Friends or enemies?
Seattle Balrog
>I'm riding on a two-lane road yesterday, just about to come down a long
>hill, when some ignoramus behind me starts leaning on his horn. I look
>around, decide to ignore him, and continue down the hill. He proceeds
>to zoom around me in quite an unsafe manner. Ironically, he applies his
>brakes so many times down the hill that I get slowed down; I can't tell
>if he's trying to impede me or just a complete idiot.
:
>because I'm blocking other cars too; and I get out my mobile phone and
>call the police.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> In Toronto, I was walking along the crowded sidewalk on Bloor Street
>> just west of Yonge when I felt a gust of air two inches away from my
>> right shoulder. Lucky I didn't suddenly move right. When I looked I
>> saw a bicycle courier speeding past me, who then just about smashed
>> into an very elderly women hobbling towards us with a cane.
>>
>> Does anyone know if the police ever enforce the law about bicycles on
>> the sidewalk?
>
>Why get the police involved?
It's interesting reading this group and getting a look into the
mindset of bike riders:
1. An auto driver who dares to pass a bicyclist is reported to the
police
2. An incident involving a bike rider who endangers pedestrians
is essentially shrugged off.
Today, as I was driving on a major street in the Seattle area,
I was slowed down by cyclists riding two abreast UPHILL. I was
stuck behind them for some time and honked, hoping that they would
have the courtesy to ride single file when their speed could not
COMPARE to a car's while traffic was up a bit. They ignored
us and shouted that we were "losers" at a stop light. Should
we have ignored their behavior or shouted back "Darwin!"?
This past Summer, I was walking along a nearby trail; there
were two kids walking ahead and one ran across the trail.
Cyclists frequently endanger hikers on this trail and, in this
case one hit the kid. Said biker then stood there angrily until
one of the KIDS apologized.
I *WANT* to believe that bicyclists are not self absorbed
juveniles, content to demand their right to slow down traffic
and then acting out the behavior they ascribe to auto drivers
where pedestrians are concerned.
Please feel free to try to convince me that I am wrong here.
Anti-social responses will result in producing a dedicated
anti-bicycling activist.
The Balrog
Jym Dyer
> adjective] [pejorative noun], content to [presumptive clause]
> and then [pejorative presumptive clause].
=v= If you truly *WANT* to believe something, you'd do well
to dispense with making sweeping generalizations based on the
selective perception of a population not known to be at all
representative of bicyclists as a whole.
<_Jym_>
Brian Sanderson
"Seattle Balrog" <seattle...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:20963fe5.02090...@posting.google.com...
> (snipped for brevity)
> I *WANT* to believe that bicyclists are not self absorbed
> juveniles, content to demand their right to slow down traffic
> and then acting out the behavior they ascribe to auto drivers
> where pedestrians are concerned.
>
> Please feel free to try to convince me that I am wrong here.
> Anti-social responses will result in producing a dedicated
> anti-bicycling activist.
>
> The Balrog
Well, SB, there's a REASON bicycles come equipped with brakes...now if some
of us would USE 'em instead of running into pedestrians...
...oh, and I'm right with ya on the 'riding two abreast' thing - unsafe
practice almost anywhere, let alone in traffic...
Kyralessa
news:20963fe5.02090...@posting.google.com...
>
> mindset of bike riders:
>
> 1. An auto driver who dares to pass a bicyclist is reported to the
> police
I was the one who posted that incident. I rode for some four hours that
day and was passed by hundreds of cars. This guy was the only one whom
I reported to the police. If you don't understand why, you should
probably go back and read the post again.
> 2. An incident involving a bike rider who endangers pedestrians
> is essentially shrugged off.
In the post in question, the poster seemed to be wishing the police
would enforce said laws. I can understand why some people ride on the
sidewalk, but anyone who goes faster than about 5 MPH and endangers
pedestrians ought to get a ticket just like the guy who tried to force
me off the road should. (Incidentally, my dad knows a guy who cycles to
work who got a ticket for running a red light the other day. I find
that an encouraging sign.)
> Today, as I was driving on a major street in the Seattle area,
> I was slowed down by cyclists riding two abreast UPHILL. I was
> stuck behind them for some time and honked, hoping that they would
> have the courtesy to ride single file when their speed could not
> COMPARE to a car's while traffic was up a bit. They ignored
> us and shouted that we were "losers" at a stop light. Should
> we have ignored their behavior or shouted back "Darwin!"?
I think few people would disagree that they were jerks. Cars should not
try to force single-file cyclists off the road; and bikes should not
ride two abreast on busy roads and block traffic. But wait: is this a
two-lane street, or does it have more than one lane going each way?
The only time when I ride side-by-side with someone is on a local state
highway where I have to take up a whole lane in order to cross a bridge
safely. In this case it is a busy road, but I'm only taking up one of
three lanes. I used to ride single-file, but the lane's not wide enough
for drivers to pass without going half in the other lane anyway; there's
absolutely no shoulder. So I got almost-sideswiped enough times that I
decided to change my habits in order to increase my safety while not
inconveniencing drivers to an excessive degree.
> This past Summer, I was walking along a nearby trail; there
> were two kids walking ahead and one ran across the trail.
> Cyclists frequently endanger hikers on this trail and, in this
> case one hit the kid. Said biker then stood there angrily until
> one of the KIDS apologized.
