Singapore Bikes
john B.
I was in Singapore last week and was scurrying around locating bike
parts that I can't find, or are too expensive, in Bangkok. I came
across a shop which appears to be a wholesale depot selling mostly
Taiwan or Mainland Chinese parts. Amongst a lot of parts they had some
complete bicycles - carbon frame and fork; Shimano 105 group, Ritchie
Stem, etc. The hubs were made to use straight spokes - no bend, and
front wheels were spoked with radial spokes and the rear with a
combination of radial on one side and "cross 2" on the other.
What was confusion was that some bikes had the "cross 2" lacing on the
drive side and others on the undriven side.... :-) A little quality
control problem I thought.
The complete bikes had a sticker price of approximately US$ 1100. and
likely if one was there, cash in hand, one could negotiate a discount
of say 5%.
There are also quite a number of cargo tricycles on the streets and
outside the really posh shopping areas a large number of bicycles on
the roads. Around the subway stations there are government provided
bike racks and these are usually overflowing and it is quite common to
see bikes chained to light posts and fences all over town.
The interesting thing is that there are no bike lanes and no special
rules for bikes. Bicycles seem to be treated as just another highway
user. You see them peddling along the side of the road, stopping for
stop lights and hardly ever on the sidewalks as bicycles and
motorcycles are forbidden to ride on sidewalks which are reserved for
foot traffic.
The idea that somehow you are different because you ride a bicycle to
work that I've noticed on various groups doesn't seem to exist and a
bicycle is viewed as just another variety of transportation.
By the way, no lycra, no foam hats, no half gloves. Just normal
attire.
The above is the norm during the week but on the weekend the
recreational riders appear, booted and spurred, they are very
noticeable on the more open highways and in certain areas of the
island where there are specified MTB tracks. The idea of "ride
anywhere" mountain bikes is abhorrent to the Singapore government and
there are serious fines imposed for riding in unspecified areas.
Cheers,
John B.
Tºm Shermªn °_°
> [...]
> The above is the norm during the week but on the weekend the
> recreational riders appear, booted and spurred, they are very
> noticeable on the more open highways and in certain areas of the
> island where there are specified MTB tracks. The idea of "ride
> anywhere" mountain bikes is abhorrent to the Singapore government and
> there are serious fines imposed for riding in unspecified areas.
Better just a fine than being attacked by a handsaw wielding wacko nut.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
James
> I was in Singapore last week and was scurrying around locating bike
> parts that I can't find, or are too expensive, in Bangkok. I came
> across a shop which appears to be a wholesale depot selling mostly
> Taiwan or Mainland Chinese parts. Amongst a lot of parts they had some
> complete bicycles - carbon frame and fork; Shimano 105 group, Ritchie
> Stem, etc. The hubs were made to use straight spokes - no bend, and
> front wheels were spoked with radial spokes and the rear with a
> combination of radial on one side and "cross 2" on the other.
>
> What was confusion was that some bikes had the "cross 2" lacing on the
> drive side and others on the undriven side.... :-) A little quality
> control problem I thought.
Mavic Isopulse uses crosses on the NDS and straight on the DS. The
intention is to reduce tension on the DS spokes.
http://www.mavic.com/en/technology/wheels/Isopulse
> The idea that somehow you are different because you ride a bicycle to
> work that I've noticed on various groups doesn't seem to exist and a
> bicycle is viewed as just another variety of transportation.
As it should.
--
JS.
john B.
<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>On 6/14/2011 7:05 PM, john B. wrote:
>> [...]
>> The above is the norm during the week but on the weekend the
>> recreational riders appear, booted and spurred, they are very
>> noticeable on the more open highways and in certain areas of the
>> island where there are specified MTB tracks. The idea of "ride
>> anywhere" mountain bikes is abhorrent to the Singapore government and
>> there are serious fines imposed for riding in unspecified areas.
>
>Better just a fine than being attacked by a handsaw wielding wacko nut.
It is fine to joke but the Singapore government takes its laws
seriously. $500 fine for spitting on the street, probably a thousand
for riding in a park.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> The interesting thing is that there are no bike lanes and no special
> rules for bikes. Bicycles seem to be treated as just another highway
> user. You see them peddling along the side of the road, stopping for
> stop lights and hardly ever on the sidewalks as bicycles and
> motorcycles are forbidden to ride on sidewalks which are reserved for
> foot traffic.
>
> The idea that somehow you are different because you ride a bicycle to
> work that I've noticed on various groups doesn't seem to exist and a
> bicycle is viewed as just another variety of transportation.
>
> By the way, no lycra, no foam hats, no half gloves. Just normal
> attire.
In other words, Singapore proves that a city can have lots of
bicycling without weird multicolored bike lanes, barrier separated
"bike tracks," special traffic lights, etc.
And people can ride bicycles and feel adequately safe without weird
plastic hats and day-glo clothing.
Can someone please let the American "bike advocates" know? Start with
Andy Clarke, John Pucher and Mia Birk.
(Of course, telling them to abandon fear mongering would be like like
telling them to abandon their life's work.)
- Frank Krygowski
(PeteCresswell)
>And people can ride bicycles and feel adequately safe without weird
>plastic hats and day-glo clothing.
The critical word may be "feel".
Looking back upon a misspent youth, I see quite a few times when
I was *that* far away from getting shot/poisoned/drowned/beaten
to death or whatever.... -)
--
PeteCresswell
Jay Beattie
Well, then there is Holland with separate bicycle facilities. If you
believe that is the proper model, then current efforts in the USA are
woefully inadequate. We should be condemning rights of way to put in
extensive bicycle avenues -- maybe through your living room.
-- Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
With a special assessment and then an increased property tax
evaluation.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
Of course, I don't think we need such things. Or rather, we need them
only in a few unusual places.
In general, I'm pretty fond of the system of bike facilities we
already have. They call them "roads" and they already go everywhere a
person is likely to want to go!
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
> Well, then there is Holland with separate bicycle facilities. If you
> believe that is the proper model, then current efforts in the USA are
> woefully inadequate. We should be condemning rights of way to put in
> extensive bicycle avenues -- maybe through your living room.
Just through my street would be fine.
N8N
Eh, shoulders would be nice. For both cyclists and motorists. Far
too many "only way to get there from here" roads have paved/rideable
areas to the right of the white line only inches wide.
Aside from cyclist concerns, a flat tire or breakdown in a motor
vehicle can seriously fornicate traffic on such a road.
nate
Tºm Shermªn °_°
<http://www.berkeleyside.com/2010/06/03/bicycle-opponent-arrested-for-assaulting-cyclist/>.
Well know rec.bicycles.soc and alt.mountain-bike troll Mikey V. was
acquitted on two charges, hung jury on one charge, and convicted on
three charges stemming from the handsaw assault incident.
Tºm Shermªn °_°
Indeed. The primary places special separated bicycle lanes are needed
are bridges on controlled access roads where there is not a nearby
bridge that is bicycle accessible.
Jay Beattie
Like here: http://highlandpark.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/remembering-the-great-california-cycleway/
I want a board track cycleway -- ride silks to work and do impromptu
Madisons with the Bohemian fixie commuters. Not much fun in the rain
or snow, though.
-- Jay Beattie.
john B.
Well, not really. Recently there has been a spat of complaints about
bicycle riders. Generally for such things as running red lights,
riding in the middle of the lane (on highways with plenty of room on
the sides) and other sins. The bicyclists on the other hand argue that
there is no "culture of cycling" in Singapore so no one knows how
bicycles act (I might comment that, say 40 years ago, very few
Singaporeans owned automobiles). The usual "I'm right and everyone
else is wrong" attitude.
But no helmet laws, and probably because there are so few accidents no
hair raising stories in the newspaper about the horrifying death of a
bicyclist.
john B.
In Thailand the bicycle is considered, by law, to be one step above a
pedestrian and has no special rights at all. Just as the pedestrian
they are allowed to use the highways but with the caveat that they
have a very low priority. In fact there is a law that bicycles and
motorcycles are to ride on the side of the road; signs every couple of
kilometers on all highways.
