a helmet or, in fact, a special hat -- like a fedora. Are there mandatory Fedora laws? Pork Pie? Fez? Yarmulke?

-- Jay Beattie.

James

unread,

May 31, 2015, 11:51:28 PM5/31/15

to

On 31/05/15 13:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 4:20:53 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
>>
>> You need to read the statutes more carefully. There is no common
>> law of traffic. It's statutory. The Ohio statute is peculiar and
>> is not the law in every state -- or anywhere else from what I can
>> tell.
>>
>> Under the UVC, slow moving vehicles must yield to faster traffic on
>> one-lane (each way) roads -- without regard to the physical fitness
>> of the driver, except in Ohio. in your scenario, the slow moving
>> tractor on a one lane road must yield to faster traffic. In other
>> words, it has to pull of when it is safe and let traffic by.
>> Tractor drivers often fail to do that, but it doesn't mean they're
>> following the law.
>>
>> The Oregon statute gives a bicyclist the right to take the lane to
>> avoid "unsafe operation" within a lane that is too narrow to share.
>> Crossing the center line to pass is not unsafe operation -- so if
>> there is room to pass (no oncoming traffic), the statute does not
>> give riders a free pass to take the lane -- not as written.
>>
>> The take-away from all of this is that the rules of the road for
>> bicyclists can vary significantly from one state to another. You
>> cannot tell a rider in another state how he or she should ride --
>> not without looking at state and local law. In fact, city
>> ordinances may affect where an how a bicyclist can use the roads or
>> sidewalks.
>>
>

> Jay, I realize you're a lawyer and I'm not. But I also realize that
> Steve Magas is a lawyer. So is Bob Mionske. So are a couple of the
> guys I ride with. So are people on staff at the League of American
> Bicyclists, other guys on the board of the Ohio Bicycle Federation,
> other folks in other state bicycling advocacy organizations.
>
> Despite what you say, your view on controlling a narrow lane seems to
> be in disagreement with what all those people say. Don't pretend
> that I'm the only person recommending riding far enough left to
> control a lane. It's the standard advice in the League's education
> programs, in the Cycling Savvy courses, in CAN-BIKE, and in similar
> cycling courses in other countries. Are all the lawyers associated
> with all those education programs wrong? I doubt it.
>
> To paraphrase and old joke: I don't think everyone's out of step
> except our little Jay.
>

I'll control a lane while I have the cooperation of the following driver.

I have at times bailed out when the driver of an approaching vehicle
shows no signs of accommodating me.

You wouldn't indicate and move to lane control position without first
getting the cooperation of a driver approaching from behind, would you?
It would be like stepping on to a pedestrian crossing with blinkers
on, and just expecting the drivers to stop.

--
JS

sms

unread,

Jun 1, 2015, 12:23:21 AM6/1/15

to

On 5/31/2015 7:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 6:12:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

<snip>

>> There are, of course, constant efforts to forbid cycling without some
>> type of special hat. I do work against those efforts. Unfortunately,
>> some here mock me for that. Go figure.
>
> Frank, do you mean a helmet or, in fact, a special hat -- like a fedora. Are there mandatory Fedora laws? Pork Pie? Fez? Yarmulke?

LOL, whenever someone starts the "foam hat" schtick you know you're
about to be subjected to an avalanche of fake studies and fabricated
data. Now he's changed it to a "special hat." Priceless.

Sir Ridesalot

unread,

Jun 1, 2015, 1:37:32 AM6/1/15

to

A long time ago when I bailed in order not to get run over by an 18-wheeler Frank told me I shouldn't be riding in traffic if I was such a "scardy cat" and that i should hace stayed in the lane as that 18-wheeler would have slowed before hitting me.

Btw, notice how once again Frank has introduced helmets into a thread?

Cheers

Andre Jute

unread,

Jun 1, 2015, 1:56:33 AM6/1/15

to

Law school, like most schools, is taught by idealists. They really, really believe that there is nobody so obstinate and obstructive in the world that you cannot talk some sense into them. Jay should take Krygowski along to an alumni dinner and give them a rude, rude shock from the real world.

Andre Jute
LOL