I get tired of saying "Passing on your left!" constantly on a much-used
trail, but I learned this weekend why it's necessary; I was about to
pass another cyclist when suddenly he cut across in front of me and we
nearly collided. We both made mistakes; I should have warned that I was
passing, and he should have looked before cutting across that way.
> I *WANT* to believe that bicyclists are not self absorbed
> juveniles, content to demand their right to slow down traffic
> and then acting out the behavior they ascribe to auto drivers
> where pedestrians are concerned.
Personally I'd be content if you merely believed that *most* cyclists
are not "self-absorbed juveniles..." I think some are. But most of
them are probably not posting in this newsgroup.
> Please feel free to try to convince me that I am wrong here.
> Anti-social responses will result in producing a dedicated
> anti-bicycling activist.
Remember: No one but you can choose your behavior. :)
Frank Krygowski
>
> I *WANT* to believe that bicyclists are not self absorbed
> juveniles, content to demand their right to slow down traffic
> and then acting out the behavior they ascribe to auto drivers
> where pedestrians are concerned.
>
> Please feel free to try to convince me that I am wrong here.
The explanation is so obvious, I'm amazed you have to ask.
Some cyclists are rude, just as some motorists are rude, just as some
pedestrians are rude, and just as some anonymous posters are rude.
Applying the faults of a small sample to all members of a group is, at
best, a serious mistake in logic.
If you are worried about public rudeness, cyclists should be a very
minor part of your worry. I see thousands of times more violations of
road rules (and etiquette) by motorists, compared to bicyclists. And
motorists' violations frequently cause problems much worse than a mere
thirty-second delay.
Hell, leaving the church parking lot the other day (in my car) I had an
elderly man rudely try to cut me off with his SUV, apparently yelling as
he did so! If motorists can't be charitable for ten minutes after a
church service, what hope is there?
Of course, he may have been in a hurry to get home and post something
silly on the internet. Anonymously, of course! ;-)
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Marc VanHeyningen
>Today, as I was driving on a major street in the Seattle area,
>I was slowed down by cyclists riding two abreast UPHILL.
This action may or may not have been discourteous; it's hard to say
without knowing more about the situation. For example, how wide was
the lane?
bran.eve...@sk.sympatico.ca
Sep 2002 01:06:41 UTC
|-> Anti-social responses will result in producing a dedicated
|-> anti-bicycling activist.
|->
seems to me you are already that. You chose to gloss over the many
outraged and angry reactions to the cycle messenger on the sidewalk.
Further you fail to note that in many places it is legal to ride two
abreast and is better to block a lane than allow people to pass unsafely.
bike riders are no better or worse than the people that walk or drive with
no iota of respect for the other people that share this world. Bicyclists
tend to be a bit more aware of the world and its inhabitants. Your article
is a fine example of troll dung.
--
Bran, yer basic fat, fibromyalgic, dart playing,
pagan, bicycling amateur photographer.
bran.eve...@sk.sympatico.ca
Dennis P. Harris
seattle...@verizon.net (Seattle Balrog) wrote:
> This past Summer, I was walking along a nearby trail; there
> were two kids walking ahead and one ran across the trail.
> Cyclists frequently endanger hikers on this trail and, in this
> case one hit the kid. Said biker then stood there angrily until
> one of the KIDS apologized.
>
if the child didn't look before darting across the trail, the
cyclist was right. maybe the children will remember to look
first after this.
Scott Munro
Balrog) wrote:
>Two separate messages I've seen posted here:
>
>>I'm riding on a two-lane road yesterday, just about to come down a long
>>hill, when some ignoramus behind me starts leaning on his horn. I look
>>around, decide to ignore him, and continue down the hill. He proceeds
>>to zoom around me in quite an unsafe manner. Ironically, he applies his
>>brakes so many times down the hill that I get slowed down; I can't tell
>>if he's trying to impede me or just a complete idiot.
> :
>>because I'm blocking other cars too; and I get out my mobile phone and
>>call the police.
>///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>> In Toronto, I was walking along the crowded sidewalk on Bloor Street
>>> just west of Yonge when I felt a gust of air two inches away from my
>>> right shoulder. Lucky I didn't suddenly move right. When I looked I
>>> saw a bicycle courier speeding past me, who then just about smashed
>>> into an very elderly women hobbling towards us with a cane.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know if the police ever enforce the law about bicycles on
>>> the sidewalk?
>>
>>Why get the police involved?
>
>It's interesting reading this group and getting a look into the
>mindset of bike riders:
From two posts, you think you have enough information to judge "the
mindset of bike riders"?
Your mind (or whatever cheap substitute you are equipped with) is
already made up. I post this argument, not to convince you of
anything, but in case any lurkers find your harebrained ramblings
convincing.
>1. An auto driver who dares to pass a bicyclist is reported to the
> police
To pass *dangerously*. That was the salient point of the post. Leaving
it out of your summary is blatantly dishonest.
The fact is, idiot drivers (such as you, one is compelled to presume)
pass cyclists in a dangerous manner every single day, and most of
those incidents are not reported. Perhaps they should be. Then maybe
you would learn to behave in a civilized and responsible manner, not
because you're civilized and responsible people, but simply to avoid
contact with the police.
>2. An incident involving a bike rider who endangers pedestrians
> is essentially shrugged off.