There is another idiosyncrasy here, the larger vehicle is deemed to be
guilty, until proven innocent. If a bicycle hits a pedestrian the
bicycle is deemed wrong; an automobile hits a bicycle, the auto is
wrong, and so on. The burden of proof is on the larger vehicle to
prove that he/she/it was not guilty.
Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary
the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the
bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here.
James
> Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary
> the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the
> bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here.
Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way?
If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and
stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault?
--
JS.
john B.
wrote:
I don't know. Initially the larger vehicle is deemed to be wrong but
in the case where the vehicle is stationary, as you describe, I
suspect that the bicycle would be found at fault after an
investigation.
I can't give any reference for that scenario other then that my wife
rear-ending another auto driving down the out ramp in a parking garage
because he braked suddenly. The police weren't called as it happened
on private property but the insurance investigator reckoned that it
was my wife's insurance that paid.
James
Yeah, that's common here too. If you rear end someone, it's almost
always your fault. That's not the scenario I meant though. I've had
drivers fail to give way and stop at the last moment. Thankfully I've
made it around them, but I watched a friend T-bone a car that did just
that. He had his right knee cap surgically removed as a result. I
can't see that it is satisfactory to rule that the larger, stationary
vehicle is not to blame when clearly failing to give way to through traffic.
--
JS.
john B.
wrote:
I cannot visualize the conditions that you are describing, but it is
really not a matter of describing the traffic laws as "satisfactory"
or "un-satisfactory", they just are. The individual can only obey or
not obey. Rather like the bloke who kills someone and then says that
he considers the law, that is going to hang him, to be unsatisfactory.
But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a
pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the
truck's fault?
James
I'll try again. You are riding along a main road and a motorist drives
out from a side road in front of you. The driver sees you after almost
blocking the e0ntire lane, panics, and stops at right angles to the road
you are travelling on, right in front of you.
The vehicle is stopped and you are moving. If you cannot avoid it, you
collide with it.
In this country, you would have right of way, and the vehicle driver
failed to give way.
> But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a
> pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the
> truck's fault?
Vehicles are to give way to pedestrians when crossing a foot path.
--
JS
john B.
wrote:
I can't answer your question as I've never seen it happen, but I
believe that if a car pulls out into traffic and is hit by an oncoming
car it would be assessed as the fault of the oncoming car.
>The vehicle is stopped and you are moving. If you cannot avoid it, you
>collide with it.
>
I admit that this is conjecture but I think that there is something in
the law stating to that one is supposed to be in control of his
vehicle at all times.
>In this country, you would have right of way, and the vehicle driver
>failed to give way.
>
>> But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a
>> pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the
>> truck's fault?
>
>Vehicles are to give way to pedestrians when crossing a foot path.
That wasn't the scenario you described. But to use your example, if a
truck stopped blocking the cross-walk would you walk into it? And then
blame the truck?
john B.
wrote:
>john B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:21:55
>That seems bassackwards to me.
>Vehicles already on the road (traffic) usually have priority over
>vehicles joining it (pulling out).
>>
I can't argue, I'm only saying what I have observed.
>>>The vehicle is stopped and you are moving. If you cannot avoid it, you
>>>collide with it.
>>>
>>I admit that this is conjecture but I think that there is something in
>>the law stating to that one is supposed to be in control of his
>>vehicle at all times.
>
>There is also something concerning "due care" that would be highly
>relevant to a driver pulling into the path of another vehicle which
>(had they cared to evaluate the risk) they could see perfectly well
>had not a hope in hell of avoiding them.
>>
>>>In this country, you would have right of way, and the vehicle driver
>>>failed to give way.
>>>
>>>> But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a
>>>> pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the
>>>> truck's fault?
>>>
>>>Vehicles are to give way to pedestrians when crossing a foot path.
>>
>>That wasn't the scenario you described. But to use your example, if a
>>truck stopped blocking the cross-walk would you walk into it? And then
>>blame the truck?
>
>Only if the truck moved onto the crosswalk after you were already on
>it, and close enough in front that you could not avoid hitting it.
>
The scenario he described was that the motor vehicle came out of a
side road, turned onto the road on which he was riding, and stopped.
Quite common to have a truck come out of a side road and stop across
the sidewalk waiting a break in the traffic, exactly as he described.
>Obviously, what is too close varies with speed and vehicle type.
>You can safely pass much closer in front of an elderly pedestrian with
>a walking frame than you can in front of a semi doing 55mph on a wet
>road.
>The major problem seems to be that motorists, in general, are very
>poor in judging the speed and required stopping distance of a bicycle.
>Or just don't give a fuck, because they know it can't injure them.
I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
and not there.
Frank Krygowski
> O
> I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
> by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
> and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
> comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
> and not there.
FWIW: On another discussion group - one that's populated with many
"vehicular cyclists" - I once asked about experiences riding in
countries other than, say, the USA, Canada and Western Europe (all of
which I've cycled with no problems).
I was especially interested in how well vehicular cyclists are treated
in countries with much different cultures, or whether they found they
needed to abandon their usual rights to the road.
Nobody reported any problems. I don't recall any responses that
mentioned Singapore, though.
Specifically: I share lanes that I judge wide enough to safely share,
and I control narrow lanes to discourage unsafe sharing. For me, this
is the heart of "vehicular cycling" and it works extremely well
everywhere I've done it.
In Singapore (or other countries) if a cyclist rode further out in a
too-narrow-to-share lane, would he actually be run down or pushed off
the road? Or would motorists understand and cooperate, as they do for
me?
- Frank Krygowski
john B.
In many countries bicycles are still a form of transportation and most
people will have some experience with them. In Singapore, for example,
while the country was classified as a fully developed country years
ago there are still a lot of districts where bicycles are very common.
In of the "industrial" neighborhoods bikes are common as dirt and the
Sanitation Department has 3 wheel bikes that seem to pick up trash in
designated spots.
As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
on the sides.
But having said that there are streets, mainly in towns that are
narrow and with cars parked on one, or both, side they are positively
tight. My experience is that if you appear to be riding on the side of
the road but are forced out into the open lane as long as you don't
swerve in front of a motor vehicle they will slow down and wait until
you come to a wide place where you can get out of their way.
On country roads where there aren't any shoulders one still rides on
the side of the road and frequently when meeting another vehicle I
have had cars behind me wait until the oncoming vehicle passes and
then pass me.
I suspect that the fact that the bike you see peddling down the road
may well be your father riding down to the coffee shop to have a
natter with his mates has a lot to do with attitude.
Frank Krygowski
A related point, about your statement, "On country roads where there
aren't any shoulders one still rides on the side of the road..." :
Here in the US, most states' laws call for bicyclists to ride "as far
to the right as practicable." Some states include a laundry list of
example exceptions (such as to avoid hazards, when the lane is too
narrow to safely share, etc.) But AFAIK only a few states exempt the
cyclist from riding in lane center when there are no other vehicles
around.
On an empty road (or a road with no traffic heading my direction) I'll
ride wherever the pavement is smoothest. Given pavement wear
patterns, that's often lane center. I suppose there's some slight
chance that a cop having a bad day could stop me for being that
reasonable.
Because of such quirks, there are bicycling advocates who want to do
away with "FRAP" (far right as practicable) laws.
- Frank Krygowski
Tºm Shermªn °_°
> [...]
> As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
> bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
> Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
Motorcycles? Are they referring to the small-displacement scooters and
light motorcycles that are very common in SE Asia?
In the US, most motorcycles can easily out-accelerate and out-brake most
multi-track motor vehicles (even those such as Harley-Davidson that use
technology that was obsolete 50 years ago).
john B.
I'm not sure of the actual wording of the law but essentially the rule
here is the same - except it is "on the left side" :-)
>On an empty road (or a road with no traffic heading my direction) I'll
>ride wherever the pavement is smoothest. Given pavement wear
>patterns, that's often lane center. I suppose there's some slight
>chance that a cop having a bad day could stop me for being that
>reasonable.