And if you actually go back and read the thread containing the second
quoted message, you'll find that most of the posters *disagreed* with
the two or three who tried to shrug the incident off (personally, I
advocated a physical assault on the cyclist). Indeed, the thread was
started by someone *complaining* about the behavior of the courier,
and even the poster you quote did not shrug the incident off, but
argued for action to be taken against the courier and his company.
Dishonesty seems to be your main rhetorical tool.
Finally, all people, whether cyclists or not, are more likely to call
the police regarding an incident in which they themselves were
involved. This may well be a fault, but it is a fault of humanity, not
of cyclists.
>Today, as I was driving on a major street in the Seattle area,
>I was slowed down by cyclists riding two abreast UPHILL. I was
>stuck behind them for some time and honked, hoping that they would
>have the courtesy to ride single file when their speed could not
>COMPARE to a car's while traffic was up a bit. They ignored
>us and shouted that we were "losers" at a stop light. Should
>we have ignored their behavior or shouted back "Darwin!"?
Again, you generalize fron a single incident, regarding which you (in
your pig-ignorance) leave out some important details:
1) Was there enough room to pass *safely* (at a *minimum* distance of
three feet) within the lane if they had been riding single file "as
near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe" (RCW
46.61.770)?
If the answer is "yes," then you'll find few people in this group
willing to defend the cyclists.
If the answer is "no," then you are not only arguing that your petty
convenience takes precedence over the lives and health of cyclists,
you are demanding that cyclists *help* you behave in a
stupid and dangerous manner.
Keep in mind also that experienced and knowledgable cyclists do not
hug the curb. Personally, I never ride with my tires less than a foot
from the curb, and that only if the right edge of the street is in
excellent condition and very clean. If there are potholes, gravel,
glass, weeds, sewer grates, or other hazards next to the curb, I ride
futher to the left to avoid them. If this means that there is not
enough room for motorists to pass safely, then I move even further to
the left to make it clear that they must change lanes to pass.
It is precisely because most motorists are ignorant of safe passing
distance that cyclists must assert their right to safety by "taking
the lane" when necessary, thus preventing motorists from attempting to
squeeze by unsafely. The fact that you failed to mention the width of
the lane indicates that you are one of these ignorant motorists.
Therefore, being unfamiliar with the street in question, I have to
side presumptively with the cyclists.
2) If this was a "major street," does that mean that there is more
than one lane going in the same direction? If so, then stop whining,
change lanes and pass. Loser.
>This past Summer, I was walking along a nearby trail; there
>were two kids walking ahead and one ran across the trail.
>Cyclists frequently endanger hikers on this trail and, in this
>case one hit the kid. Said biker then stood there angrily until
>one of the KIDS apologized.
On a path where both cyclists and pedestrians are allowed, the
pedestrian must take some responsibility for not causing dangerous
situations. If the kid suddenly ran across the trail in front of the
cyclist, then it was at least partially the kid's fault (though as
another poster pointed out, the cyclist should have given an audible
signal before passing).
>I *WANT* to believe that bicyclists are not self absorbed
>juveniles, content to demand their right to slow down traffic
>and then acting out the behavior they ascribe to auto drivers
>where pedestrians are concerned.
No you don't. If you did, you would be honest and reasonable. Instead,
you are deceitful and foolish.
In fact, some cyclists *are* self-absorbed juveniles. So are some
motorists. This is the way of the world. The main difference is, it's
a lot easier for an idiot motorist to kill someone.
>Please feel free to try to convince me that I am wrong here.
>Anti-social responses will result in producing a dedicated
>anti-bicycling activist.
Yeah, right.
--
Scott Munro
"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the
greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness,
without tuition or restraint."
--Edmund Burke, *Reflections on the Revolution in France*
Dick
> cyclist was right. maybe the children will remember to look
> first after this.
No way, you have to be ready for anything when you're riding on a
pedestrian shared trail. When you're the fastest thing in the area then
you simply must ride at an acceptable speed and/or need to be prepared
to stop abrupbtly. I partially agree with the original poster, too many
cyclists are self absorbed and feel like they have supreme ownership of
their route.
We have a lot of rail trails around my area and I am sick of having guys
fly through at 25+ mph during peak usage and then bitch at anyone who
gets in their way. If you're riding twice the average speed of traffic
you absolutly must be prepared to slow down and make consessions for the
general population. Save the speed for the roads or off peak times.
The same goes for the roadies that claim ownership of an entire lane.
If you are way slower than the rest of traffic then what right do you
have to make everyone else move at your pace? The only exception is
when there is a large pack, then slowing traffic makes cars less likely
to try something stupid. Most societies follow some sort of "majority
rules" system, cyclists need to realize that.
Frank Krygowski
Dick wrote:
> The same goes for the roadies that claim ownership of an entire lane.
> If you are way slower than the rest of traffic then what right do you
> have to make everyone else move at your pace?
Well, since you ask: Legally, I have the same right that a large gravel
truck driver has. When he has to gear way down to climb a hill, traffic
behind him must move slower. That doesn't take away his right to safely
use the road.
In my state, a bicyclist is legally a vehicle operator, and has exactly
that same right to the road. This has been affirmed by the courts many,
many times. There is no requirement for a cyclist to cede the lane when
it's not safe to do so.
> Most societies follow some sort of "majority rules" system, cyclists need to realize that.
Sorry, but you're demonstrating a thorough misunderstanding of this
country's legal system.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Luigi de Guzman
> Hell, leaving the church parking lot the other day (in my car) I had an
> elderly man rudely try to cut me off with his SUV, apparently yelling as
> he did so! If motorists can't be charitable for ten minutes after a
> church service, what hope is there?
I'm reminded of the little old lady who tried to nudge my brother--age
12--off the road as we were riding to church. As we walked into the church,
she came up and berated me for "trying to cause an accident" and looking
with horror that I'd taken my kid brother to church on a bike.
let him without sin cast the first stone, right?
-Luigi
Ken (NY]
>It's interesting reading this group and getting a look into the
>mindset of bike riders:
>
>1. An auto driver who dares to pass a bicyclist is reported to the
> police
>
>2. An incident involving a bike rider who endangers pedestrians
> is essentially shrugged off.
Come on over to the running news groups where they bitch about
the bikes AND the cars AND the inline skaters for endangering runner's
lives. Nothing there about runners crossing the street illegally and
causing near accidents. I suppose that if there is an inline skating
newsgroup, they would be complaining about those dastardly runners.
And the most confused would be triathletes who have to bitch about
themselves.
:-)
Cordially,
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
A reminder: Why we are fighting:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/AmericaAttacked.htm
Mitch Haley
>
> I'm reminded of the little old lady who tried to nudge my brother--age
> 12--off the road as we were riding to church. As we walked into the church,
> she came up and berated me for "trying to cause an accident" and looking
> with horror that I'd taken my kid brother to church on a bike.
She makes a good case for ostracism.
Not to mention, she deserves at least a weekend in jail and a
one year license suspension (I know, when donkeys fly) for
assaulting the kid with a car.
Mitch
Dick
> it's not safe to do so.
Agreed, but often it is not a safety issue, just someone taking more
lane than necessary. I put in quite a few miles on the road each week
and I have no problem letting cars pass, as long as I have a foot or two
of breathing room off to the right. When i ride with friends we'll
quickly go single file to let cars pass, we see it as common courtesy.
> >Most societies follow some sort of "majority rules" system, cyclists need to realize that.
>
> Sorry, but you're demonstrating a thorough misunderstanding of this
> country's legal system.
Is that not what a democracy is? Of course money tangles it up but for
the most part it holds true. It isn't always fair to be in the minority
but if everyone plays nice we can get along just fine.
Seattle Balrog
what I expected, generally pretty reasonable, so I regret
the relative belligerence of my post.
>>It's interesting reading this group and getting a look into the
>>mindset of bike riders:
>>
>>1. An auto driver who dares to pass a bicyclist is reported to the
>> police
>
>I was the one who posted that incident. I rode for some four hours that
>day and was passed by hundreds of cars. This guy was the only one whom
>I reported to the police. If you don't understand why, you should
>probably go back and read the post again.
Done. What was dangerous about the way he passed you - too close?
Or was it that he braked excessively in front of you? Would
you feel differently if it was a bike passing in a hazardous manner
and then braked (from your POV) excessively? I'd like to understand
this incident better from a bike rider's perspective.
>>2. An incident involving a bike rider who endangers pedestrians
>> is essentially shrugged off.
>
>In the post in question, the poster seemed to be wishing the police
>would enforce said laws. I can understand why some people ride on the
>sidewalk, but anyone who goes faster than about 5 MPH and endangers
>pedestrians ought to get a ticket just like the guy who tried to force
>me off the road should. (Incidentally, my dad knows a guy who cycles to
>work who got a ticket for running a red light the other day. I find
>that an encouraging sign.)
OK, I saw one reply that I interpreted as shrugging off the
danger to the pedestrian. Sorry.
>>Today, as I was driving on a major street in the Seattle area,
>>I was slowed down by cyclists riding two abreast UPHILL. I was
>>stuck behind them for some time and honked, hoping that they would
>>have the courtesy to ride single file when their speed could not
>>COMPARE to a car's while traffic was up a bit. They ignored
>>us and shouted that we were "losers" at a stop light. Should
>>we have ignored their behavior or shouted back "Darwin!"?
>
>I think few people would disagree that they were jerks. Cars should not
>try to force single-file cyclists off the road; and bikes should not
>ride two abreast on busy roads and block traffic. But wait: is this a
>two-lane street, or does it have more than one lane going each way?
More than one lane each way BUT we got stuck behind them and
were unable to pass for some time. I would also get peeved
if stuck behind an auto going 10-15 mph (at a guess) under the
speed limit who refused to take a turnoff. I would have honked
MORE at a car.
>>This past Summer, I was walking along a nearby trail; there
>>were two kids walking ahead and one ran across the trail.
>>Cyclists frequently endanger hikers on this trail and, in this
>>case one hit the kid. Said biker then stood there angrily until
>>one of the KIDS apologized.
>
>I get tired of saying "Passing on your left!" constantly on a much-used
>trail, but I learned this weekend why it's necessary; I was about to
>pass another cyclist when suddenly he cut across in front of me and we
>nearly collided. We both made mistakes; I should have warned that I was
>passing, and he should have looked before cutting across that way.
I asked the local police dept. about the relevant laws and the
responding officer noted that he jogs on this trail and
frequently sees bikes racing there, rollerbladers barrelling
along, as well as pedestrians not watching where they're going.