>
>Because of such quirks, there are bicycling advocates who want to do
>away with "FRAP" (far right as practicable) laws.
>
>- Frank Krygowski
I think it is a matter of logic rather then law. If you, for example,
are speeding down the road on your 5 Kg. super light weight plastic
bike, at say 35 Km/Hr, and sharing the road with 18 wheel behemoths
weighing 50,000 Kg. and travelling at 100 Km./Hr. it seems to me that
logic would demand that you do your best to stay out of their way
regardless of what one thinks of as correct. After all becoming a wet
spot on the highway seems a poor way to prove that you were in the
right.
john B.
The law applies to all motorcycles and bicycles (and tricycles) that
bicycles and motorcycles (and tricycles) must keep to the left.
I suspect that the law, as many laws are, is written as a blanket
rule, otherwise it would have to read "motorcycles with less then XX
horsepower" and open the door to a considerable amount of argument.
But essentially, it doesn't matter, that is the law and if you care to
flaunt it then hopefully you keep money in your riding gear to pay
your fines.
James
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:23:28 +0100, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >john B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:21:55
> >+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On 17/06/2011 9:58 AM, john B. wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 16/06/2011 9:27 PM, john B. wrote:
Nop. I said pulled out and stopped. I said nothing about turning.
The vehicle may be going to cross to another side road on the opposite
side of the main road, or in this country, make a right turn from a
side road on the left. Either way, I have seen it happen several
times, that a vehicle drives out of a side road in front of bicycle
riders, sees the bicyclists after mostly or at least partially
blocking the left lane and panic stop.
> Quite common to have a truck come out of a side road and stop across
> the sidewalk waiting a break in the traffic, exactly as he described.
It is quite a stupid comparison because obviously a pedestrian can
stop and avoid walking into a truck within 1-2 paces. A bicycle may
take many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and
traction conditions.
> >Obviously, what is too close varies with speed and vehicle type.
> >You can safely pass much closer in front of an elderly pedestrian with
> >a walking frame than you can in front of a semi doing 55mph on a wet
> >road.
> >The major problem seems to be that motorists, in general, are very
> >poor in judging the speed and required stopping distance of a bicycle.
> >Or just don't give a fuck, because they know it can't injure them.
>
> I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
> by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
> and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
> comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
> and not there.
Keeping to the side of the road and having some twit fail to give way
to oncoming traffic are two entirely different scenarios.
Regards,
James.
James
It is obviously not practical to ride through pot holes, big stones,
broken glass, bits of destroyed truck retreaded tyre and dead animals.
Trouble is, many motorists, including a driving instructor I
encountered recently, and some police, believe the wording is
"possible", not "practical".
They really need better education, in this country at least.
--
JS.
James
> I think it is a matter of logic rather then law. If you, for example,
> are speeding down the road on your 5 Kg. super light weight plastic
> bike, at say 35 Km/Hr, and sharing the road with 18 wheel behemoths
> weighing 50,000 Kg. and travelling at 100 Km./Hr. it seems to me that
> logic would demand that you do your best to stay out of their way
> regardless of what one thinks of as correct. After all becoming a wet
> spot on the highway seems a poor way to prove that you were in the
> right.
For a bicycle vs most motor vehicles, 5kg or 25kg makes little
difference. 20km/h or 40km/h makes little difference in a 100km/h
zone.
But, FWIW, most truck drivers I've had pass me on the open road where
the speed limit is 100km/h, are fairly generous with the gap they
leave.
Some bus drivers and motorists are less courteous.
--
JS.
Tºm Shermªn °_°
Thailand) sticking to the edge of the pavement, eh?
[1] With an average size rider, capable of sub 10-second/145 mph quarter
miles, and top speed of 195+ mph (with the speed limiter defeated,
otherwise limited to 186-mph/300 kph).
AMuzi
I have no idea what they cost but sound pretty darned cool.
Cute too:
http://images.devilfinder.com/go.php?q=Suzuki+Hayabusa
Ouch! Recent used machines about $10k. Yeah, it oughta
really go 195 for that sort of money.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tºm Shermªn °_°
technology.
AMuzi
>> T�m Sherm�n �_� > wrote:
-snip-
>>> Hard to see someone on a 175-hp Suzuki Hayabusa [1] (now sold in
>>> Thailand) sticking to the edge of the pavement, eh?
>>> [1] With an average size rider, capable of sub 10-second/145 mph
>>> quarter miles, and top speed of 195+ mph (with the speed limiter
>>> defeated, otherwise limited to 186-mph/300 kph).
> A. Muzi wrote:
>> I have no idea what they cost but sound pretty darned cool. Cute too:
>> http://images.devilfinder.com/go.php?q=Suzuki+Hayabusa
>> Ouch! Recent used machines about $10k. Yeah, it oughta really go 195 for
>> that sort of money.
T�m Sherm�n �_� > wrote:
> Think of what people pay for the "local" product - $20K+ for 1950's
> technology.
As in so many things, it would be hard to get a Harley guy
on a Suzuki or the reverse at any price regardless of
features. Or lack thereof.
Frank Krygowski
>
> I think it is a matter of logic rather then law. If you, for example,
> are speeding down the road on your 5 Kg. super light weight plastic
> bike, at say 35 Km/Hr, and sharing the road with 18 wheel behemoths
> weighing 50,000 Kg. and travelling at 100 Km./Hr. it seems to me that
> logic would demand that you do your best to stay out of their way
> regardless of what one thinks of as correct. After all becoming a wet
> spot on the highway seems a poor way to prove that you were in the
> right.
That's not a matter of logic nor law. That's paranoia.
I believe I distinguished between lanes that are wide enough to safely
share, and lanes that are not. If a lane is too narrow to share, it's
counterproductive to say "get out of the way." There's no way to do
so without encouraging a dangerous pass, or completely ceding your
right to the road.
And the idea that it's better to cede your rights rather than become a
wet spot on the highway? Fear mongering.
How many cyclists are killed in Singapore each year? How many
motorists? How many pedestrians? How many motorcyclists?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
And I'm very much in favor of education!
- Frank Krygowski
john B.
<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>On 6/18/2011 7:49 PM, john B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:20:23 -0500, T?m Sherm?n ?_?
>> <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/18/2011 6:04 AM, john B. wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
>>>> bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
>>>> Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
>>>> on the sides.[...]
>>>
>>> Motorcycles? Are they referring to the small-displacement scooters and
>>> light motorcycles that are very common in SE Asia?
>>>
>>> In the US, most motorcycles can easily out-accelerate and out-brake most
>>> multi-track motor vehicles (even those such as Harley-Davidson that use
>>> technology that was obsolete 50 years ago).
>>
>> The law applies to all motorcycles and bicycles (and tricycles) that
>> bicycles and motorcycles (and tricycles) must keep to the left.
>>
>> I suspect that the law, as many laws are, is written as a blanket
>> rule, otherwise it would have to read "motorcycles with less then XX
>> horsepower" and open the door to a considerable amount of argument.
>> But essentially, it doesn't matter, that is the law and if you care to
>> flaunt it then hopefully you keep money in your riding gear to pay
>> your fines.
>>
>Hard to see someone on a 175-hp Suzuki Hayabusa [1] (now sold in
>Thailand) sticking to the edge of the pavement, eh?
>
I didn't say that they stayed on the edge of the road. I said that the
law said that they should stay on the edge of the road. But if it is a
slow day and the police are bored they will write you a ticket for not
riding a big bike on the edge of the road.
I knew a bloke (750 cc bike) that moved to the inside lane to make a
right turn and got a ticket for it. He was a touch upset and went down
to the police station to protest. They showed him the law and as
related by the culprit the law states that motorcycles and bicycles
must stay on the L.H. edge of the road and thus he was guilty.
Apparently not a lot of sympathy down tha copshop.
john B.
New, in Thailand they list for 27,000 dollars. A bit more then a Honda
Fit.
john B.
wrote:
>john B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 19 Jun 2011 07:49:54
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>Are you sure that isn't a creepage of the ride on the left (rather
>than the right) law?