Which makes me question the wisdom of having it be a shared use
trail: I'm not in the habit of being in condition white but
it would be nice to not have kids risking serious injury in
what should be a relaxing walk by the river.
>I *WANT* to believe that bicyclists are not self absorbed
>juveniles, content to demand their right to slow down traffic
>and then acting out the behavior they ascribe to auto drivers
>where pedestrians are concerned.
OK, this comment of mine was stupid.
Balrog
Seattle Balrog
>
> Some cyclists are rude, just as some motorists are rude, just as some
> pedestrians are rude, and just as some anonymous posters are rude.
> Applying the faults of a small sample to all members of a group is, at
> best, a serious mistake in logic.
>
> If you are worried about public rudeness, cyclists should be a very
> minor part of your worry. I see thousands of times more violations of
> road rules (and etiquette) by motorists, compared to bicyclists. And
> motorists' violations frequently cause problems much worse than a mere
> thirty-second delay.
I have many more negative encounters with auto drivers than with
bicyclists. I am not in the habit of just ignoring either.
> Hell, leaving the church parking lot the other day (in my car) I had an
> elderly man rudely try to cut me off with his SUV, apparently yelling as
> he did so! If motorists can't be charitable for ten minutes after a
> church service, what hope is there?
Kinda dismal. Most people operating most types of vehicles could use
a course in manners and how to play nice.
Don
Seattle Balrog
> truck driver has. When he has to gear way down to climb a hill, traffic
> behind him must move slower. That doesn't take away his right to safely
> use the road.
In many places, that same vehicle must look for a spot to pull
over when causing a backup of N vehicles.
> In my state, a bicyclist is legally a vehicle operator, and has exactly
> that same right to the road.
As long as we remember that all rights have corresponding
responsibilities...
> There is no requirement for a cyclist to cede the lane when
> it's not safe to do so.
Would you say there's a responsibility to take the first safe opportunity
to cede the lane safely?
SB
Trudi Marrapodi
<luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Hell, leaving the church parking lot the other day (in my car) I had an
> > elderly man rudely try to cut me off with his SUV, apparently yelling as
> > he did so! If motorists can't be charitable for ten minutes after a
> > church service, what hope is there?
>
> I'm reminded of the little old lady who tried to nudge my brother--age
> 12--off the road as we were riding to church. As we walked into the church,
> she came up and berated me for "trying to cause an accident" and looking
> with horror that I'd taken my kid brother to church on a bike.
>
> let him without sin cast the first stone, right?
Sheesh.
As long as we're talking about church incidents, I might as well relate
this one. My church is located in an urban neighborhood, and I frequently
bike to services. The last time I went, I was locking up my bike to the
end of the stair rail as I always do, when one of the other congregation
members came along, said hi to me, and said, "It's a shame you have to do
that, isn't it?" I said "Yeah," but then I thought: Know what I should
have said? "Yeah, but you lock your car everywhere you go, don't you?" I
mean, really: some people seem to think that the neighborhood the church
is in is a place where you have to tie everything down to prevent its
being stolen, and that it's a shame a person can't just leave a bike lying
around unlocked there. But then again, who these days leaves their car
unlocked just about anywhere? So, why should bikes be any different?
It's a shame anyone has to lock up anything, anywhere, to prevent its
theft. But it appears to be a fact of life these days.
--
Trudi
"We have missed a chance to give a timely rebuff."--Tamara Moskvina, making the RSSIF Ironic Statement of the Week
Trudi Marrapodi
<em...@below.text> wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2002 18:06:41 -0700, seattle...@verizon.net (Seattle
> Balrog) had the unmitigated audacity to write:
>
> >It's interesting reading this group and getting a look into the
> >mindset of bike riders:
> >
> >1. An auto driver who dares to pass a bicyclist is reported to the
> > police
> >
> >2. An incident involving a bike rider who endangers pedestrians
> > is essentially shrugged off.
>
> Come on over to the running news groups where they bitch about
> the bikes AND the cars AND the inline skaters for endangering runner's
> lives. Nothing there about runners crossing the street illegally and
> causing near accidents. I suppose that if there is an inline skating
> newsgroup, they would be complaining about those dastardly runners.
> And the most confused would be triathletes who have to bitch about
> themselves.
> :-)
LOL...Hey, I want to complain about the jaywalkers! It amazes me when I
see some people step out onto a busy multi-lane road practically in front
of me, at a spot where there is no crosswalk. I feel like saying "Uh,
excuse me--if I run into you, chances are both of us are going to get
hurt. Don't just assume I can brake more quickly for you, or that I don't
count just because I am not a car! Yes, I will do everything I can to
avoid you, but I really would like you not to just step off the curb in
front of me as if I'm not there..."
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> It's a shame anyone has to lock up anything, anywhere, to prevent its
> theft. But it appears to be a fact of life these days.
True. A few years ago, our pastor had to warn people to lock their
cars, since some stuff had been pilfered from cars during church
services.
At least, we can assume that it wasn't the people _inside_ doing the
pilfering! ;-)
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Frank Krygowski
> [in response to:]
> > >Most societies follow some sort of "majority rules" system, cyclists need to realize that.
> >
> > Sorry, but you're demonstrating a thorough misunderstanding of this
> > country's legal system.
>
> Is that not what a democracy is?
No, sorry. One of the functions of the court system is to prevent the
rule of the majority (exercised through the legislative process)
removing the rights of the minorities.