?? The left side is the edge :-)
john B.
O.K., remove the word "turned".
>> Quite common to have a truck come out of a side road and stop across
>> the sidewalk waiting a break in the traffic, exactly as he described.
>
>It is quite a stupid comparison because obviously a pedestrian can
>stop and avoid walking into a truck within 1-2 paces. A bicycle may
>take many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and
>traction conditions.
>
Sure. If you are riding at an excessive rate of speed.
I had a close friend that crashed under exactly the conditions you
describe. A car pulled out, saw him and panic stopped and my mate hit
the car broad side. Of course my mate said that the last time he
looked he was doing 100 MPH and accelerating down a hill so the
motorcycle was likely doing in excess of 100 MPH in a 35 MPH zone.....
Strangely, although he broke both arms and scrapped a lot of skin off
my mate never said a word about it being the car's fault.
john B.
You are being illogical. You are going to ride on a winding road in
the middle of the lane with the rest of the traffic driving throe
times faster then you?
Traffic fatalities in Singapore were 2/1000 vehicles in 2010. totals
were:
Motorcycles 89
Pedestrians 55
Bicycle 16
Motor car 14
Others 19 (includes bus passengers, heavy goods trucks, etc.)
Total 193
As a comparison I found another chart based on 100,000 inhabitants -
Singapore 4.8, US 12.3.
Tºm Shermªn °_°
importation tariff in Thailand.
Hard time imagining that anyone in Thailand that can afford a $27K
motorcycle is going to skulk on the side of the road.
Tºm Shermªn °_°
Anyone that can afford a $27K motorcycle in Thailand, can probably also
afford to get any cop that issues him a ticket fired from his job.
Just like if you are a small town cop in certain parts of the US, you do
not issue citations to the mayor's family.
Tºm Shermªn °_°
These days when you see a guy on a Harley, the first thought is: middle
class, white bread, white man, having a middle life "crisis". ;)
Frank Krygowski
If I'm going to ride on such a road, and if the lane is too narrow to
safely share, I will not share that lane. I will ride roughly in its
center.
What else would you suggest?
If I ride at the far right, I find I'm in more danger. A certain
percentage of motorists will attempt to squeeze by even if they may
brush my elbow; yet will realize they have to wait (and why they have
to wait) when they see me controlling the lane.
Other than that, the only alternative I see is to bounce along in the
gutter. But here, at least, the law specifically gives me a right to
the road. I'm not required to do that.
I still remember my riding experiences before I learned all this,
which was over 30 years ago. Things are _much_ better for me now.
> Traffic fatalities in Singapore were 2/1000 vehicles in 2010. totals
> were:
>
> Motorcycles 89
> Pedestrians 55
> Bicycle 16
> Motor car 14
> Others 19 (includes bus passengers, heavy goods trucks, etc.)
> Total 193
As I suspected, things seem a lot worse for pedestrians. (Feel free
to post per-km or per-hour data if you've got it.)
Not a lot of bicyclists becoming "wet spots on the road." Quit the
fear mongering.
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
I have no idea about cyclist deaths in Singapore.
Here, they are a rarity; often as not simply bizarre:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/18/shooter-wounds-man-on-bicycle-in-rogers-park/
As opposed to the regular and ordinary carnage of auto drivers.
In fairness, auto deaths do have their own outliers:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/19/teen-boy-identified-from-triple-fatal-crash-in-prospect-heights/
From that page:
" Their deaths were ruled accidents."
Really? Stolen car speeding off the roadway?
A police commander in that link said,�The car jumped off the
curb, struck a tree and split in two,"
'Bad Car' it seems
Sure, just an 'accident'.
James
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 17:57:23 -0700 (PDT), James
> <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 18, 9:58 am, john B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Quite common to have a truck come out of a side road and stop across
>>> the sidewalk waiting a break in the traffic, exactly as he described.
>> It is quite a stupid comparison because obviously a pedestrian can
>> stop and avoid walking into a truck within 1-2 paces. A bicycle may
>> take many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and
>> traction conditions.
>>
> Sure. If you are riding at an excessive rate of speed.
What is excessive speed for a bicycle?
What do you think is a reasonable speed and stopping distance?
--
JS.
Duane Hebert
Tºm Shermªn °_°
> struck a tree and split in two,"
>
> 'Bad Car' it seems
> Sure, just an 'accident'.
>
Tºm Shermªn °_°
Are you familiar with the self-applied term "one-percenters"? And even
that is likely an over-estimate of the real numbers.
john B.
<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>On 6/19/2011 6:19 AM, john B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:31:41 -0500, AMuzi<a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> T?m Sherm?n ?_?> wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2011 7:49 PM, john B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:20:23 -0500, T?m Sherm?n ?_?
Now that we are becoming more developed we have discovered credit
purchasing. I can't find figures for the Hayabusa, I suspect that they
really don't sell many, but for a 110 cc, kick start "Smash" which
costs US$ 1,583 you can get a 48 month financing for about $44/month.
But, yes. Imported bikes (and cars) come at a premium. Import duties,
tax, and so on. Originally a method of inflating the exchequer and
more recently a way to induce foreign manufacturers to set up industry
in the country, which worked, and nearly all of the vehicles you see
on the roads today are locally made..
john B.
wrote:
>john B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:25:07
>To clarify:
>
>The law in the UK says we should all drive on the left, whatever the
>type of vehicle.
>Some (particularly thick) motorists choose to interpret that as
>meaning that anything slower than them should keep in the left-hand
>gutter in order to facilitate their own speeding and dangerous
>overtakes. It would be a possible (although more than slightly
>perverse) interpretation of the wording, but has been clarified by the
>courts as being an incorrect interpretation, and that any vehicle in
>the lane is entitled to the full use of that lane (but that it should
>be the left lane if there is no slower traffic for them to be
>overtaking).
>Moving left within a lane which is wide enough to share is merely a
>courtesy, and certainly not a requirement (although you wouldn't think
>so if you believed the motons - i.e. those motorists who will
>deliberately intimidate other road users who they think are slowing
>them down).
>
>What I am suggesting is that the courts (if it ever gets that far)
>where you are may be interpreting the same law in that perverse way.
I'm not a lawyer but I do not believe the law here is worded that way,
Certainly it is not interpreted that way. There are signs, probably
every 2 - 3 Km. on highways that show a picture of a motorcycle and a
bicycle and state in Thai and English that they must stay on the side
of the road.
I might also comment that other in places where cars have double
parked and totally blocked one lane it is extremely rare to see a
bicycle or motorcycle, ridden by a Thai, driving/riding anywhere but
on the edge of the road.
john B.
wrote:
I would say that it depends on conditions. 35 Km/Hr., for example, is
one thing on an open road and quite a different thing at a school
crossing.
Stopping distance is also a variable. What kind of brakes, what kind
of tires, condition of brakes, etc., all vary a great deal.
john B.
I think your obsession is showing. Or do you really believe that
riding in the middle of the road in traffic that is traveling three
times as fast as you are displays logic ?
john B.
wrote:
>john B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:49:54
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>If it's a winding road, they won't be going 3 times faster,
>and I want to be where they will see me immediately, and with
>absolutely no doubt about whether they can pass in the same lane.
>On the straight bits, they can see me further away, as well as any
>oncoming traffic. That means that in the absence on oncoming traffic
>they can pass easily, and in it's presence I'm going to be unpassable
>anyway, so I'd rather not raise false expectation in them as to their
>ability to overtake safely.
This discussion seems to have digressed from my comments about
Thailand and Singapore to (what appears to be) a discussion of traffic
in other places, but your statement that motor vehicles won't be doing
100 Km/Hr on a winding road is not really accurate, in fact it is
quite possible and in my experience not a rare event.
But the important point is that the law here specifies that bicycles
will drive on the left side of the road, and even more to the point is
that they all do. Thus your riding in the middle is not a normal
practice here, and obviously not expected by the majority of vehicle
operators.
>>
>>Traffic fatalities in Singapore were 2/1000 vehicles in 2010. totals
>>were:
>>
>>Motorcycles 89
>>Pedestrians 55
>>Bicycle 16
>>Motor car 14
>>Others 19 (includes bus passengers, heavy goods trucks, etc.)
>>Total 193
>>
>>As a comparison I found another chart based on 100,000 inhabitants -
>>Singapore 4.8, US 12.3.
>
>I think that shows that decent law enforcement improves traffic safety
>for all.
If you are referring to Singapore then you have the wrong word. It is
draconian law enforcement.
john B.
<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>On 6/19/2011 6:01 AM, john B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:55:26 -0500, T?m Sherm?n ?_?
It is a bit different here. The Thai police are a national police and
you'll need friends in Bangkok and fairly high up in the government.
My wife's brother introduced her to a fairly high member of the Thai
bureaucracy at a party and during the conversation the bureaucrat gave
her his card and told her if she had any problems to show his card.
Subsequently she got stopped for speeding up-country and smugly handed
the card to the cop who looked at it and said "this guy is in Bangkok;
we are in Khon Kan"; so she paid the fine :-)
Tºm Shermªn °_°
Do you really think having vehicles traveling three (3) times as fast as
you are "brush" pass you as you cower on the shoulder displays logic?
Tºm Shermªn °_°
> This discussion seems to have digressed from my comments about
> Thailand and Singapore to (what appears to be) a discussion of traffic
> in other places, but your statement that motor vehicles won't be doing
> 100 Km/Hr on a winding road is not really accurate, in fact it is
> quite possible and in my experience not a rare event.
>
> But the important point is that the law here specifies that bicycles
> will drive on the left side of the road, and even more to the point is
> that they all do. Thus your riding in the middle is not a normal
> practice here, and obviously not expected by the majority of vehicle
> operators.
From this we can conclude that Thailand has an ingrained cyclist
inferiority culture, and is only saved (for the time being) by the lower
rate of motor vehicle ownership.
James
> john B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:38:04
> So most people believe the signs.
> That doesn't mean there's any actual law behind them.
> Even having the police enforce them doesn't prove that, particularly
> if most people just pay the fine instead of insisting on their day in
> court.
I agree.
Where I ride regularly, there are signs indicating cyclist should ride
single file. There is no law requiring them to do so, but motorists
believe that they are breaking the law when they are not.
Regularly we encounter motorists yelling at us or gesticulating wildly
to us to ride single file.
or
The police have demonstrated to me more than once that they do not know
the laws in this regard either.
I questioned Vicroads on the signs. They assured me there is no legal
requirement to ride single file on that road, and that the signs are as
a suggestion only, and that study results where those signs are erected
in other areas show they improve safety.
I asked for the study, but they were not forthcoming.
What hope is there?
--
JS
James
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:00:42 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> john B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 17:57:23 -0700 (PDT), James
>>> <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 18, 9:58 am, john B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Quite common to have a truck come out of a side road and stop across
>>>>> the sidewalk waiting a break in the traffic, exactly as he described.
>>>> It is quite a stupid comparison because obviously a pedestrian can
>>>> stop and avoid walking into a truck within 1-2 paces. A bicycle may
>>>> take many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and
>>>> traction conditions.
>>>>
>>> Sure. If you are riding at an excessive rate of speed.
>> What is excessive speed for a bicycle?
>>
>> What do you think is a reasonable speed and stopping distance?
>
> I would say that it depends on conditions. 35 Km/Hr., for example, is
> one thing on an open road and quite a different thing at a school
> crossing.
Please, concentrate on a vehicle that pulls out of a side road and stops
at right angles to the road you are riding along, say less than 10m
ahead of you. That kind of thing has happened to me numerous times in
the past.
You say in Singapore, if the bicycle couldn't stop in time, and collides
with the stationary vehicle, it is the bicyclists fault.
If that is true, their road laws are very arse about.
> Stopping distance is also a variable. What kind of brakes, what kind
> of tires, condition of brakes, etc., all vary a great deal.
So do you agree or disagree with what I said, that "A bicycle may take
many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and traction
conditions."?
At 36 km/h on dry pavement, I'd guess about 6m + time for you to see the
obstruction, react and get to the brakes. If that was 1 second (you
might need to move your hands), it adds about 10m. Somewhere about 16m
total then, unless you are poised and have your hands on the brakes, ready.
You can get approximate results from
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html
--
JS.
john B.
>> A police commander in that link said,?The car jumped off the curb,
>> struck a tree and split in two,"
>>
>> 'Bad Car' it seems
>> Sure, just an 'accident'.
>>
>Of course the mass media blames the vehicle, and not the driver.
Sure, it makes for more exciting reading. "Dog bites man!" is boring
but "Man bites Dog!" is unusual and hopefully leads to more sales.
john B.
wrote:
>john B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:38:04
>Therre are signs all over the place here saying "Cyclists Dismount".
>E.G.
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September2007.htm
>They are unsupported by any law at all, although they mislead many
>people into believing that cyclists are misbehaving when they aren't.
>
>>
>>I might also comment that other in places where cars have double
>>parked and totally blocked one lane it is extremely rare to see a
>>bicycle or motorcycle, ridden by a Thai, driving/riding anywhere but
>>on the edge of the road.
>
>So most people believe the signs.
>That doesn't mean there's any actual law behind them.
>Even having the police enforce them doesn't prove that, particularly
>if most people just pay the fine instead of insisting on their day in
>court.
>
>Here's a good example of that:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ
Here there is. After I wrote the last message I finally located an
translation of the Thai Land Transportation Act.
Title 10 Bicycles
Section 82.
A cyclist who rides a bicycle shall keep close to the curb on the
left-hand side of the roadway, road shoulder or way provided for
bicycles as much as possible. In case of bus lanes on the outer most
left hand side of the roadway, a cyclist shall ride bicycle close to
such bus lane.
john B.
wrote:
I thought I said that I thought that it would be considered as such.
>> Stopping distance is also a variable. What kind of brakes, what kind
>> of tires, condition of brakes, etc., all vary a great deal.
>
>So do you agree or disagree with what I said, that "A bicycle may take
>many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and traction
>conditions."?
>
Sure. But you worded it as to prompt me to specify a certain distance,
which cannot be done without adding a bunch of parameters.
>At 36 km/h on dry pavement, I'd guess about 6m + time for you to see the
>obstruction, react and get to the brakes. If that was 1 second (you
>might need to move your hands), it adds about 10m. Somewhere about 16m
>total then, unless you are poised and have your hands on the brakes, ready.
>
I wouldn't disagree. But what does this have to do with it? If you
ride beyond the limits of yourself or the bike then I would say that
anything that happened to you is your fault.
You can't make a logical argument out of knowing that it takes your
bike 16 Mt. to stop but you continued to ride at that speed in areas
where you can't see, and react to, what is happening 17 Mt. ahead of
you.
john B.
Based on registered vehicles in Bangkok approximately 47% of the
population has a motor vehicle. Up country it is likely somewhat less.
But yes, the Thais do perceive bicycles as inferior to motorcycles and
larger motor vehicles. But by the same token they don't curse them and
throw bottles at them.
john B.
<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>On 6/19/2011 8:49 PM, john B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 19, 7:49?am, john B.<johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:08:51 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 18, 8:44?pm, john B.<johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is a matter of logic rather then law. If you, for example,
>>>>>> are speeding down the road on your 5 Kg. super light weight plastic
>>>>>> bike, at say 35 Km/Hr, and sharing the road with 18 wheel behemoths
>>>>>> weighing 50,000 Kg. and travelling at 100 Km./Hr. it seems to me that
>>>>>> logic would demand that you do your best to stay out of their way
>>>>>> regardless of what one thinks of as correct. After all becoming a wet
>>>>>> spot on the highway seems a poor way to prove that you were in the
>>>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>>> That's not a matter of logic nor law. ?That's paranoia.