As one example: Muslims are allowed to practice their faith, and that
was true even on September 12 of last year.
Sometimes it works better than others, of course. But it's intended to
work all the time.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Frank Krygowski
>
> > Well, since you ask: Legally, I have the same right that a large gravel
> > truck driver has. When he has to gear way down to climb a hill, traffic
> > behind him must move slower. That doesn't take away his right to safely
> > use the road.
>
> In many places, that same vehicle must look for a spot to pull
> over when causing a backup of N vehicles.
In some places. Apparently California has such a law, regarding a
backup of five vehicles, IIRC. Ohio, AFAIK, does not.
And if it did, it would rarely come into play. I take the lane whenever
necessary for safety. I don't think I've ever backed up five vehicles.
In fact, I rarely delay anyone for even ten seconds.
> > There is no requirement for a cyclist to cede the lane when
> > it's not safe to do so.
>
> Would you say there's a responsibility to take the first safe opportunity
> to cede the lane safely?
Sorry, but no, not in general. It depends on the situation. If my
taking the lane will delay you an additional twenty seconds, and if my
ceding the lane will delay ME twenty seconds, then I see no reason to
leave the lane. My time is worth as much as yours.
Five cars behind me? I'd probably do it out of politeness. But again,
it's just not a frequent occurrence.
I'm aware that some people tend to get rather self-important when behind
the wheel. They treat every trip as if were an important mission.
Better they should breathe deeply and slowly, and realize that they will
NOT, in fact, save mankind by getting home thirty seconds earlier!
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Seattle Balrog
>>to cede the lane safely?
>
> Sorry, but no, not in general. It depends on the situation. If my
> taking the lane will delay you an additional twenty seconds, and if my
> ceding the lane will delay ME twenty seconds, then I see no reason to
> leave the lane. My time is worth as much as yours.
By ceding the lane I mean not taking up a whole lane when there's at
least 3 feet of space on the right side. That was the case on the
road I mentioned yesterday and the bicycles were going substantially
slower than the 40 mph speed limit, uphill. When I contacted the
PD, they said that the bicyclists actions were technically legal
but a real bad idea.
Safety, I'll buy...
> I'm aware that some people tend to get rather self-important when behind
> the wheel. They treat every trip as if were an important mission.
> Better they should breathe deeply and slowly, and realize that they will
> NOT, in fact, save mankind by getting home thirty seconds earlier!
...this desire to set the pace for others, I won't buy.
DB
Luigi de Guzman
> > 12--off the road as we were riding to church. As we walked into the
church,
> > she came up and berated me for "trying to cause an accident" and looking
> > with horror that I'd taken my kid brother to church on a bike.
>
> She makes a good case for ostracism.
Excommunication! now I hadn't thought of that! If only she'd take it like
Henry VI the Holy Roman Emperor, who stood barefoot in sackcloth and ashes
at Canosa, begging for readmittance into the Church!
> Not to mention, she deserves at least a weekend in jail and a
> one year license suspension (I know, when donkeys fly) for
> assaulting the kid with a car.
The donkeys are very firmly bound to earth, sadly...
-Luigi
Luigi de Guzman
> this one. My church is located in an urban neighborhood, and I frequently
> bike to services. The last time I went, I was locking up my bike to the
> end of the stair rail as I always do, when one of the other congregation
> members came along, said hi to me, and said, "It's a shame you have to do
> that, isn't it?" I said "Yeah,"
I don't think he was talking about your locking the bike up.
I think he was talking about your having to ride to church on your bike.
After all, if your'e riding to church you have got to be so poor as to be
unable to drive there. So I wouldn't come down too hard on him--he was only
working on his compassion, which is a virtue right? <g>
I rode my bike for three years in Cambridge, England, where four out of five
reported crimes were bicycle thefts (central Cambridge has got to be the
most velo-borne place I've ever lived: the bicycle rush hour must be
experienced to be believed). I'm in Northern VA at the moment, and it
shocks me the cavalier attitude that a lot of people have towards their
bikes.
Once, walking by a coffee shop in Alexandria, I noticed that a club ride had
recently ended and the clubmen (and women?) were in having lattes and
talking about hard riding roadie stuff, surely. Anyway, there were a lot of
high-end Treks and Bianchis and so on leaning against the wall, not locked
very securely. In my paranoid world, someone would have parked a van in
front of the coffee shop, loaded the bikes, and driven away to deal with the
locks later (bikes were locked so as to be unrideable, but not to anything
solid).
My brother thinks I'm very strange because every time I see a bike, I
casually remark to him about how easily it could be stolen. Lots of unlocked
bikes in my town that wouldn't have lasted twenty seconds anywhere else.
But then, there are so few cyclists around here....
-Luigi
Kyralessa
news:20963fe5.02090...@posting.google.com...
> what I expected, generally pretty reasonable, so I regret
> the relative belligerence of my post.
"A gentle answer turneth away wrath..." ;)
> >I was the one who posted that incident. I rode for some four hours
that
> >day and was passed by hundreds of cars. This guy was the only one
whom
> >I reported to the police. If you don't understand why, you should
> >probably go back and read the post again.
>
> Done. What was dangerous about the way he passed you - too close?
> Or was it that he braked excessively in front of you? Would
> you feel differently if it was a bike passing in a hazardous manner
> and then braked (from your POV) excessively? I'd like to understand
> this incident better from a bike rider's perspective.