>>>>
>>>>> I believe I distinguished between lanes that are wide enough to safely
>>>>> share, and lanes that are not. ?If a lane is too narrow to share, it's
>>>>> counterproductive to say "get out of the way." ?There's no way to do
>>>>> so without encouraging a dangerous pass, or completely ceding your
>>>>> right to the road.
>>>>
>>>>> And the idea that it's better to cede your rights rather than become a
>>>>> wet spot on the highway? ?Fear mongering.
>>>>
>>>>> How many cyclists are killed in Singapore each year? ?How many
>>>>> motorists? ?How many pedestrians? ?How many motorcyclists?
>>>>
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>
>>>> You are being illogical. You are going to ride on a winding road in
>>>> the middle of the lane with the rest of the traffic driving throe
>>>> times faster then you?
>>>
>>> If I'm going to ride on such a road, and if the lane is too narrow to
>>> safely share, I will not share that lane. I will ride roughly in its
>>> center.
>>>
>>> What else would you suggest?
>>>
>>> If I ride at the far right, I find I'm in more danger. A certain
>>> percentage of motorists will attempt to squeeze by even if they may
>>> brush my elbow; yet will realize they have to wait (and why they have
>>> to wait) when they see me controlling the lane.
>>>
>>> Other than that, the only alternative I see is to bounce along in the
>>> gutter. But here, at least, the law specifically gives me a right to
>>> the road. I'm not required to do that.
>>>
>>> I still remember my riding experiences before I learned all this,
>>> which was over 30 years ago. Things are _much_ better for me now.
>>>
>>>> Traffic fatalities in Singapore were 2/1000 vehicles in 2010. totals
>>>> were:
>>>>
>>>> Motorcycles ? ? 89
>>>> Pedestrians ? ? ? ? ? ? 55
>>>> Bicycle ? ? ? ? 16
>>>> Motor car ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14
>>>> Others ? ? ? ? ?19 (includes bus passengers, heavy goods trucks, etc.)
>>>> Total ? ? ? ? ? 193
>>>
>>> As I suspected, things seem a lot worse for pedestrians. (Feel free
>>> to post per-km or per-hour data if you've got it.)
>>>
>>> Not a lot of bicyclists becoming "wet spots on the road." Quit the
>>> fear mongering.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> I think your obsession is showing. Or do you really believe that
>> riding in the middle of the road in traffic that is traveling three
>> times as fast as you are displays logic ?
>>
>
>Do you really think having vehicles traveling three (3) times as fast as
>you are "brush" pass you as you cower on the shoulder displays logic?
I suggest that it is displays at least as much logic as sitting in the
middle of the road watching a 50 ton behemoth traveling three times my
speed running up behind me.
kolldata
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 6/19/2011 8:49 PM, john B. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.goodyear.com/truck/pdf/radialretserv/Retread_S6_V.pdf
SMS
<snip>
> I suggest that it is displays at least as much logic as sitting in the
> middle of the road watching a 50 ton behemoth traveling three times my
> speed running up behind me.
Clearly those posting statistics about Singapore have never actually
been there. Not surprising that they don't include the relative numbers
of pedestrians, bicycles, or motor vehicles. It's about as logic-free
and fact-free as possible, which of course is not surprising given the
source.
Duane Hebert
I think that we should certainly pattern our laws after Singapore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore
Maybe someone can tell us how sane the cycling laws were in Germany in
the 30s.
If find it amusing that the VC right wingers refute the facilities in
Amsterdam because they're not the same culture or whatever, but would
accept those in Singapore.
SMS
> If find it amusing that the VC right wingers refute the facilities in
> Amsterdam because they're not the same culture or whatever, but would
> accept those in Singapore.
From my visits to Singapore, cycle commuting appears to be pretty rare.
They have an excellent mass transit system, and the weather, business
attire, and distances traveled are not conducive to cycle commuting.
It is not surprising that cycling fatalities are rare in such a place.
As to Amsterdam, the VCRWs have pretty much retreated on that one.
That's covered in Myth 29 on
<https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/>.
Duane Hebert
I've generally taken myself out of this argument as my opinions have
been noted. I am NOT a vehicular cyclist.
But yesterday morning, an impatient asshole in a large truck came within
inches of killing a friend of mine who happened to be in the center of
"his" lane.
I know that this never happens in VC land, at least not unless the
cyclist is drunk or driving at night or whatever but the simple fact is
that if she stayed to the right, the truck would have blown by her. As
it was, she luckily heard him and jumped out of the way. He didn't even
slow down. She ended up with some scrapes on both her and her bike but
it could have been much worse.
The rest of us had made the light and were waiting on the other side of
the intersection and this idiot just blew by us as well. Fortunately,
we were on the shoulder as we were stopped.
So what's the question? Would I rather have an idiot in a truck blow by
me close to my elbow or to be at speed behind me? Seriously?
Frank Krygowski
> On 6/20/2011 8:25 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>
> > If find it amusing that the VC right wingers refute the facilities in
> > Amsterdam because they're not the same culture or whatever, but would
> > accept those in Singapore.
>
> From my visits to Singapore, cycle commuting appears to be pretty rare.
Hmm. That's not what John B. claimed.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I've generally taken myself out of this argument as my opinions have
> been noted.
:-) As I recall, almost every point you've tried to make about this
issue has been rebutted. Seeing that, you moved into (and I quote)
"fuck you" and killfile mode.
> I am NOT a vehicular cyclist.
Meaning what, exactly? You refuse to use your rights to bicycle as a
legal vehicle operator? You dive off the road whenever a car comes?
You ride your bike in the gutter? We really do need specifics,
especially since paint-n-path advocates tend to portray those
competent on existing roads as the devil incarnate.
All we really know is that you have a stated fear of traffic. You've
described fear of being run down from behind both on roads with
terrific visibility and lanes plenty wide for sharing, and also on
narrow twisty wooded lanes.
Again, we really do need details to understand your "I am NOT a
vehicular cyclist." How _do_ you ride?
> But yesterday morning, an impatient asshole in a large truck came within
> inches of killing a friend of mine who happened to be in the center of
> "his" lane.
>
> I know that this never happens in VC land, at least not unless the
> cyclist is drunk or driving at night or whatever but the simple fact is
> that if she stayed to the right, the truck would have blown by her. As
> it was, she luckily heard him and jumped out of the way. He didn't even
> slow down. She ended up with some scrapes on both her and her bike but
> it could have been much worse.
>
> The rest of us had made the light and were waiting on the other side of
> the intersection and this idiot just blew by us as well. Fortunately,
> we were on the shoulder as we were stopped.
>
> So what's the question? Would I rather have an idiot in a truck blow by
> me close to my elbow or to be at speed behind me? Seriously?
One version of "the question," as I've asked it many times, is this:
You're riding in a ten foot lane. An eight foot wide truck is
approaching from behind. What do you do?
We can add details for those trying to squirm away from the truth.
Details like, it's a two-lane road; there is oncoming traffic, so the
truck can't move into the oncoming lane; there is no Deus ex Machina
sidewalk to jump or wheeljie to.
The choice is either to obviously claim the lane, or squeeze off to
the side to give the trucker permission to pass - and hope that he can
gage the width of his vehicle well enough to miss you by an inch or
less.
What do you do? Seriously?
(BTW, we've had several pedestrian fatalities in our metro area this
year. No bike fatalities - as usual.)
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
You mean, because I offer rebuttals when people pretend one can't
safely ride a bike in traffic? Because I ask for data, and because I
routinely provide data showing riding a bike isn't unusually
dangerous?
Things get weird when one bicyclist says "Cycling isn't very
dangerous, here are the numbers that prove it," and other bicyclists
get insulting and/or take offense.
> Or do you really believe that
> riding in the middle of the road in traffic that is traveling three
> times as fast as you are displays logic ?
Let's get specific, John. Two lane road. Oncoming traffic, so only
one lane is available for southbound traffic, and there's nowhere else
to go. Ten foot wide lane. Speed limit's 45 mph. The cyclist is
riding a nice, easy 15 mph. An eight foot wide truck approaches from
behind. What should the cyclist do?