It wasn't the passing; it was the honking. And not even every honk is
bad; I occasionally have someone give a quick little honk that says,
"Take care, I'm about to pass." And that's fine. I even once had a guy
give a long honk from a ways back, but then apologize for it as he was
passing me! I've told my wife to assume that any honk is a "Take care,
I'm passing" honk unless proven otherwise.
In the case of this guy, there is no question that it was a "GET THE
HELL OUT OF MY WAY!" honk. Which is entirely inappropriate. That
combined with his unsafe passing was enough for the police officer to
consider it a road rage incident, and to consider the guy an unsafe
driver. As I said, I don't have a problem with people passing. Quite
often, I'll wave them past myself if I'm certain it's clear.
Understand: I'm not scared of a little honk. What concerns me is the
guy's attitude, which makes things unsafe for anyone else on the road.
If I don't report him, the next cyclist he comes up behind may get run
off the road. But this way, maybe he'll learn to cool his jets and
drive defensively, not aggressively. (I'm hoping they make him take a
driving course.)
By the way, there's an intersection near home where the traffic seems to
get worse every rush hour. I've called the Missouri Highways Dept a few
times about it. They've sent a guy out a couple times to check it. The
guy they send insists it only takes him five minutes to go through that
intersection at any point during rush hour.
Ridiculous! So I started timing it so I could tell them. And whaddaya
know...five minutes. Never even stretched into six. But it _seems_
like forever! So for anyone stuck behind a bike, next time, check the
car clock; then check it again when you finally get to pass. Then ask
yourself what you would have done with that extra minute or two; haven't
you wasted more time than that in your day anyhow?
> OK, I saw one reply that I interpreted as shrugging off the
> danger to the pedestrian. Sorry.
No harm done.
> >I think few people would disagree that they were jerks. Cars should
not
> >try to force single-file cyclists off the road; and bikes should not
> >ride two abreast on busy roads and block traffic. But wait: is this
a
> >two-lane street, or does it have more than one lane going each way?
>
> More than one lane each way BUT we got stuck behind them and
> were unable to pass for some time. I would also get peeved
> if stuck behind an auto going 10-15 mph (at a guess) under the
> speed limit who refused to take a turnoff. I would have honked
> MORE at a car.
On the busy road I spoke of, I'm sure most of the drivers that get stuck
behind me get ticked off, but I consider it a fair trade. The ones who
get ticked generally aren't driving that calmly anyway, so if I have to
choose between avoiding offending them and riding so as to increase my
safety, my safety will win out every time. If one day there's another
way across that river, I'll take it gladly!
It can be annoying to get stuck behind a bike (or two), I'll gladly
admit; but as I mentioned above, look at the car clock and see how long
it really takes; chances are it seems a lot longer than it really is.
> I asked the local police dept. about the relevant laws and the
> responding officer noted that he jogs on this trail and
> frequently sees bikes racing there, rollerbladers barrelling
> along, as well as pedestrians not watching where they're going.
> Which makes me question the wisdom of having it be a shared use
> trail: I'm not in the habit of being in condition white but
> it would be nice to not have kids risking serious injury in
> what should be a relaxing walk by the river.
It definitely takes more attention to ride on a shared-use trail. My
wife and I recently rode on Grant's Trail here in St. Louis, a 6 mile
paved path, and the whole way we were dodging walkers, skaters, and
other cyclists. A veritable slalom on wheels. That plus the
crosswalks, where you have to stop, push the button, and wait, mean that
we probably won't go there too often. I think most cyclists will,
themselves, begin to stay away from such trails when they start going
high speeds because it's too much of a pain to have to dodge people and
get stuck behind people. Though the car people might call it getting a
taste of our own medicine! :)
> >I *WANT* to believe that bicyclists are not self absorbed
> >juveniles, content to demand their right to slow down traffic
> >and then acting out the behavior they ascribe to auto drivers
> >where pedestrians are concerned.
>
> OK, this comment of mine was stupid.
Take comfort in the fact that you're nowhere close to the first to make
a stupid comment on Usenet. Heck, shocking as it may be, I've even done
it myself a time or two! (Or three or four...)
Kyralessa
> > In my state, a bicyclist is legally a vehicle operator, and has
exactly
> > that same right to the road.
>
> As long as we remember that all rights have corresponding
> responsibilities...
>
> > There is no requirement for a cyclist to cede the lane when
> > it's not safe to do so.
>
> Would you say there's a responsibility to take the first safe
opportunity
> to cede the lane safely?
Depends on the situation.
On most roads where there's no shoulder to ride on (or the shoulder is
unsafe, which still means no shoulder to ride on), I'm more attentive to
whether I'm blocking drivers, and sometimes I'll even wave them around
myself when I'm _certain_ that things are clear ahead. I don't want
them riding on my tail any more than they want to be there, actually.
But I won't do this when it means compromising my safety. If there's
not enough room for the driver to see ahead, I won't wave them to pass,
and might even pull in front to prevent them from passing. Why?
Because if they pull around and start passing and then a car is suddenly
coming straight toward them, their instinct will be to cut straight over
and send me off the road. Not a good thing.
One hope I have for this conversation, SB, is that you'll think about
some of these things and share them with others who don't do much
cycling and can't understand why the cyclists won't let them get around
sometimes. It's not that we don't respect your time; but if it's
between costing you another minute or two or potentially sending one of
us to the ER, well, we all have to set our priorities...