I did this today - or near enough. I made it clear that there wasn't
room to pass. They waited (which meant they were no longer going 45
mph) and passed when it was clear. There was no drama.
What would you have done, exactly?
- Frank Krygowski
(PeteCresswell)
> An eight foot wide truck approaches from
>behind. What should the cyclist do?
>
>I did this today - or near enough. I made it clear that there wasn't
>room to pass. They waited (which meant they were no longer going 45
>mph) and passed when it was clear. There was no drama.
Frank's scenario resonates with me.
But my experience was the opposite. I was bombing down a windy
two-lane road cut into a cliff on something called "Diamond Head"
on Oahu, HI.
Didn't have the sense to take the whole lane. Consequently, at
about 35 mph, this tour bus starts passing me. He got just far
enough past that my left elbow was slightly inside his rear wheel
well - and he stayed there for what seemed like forever.
I *think* that's the most scared for the longest period of time
I've ever been in my life.
--
PeteCresswell
James
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:15:04 +1000, James<james.e...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Please, concentrate on a vehicle that pulls out of a side road and stops
>> at right angles to the road you are riding along, say less than 10m
>> ahead of you. That kind of thing has happened to me numerous times in
>> the past.
>>
>> You say in Singapore, if the bicycle couldn't stop in time, and collides
>> with the stationary vehicle, it is the bicyclists fault.
>>
>> If that is true, their road laws are very arse about.
>>
>
> I thought I said that I thought that it would be considered as such.
I was attempting to query you on a specific scenario that has happened a
few times to me in Australia, to find out whether the laws where you
are, are really as black and white as you say.
Perhaps to the best of your knowledge they are, therefore there is no
point me persisting. Is shall endeavour to remember what you've said
should I visit Singapore any time.
--
JS
AMuzi
Who would know better, The World's Foremost Expert or a guy
who actually rides and lives there?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Duane Hebert
> On 6/19/2011 7:00 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> You mean like this guy:
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/10/25/mom-boucher-attacked.html
>>
>>
>> or maybe http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/11/02/15925301.html
>
> Are you familiar with the self-applied term "one-percenters"? And
> even that is likely an over-estimate of the real numbers.
>
Sure but one parade down the road of the local Hells or Rock Machine
(our local bikers) and you will see more Harleys than you're likely to
see in years.
Tºm Shermªn °_°
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 11:36 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2011 8:25 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>>
>>>> If find it amusing that the VC right wingers refute the facilities in
>>>> Amsterdam because they're not the same culture or whatever, but would
>>>> accept those in Singapore.
>>> From my visits to Singapore, cycle commuting appears to be pretty rare.
>>
>> Hmm. That's not what John B. claimed.
>
>
> Who would know better, The World's Foremost Expert or a guy who actually
> rides and lives there?
>
Tºm Shermªn °_°
>
> http://www.goodyear.com/truck/pdf/radialretserv/Retread_S6_V.pdf
I have followed more than a few trucks down the road, that had gross
misalignment of the tandem wheels (to to point of giving the appearance
of a bent axle).
Tºm Shermªn °_°
I was working in Milwaukee during the 105th Anniversary Event. It was
hard to drive without squishing a few Harley riders.
john B.
wrote:
>john B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:14:53
>Never mind, you can always have a revolution.
>
>Mind you, weren't you trying that there recently?
>Any progress?
We don't have "revolutions", at least not since 1932, we have "coups".
Elections are coming up early next month and if the wrong guys get
elected a coup becomes a possibility. the army is already sawing
things that could be interpreted to mean that the "bad people" should
not be elected.
john B.
wrote:
All right, I'm not a lawyer but I think that you would get the blame.
The car/truck/vehicle driver will say that he didn't see the bicycle
until he had pulled out into the road and that you were approaching at
a high speed he feared that you would hit him so he stopped to avoid
an accident. You didn't stop and rode straight into him.
The cop is going to see a guy laying on the road all bloody and with a
broken arm and will see no skid marks or other evidence that an
attempt to stop was made. The bicycle guy says that the car pulled out
in front of him and panicked when he saw the bicycle and stopped so he
hit him.
The cop is going to be thinking something like "gee, this guy (on the
bicycle) was going so fast that he couldn't stop in time when a big
car came out in front of him".
If things progress to a trial I think that the judge is going to find
that you were traveling too fast for road conditions as you were
unable to stop when you saw the car in the road which would seem to be
prima facie evidence that you were riding too fast for conditions. I
doubt very much that your argument, that the car driver is at fault,
is going to be accepted since as soon as the car saw you he did stop
in an attempt to avoid an accident while there is no skid marks or
other evidence that you made any attempt to avoid the accident, and as
it is illogical to believe that you deliberately crashed the most
likely cause is your excess speed and inattention.
I doubt that you are going to agree with me, but that isn't the point.
You asked for my opinion of what would happen and I gave it to you. If
you don't agree don't argue with me, argue with the cops while you are
laying in the road with the blood running down and the car guy
screaming about the big dent in his door.
Tºm Shermªn °_°
Or avoid going to Thailand altogether out of the principal of cyclists'
rights.
john B.
No body said that bicycle riding was dangerous. I write that logic
would indicate that you not ride in such a manner as to impede a
50,000 pound vehicle traveling at 100 Km/Hr and you say it is "fear
mongering".
Do you think that you will survive being hit by this behemoth that is
traveling at some 60 Km/Hr faster then you are without very serious
injuries? If you do, I suggest that you are deluding yourself.
You might also wish to consider the term "self-preservation", said to
be behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.
>Things get weird when one bicyclist says "Cycling isn't very
>dangerous, here are the numbers that prove it," and other bicyclists
>get insulting and/or take offense.
>
>> Or do you really believe that
>> riding in the middle of the road in traffic that is traveling three
>> times as fast as you are displays logic ?
>
>Let's get specific, John. Two lane road. Oncoming traffic, so only
>one lane is available for southbound traffic, and there's nowhere else
>to go. Ten foot wide lane. Speed limit's 45 mph. The cyclist is
>riding a nice, easy 15 mph. An eight foot wide truck approaches from
>behind. What should the cyclist do?
>
I suppose that my thoughts would be "Oh Ho, a truck coming; big truck,
narrow road; better look out here." And be prepared to jump in the
ditch.
Your avowed action would seem be to move into the middle of the lane
with the hope that the truck would slow, which throws the
responsibility to take action wholly on the truck over which you have
no direct control.
I prefer to retain control of events, to the greatest extent possible.
You, apparently, prefer to place responsibility for your safety on
other shoulders.
If avoiding hurt involves jumping into the ditch then so be it. I'm
still walking and breathing, and I can stand a little loss of face.
Being hit by a truck with faulty brakes or a drunken driver seems to
me to be an extremely poor alternative.
James
Road bike tyres rarely leave skid marks. The front wheel rarely skids
before the rider is launched over the bars anyway, on dry pavement.
"Your Honour, I was riding at a normal speed for a bicycle, around 30
km/h. The driver was travelling slowly, but obviously didn't see me or
underestimated my speed, and did not stop before entering the road just
10 meters ahead of me. I hit the brakes hard and the back wheel came
off the ground, but still I could not stop or swerve in time. The
driver saw me after he emerged from the side road and stopped,
completely blocking the lane. Had the driver taken due care and not
blatantly failed to give way, we would not be here today."
There are always two sides to the story. My bicycle frame and wheels,
should they need replacing, would probably cost as much as the repairs
to the car or truck. In a civil action case here, the judge may find
that we are both partially to blame, and apportion the cost of repair
likewise.
I have had collisions with 2 cars that failed to give way in similar
circumstances to what I described. In both cases the drivers insurance
paid for new bicycle parts to replace those that were damaged.
The police reports said that the driver had failed to give way.
I *was* trying to find out what would happen in Singapore, and
questioned your assertion that the heavy vehicle is always right if it
is stopped. You have said that the driver would not be found to have
failed to give way. That's fine. I don't live there (thankfully), and
I am happy to take your word for it and keep it in mind if I ever visit.
I thought I made that clear in my previous post.
--
JS
john B.
wrote:
If you were referring to my statistics. they were taken from the
Singapore Police Traffic Report. And as for actually having been there
I was there once or twice a month, on business, for nearly twenty
years, lived there for two years and had returned from a week's visit
on June 14, 2011.
john B.
wrote:
If you go outside the Orchard Road area, say to Lavender Street and
Jalan Besar, you will plenty of bicycles on the streets and parked
around every MRT stations where people have used them to get from the
housing block to the station.
I occasionally see a bike on Orchard Rd. It is a straight downhill
from Somerset to Handy Rd. and if you hit the lights a really nice
ride.
Frank Krygowski
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:12:22 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
>
>
> >On Jun 19, 9:49 pm, john B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> I think your obsession is showing.
>
> >You mean, because I offer rebuttals when people pretend one can't
> >safely ride a bike in traffic? Because I ask for data, and because I
> >routinely provide data showing riding a bike isn't unusually
> >dangerous?
>
> No body said that bicycle riding was dangerous.
When one talks about cyclists being turned into wet spots on the
highway, as you did, it usually implies some measure of danger.
> I write that logic
> would indicate that you not ride in such a manner as to impede a
> 50,000 pound vehicle traveling at 100 Km/Hr and you say it is "fear
> mongering".
Yep. If you drive a 2500 pound car and a 50,000 pound truck speeds up
behind you, does logic compel you to abandon the road? Or do you
impede the truck when necessary? In all the countries in which I've
ridden, the lead vehicle has the right of way under normal
circumstances. The rear vehicle has a responsibility to avoid a
collision. Rear ending someone is almost a guarantee of fault.
> Do you think that you will survive being hit by this behemoth that is
> traveling at some 60 Km/Hr faster then you are without very serious
> injuries? If you do, I suggest that you are deluding yourself.
I'm sure I'd be seriously hurt in that situation no matter which of my
vehicles I was operating - my car, my motorcycle or my bicycle.
Still, I put reasonable trust in the laws, in each case. So far it's
worked well. (Granted, I've only been riding bikes for about 40 years
as an adult; we'll see how it all pans out in the end.)
> >Let's get specific, John. Two lane road. Oncoming traffic, so only
> >one lane is available for southbound traffic, and there's nowhere else
> >to go. Ten foot wide lane. Speed limit's 45 mph. The cyclist is
> >riding a nice, easy 15 mph. An eight foot wide truck approaches from
> >behind. What should the cyclist do?
>
> I suppose that my thoughts would be "Oh Ho, a truck coming; big truck,
> narrow road; better look out here." And be prepared to jump in the
> ditch.
>
> Your avowed action would seem be to move into the middle of the lane
> with the hope that the truck would slow, which throws the
> responsibility to take action wholly on the truck over which you have
> no direct control.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. It's possible to both ride at
lane center, and be ready to abandon the lane if necessary.
As it happens, I usually ride with a rear view mirror. In such a
situation, I'd be very likely to use my rear view mirror to monitor
the approaching vehicle. And based on 40 years experience, I would
not have to ride into the ditch.
One trick is to be un-subtle about the lane position. The more clear
it is that you're too far toward center for in-lane passing, the
sooner upcoming drivers can adjust their speed to use gaps in the
adjacent lane for passing. If you ride just a bit out from the edge,
motorists have less time to adjust, and some may completely misjudge
the situation.
I can't prove this would work in Singapore. Maybe there, motorists
routinely kill cyclists who don't cower at the roadside. But again,
this has worked very well for me in the US, in Canada and in several
western European countries.
- Frank Krygowski
john B.
No Frank, that isn't what I claimed. nor did I say that. I did say
that bicycles are common in the areas of the city where the common
folk live or work.
SMS
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:36:17 -0700, SMS<scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/2011 8:25 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>
>>> If find it amusing that the VC right wingers refute the facilities in
>>> Amsterdam because they're not the same culture or whatever, but would
>>> accept those in Singapore.
>>
>> From my visits to Singapore, cycle commuting appears to be pretty rare.
>> They have an excellent mass transit system, and the weather, business
>> attire, and distances traveled are not conducive to cycle commuting.
>>
>> It is not surprising that cycling fatalities are rare in such a place.
>>
>> As to Amsterdam, the VCRWs have pretty much retreated on that one.
>> That's covered in Myth 29 on
>> <https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/>.
>
> If you go outside the Orchard Road area, say to Lavender Street and
> Jalan Besar, you will plenty of bicycles on the streets and parked
> around every MRT stations where people have used them to get from the
> housing block to the station.
That is true, I used to venture out to the areas around the housing
blocks and there were lots of bikes at the metro stations. What I did
_not_ see, was anything similar to China pr the Netherlands, with
massive numbers of bicycles parked at factories and office buildings. Or
anything even similar to Silicon Valley, with modest numbers of bicycles
ridden to industrial parks.
Dan O
> On Jun 20, 12:08 pm, Duane Hebert <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've generally taken myself out of this argument as my opinions have
> > been noted.
>
> :-) As I recall, almost every point you've tried to make about this
> issue has been rebutted. Seeing that, you moved into (and I quote)
> "fuck you" and killfile mode.
>
> > I am NOT a vehicular cyclist.
>
> Meaning what, exactly? You refuse to use your rights to bicycle as a
> legal vehicle operator? You dive off the road whenever a car comes?
> You ride your bike in the gutter?
In my case, it means that I don't limit myself to the prescribed
choices.
> We really do need specifics,
> especially since paint-n-path advocates tend to portray those
> competent on existing roads as the devil incarnate.
>
Cite?
> All we really know is that you have a stated fear of traffic. You've
> described fear of being run down from behind both on roads with
> terrific visibility and lanes plenty wide for sharing, and also on
> narrow twisty wooded lanes.
>
Fearless Frank to the rescue! (My hero :-)
> Again, we really do need details to understand your "I am NOT a
> vehicular cyclist." How _do_ you ride?
>
Any (and every ;-) way I want to.
>
>
> > But yesterday morning, an impatient asshole in a large truck came within
> > inches of killing a friend of mine who happened to be in the center of
> > "his" lane.
>
> > I know that this never happens in VC land, at least not unless the
> > cyclist is drunk or driving at night or whatever but the simple fact is
> > that if she stayed to the right, the truck would have blown by her. As
> > it was, she luckily heard him and jumped out of the way. He didn't even
> > slow down. She ended up with some scrapes on both her and her bike but
> > it could have been much worse.
>
> > The rest of us had made the light and were waiting on the other side of
> > the intersection and this idiot just blew by us as well. Fortunately,
> > we were on the shoulder as we were stopped.
>
> > So what's the question? Would I rather have an idiot in a truck blow by
> > me close to my elbow or to be at speed behind me? Seriously?
>
> One version of "the question," as I've asked it many times, is this:
> You're riding in a ten foot lane. An eight foot wide truck is
> approaching from behind. What do you do?
>
Start assessing my options as I listen for cues to the driver's
perception and intent.
> We can add details for those trying to squirm away from the truth.
> Details like, it's a two-lane road; there is oncoming traffic, so the
> truck can't move into the oncoming lane; there is no Deus ex Machina
> sidewalk to jump or wheeljie to.
>
What, a brick wall to my right? I would never have entered such a
hell hole in the first place.
> The choice is either to obviously claim the lane, or squeeze off to
> the side to give the trucker permission to pass - and hope that he can
> gage the width of his vehicle well enough to miss you by an inch or
> less.
>
Earth to Frank: Motorists do not think they need permission to pass.
No sane motorist would ever even consider stuffing their moving
vehicle past a person with an inch to spare. Riding as far right as
practicable in that situation communicates a willingness to cooperate
when the opportunity presents.
> What do you do? Seriously?
>
Didn't you ask that already?
> (BTW, we've had several pedestrian fatalities in our metro area this
> year.
That sucks.
> No bike fatalities - as usual.)
>
That's good - FWIW. Any bicyclists injured (that you know of)?
James
Queue the scraped knees.
--
JS.