Kyralessa
news:trudee-0909...@pg053.clarityconnect.com...
>
> LOL...Hey, I want to complain about the jaywalkers! It amazes me when
I
> see some people step out onto a busy multi-lane road practically in
front
> of me, at a spot where there is no crosswalk. I feel like saying "Uh,
> excuse me--if I run into you, chances are both of us are going to get
> hurt. Don't just assume I can brake more quickly for you, or that I
don't
> count just because I am not a car! Yes, I will do everything I can to
> avoid you, but I really would like you not to just step off the curb
in
> front of me as if I'm not there..."
I always want to ask them: "What exactly makes you think that _I'll_ be
more concerned for your safety than _you_ are?"
Or perhaps: "If it's not worth _your_ time to walk down to the
crosswalk to cross, then why, pray tell, is it worth _my_ time to slow
down for you?"
Trudi Marrapodi
<luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > As long as we're talking about church incidents, I might as well relate
> > this one. My church is located in an urban neighborhood, and I frequently
> > bike to services. The last time I went, I was locking up my bike to the
> > end of the stair rail as I always do, when one of the other congregation
> > members came along, said hi to me, and said, "It's a shame you have to do
> > that, isn't it?" I said "Yeah,"
>
> I don't think he was talking about your locking the bike up.
>
> I think he was talking about your having to ride to church on your bike.
> After all, if your'e riding to church you have got to be so poor as to be
> unable to drive there. So I wouldn't come down too hard on him--he was only
> working on his compassion, which is a virtue right? <g>
Actually, it was a she, but I think I can be pretty sure that as she was
making her comment when I was locking up the bike and not when I was
riding it, her reference was to my "having" to lock it up.
> I rode my bike for three years in Cambridge, England, where four out of five
> reported crimes were bicycle thefts (central Cambridge has got to be the
> most velo-borne place I've ever lived: the bicycle rush hour must be
> experienced to be believed). I'm in Northern VA at the moment, and it
> shocks me the cavalier attitude that a lot of people have towards their
> bikes.
>
> Once, walking by a coffee shop in Alexandria, I noticed that a club ride had
> recently ended and the clubmen (and women?) were in having lattes and
> talking about hard riding roadie stuff, surely. Anyway, there were a lot of
> high-end Treks and Bianchis and so on leaning against the wall, not locked
> very securely. In my paranoid world, someone would have parked a van in
> front of the coffee shop, loaded the bikes, and driven away to deal with the
> locks later (bikes were locked so as to be unrideable, but not to anything
> solid).
Can't blame you for thinking that way.
> My brother thinks I'm very strange because every time I see a bike, I
> casually remark to him about how easily it could be stolen. Lots of unlocked
> bikes in my town that wouldn't have lasted twenty seconds anywhere else.
> But then, there are so few cyclists around here....
>
> -Luigi
You're not strange--just thinking like a cyclist.
Trudi Marrapodi
"Kyralessa" <ryan_lundy@spamless_hotmail.com> wrote:
Yep...agreed!
Seattle Balrog
> HELL OUT OF MY WAY!" honk. Which is entirely inappropriate. That
> combined with his unsafe passing was enough for the police officer to
> consider it a road rage incident, and to consider the guy an unsafe
> driver.
But what was it about his passing that was unsafe? Did he come
close to hitting you?
I'm just not sure that this constitutes a road rage incident...
> On the busy road I spoke of, I'm sure most of the drivers that get stuck
> behind me get ticked off, but I consider it a fair trade. The ones who
> get ticked generally aren't driving that calmly anyway, so if I have to
> choose between avoiding offending them and riding so as to increase my
> safety, my safety will win out every time. If one day there's another
> way across that river, I'll take it gladly!
Or else they were just stuck behind grandma in her 1970 Dodge Dart
for 20 minutes and are frustrated with people disrupting the
traffic flow?
SB
Frank Krygowski
Kyralessa wrote:
>
> One hope I have for this conversation, SB, is that you'll think about
> some of these things and share them with others who don't do much
> cycling and can't understand why the cyclists won't let them get around
> sometimes. It's not that we don't respect your time; but if it's
> between costing you another minute or two or potentially sending one of
> us to the ER, well, we all have to set our priorities...
Right. And furthermore, if a motorist feels I must stop or otherwise
delay my trip to prevent his being delayed... sorry, that doesn't match
my priorities either!
If it's safe to share the lane, I always share it. When I take the
lane, I have a definite reason for doing so. Motorists may not
understand the reason, but that's of no consequence to me.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Claire Petersky
news:trudee-0909...@pg053.clarityconnect.com...
When I rode to Rosh Hashana services earlier this week, I didn't lock up the
bike. I just parked it by the police officer who was guarding the entrance.
The fact that we seem to have to have a uniformed and armed guard to protect
us while we greet the new year seems even sadder than having to lock up the
bike.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky (cpet...@yahoo.com)
Home of the meditative cyclist at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Claire Petersky
news:trudee-0909...@pg053.clarityconnect.com...
> LOL...Hey, I want to complain about the jaywalkers! It amazes me when I
> see some people step out onto a busy multi-lane road practically in front
> of me, at a spot where there is no crosswalk. I feel like saying "Uh,
> excuse me--if I run into you, chances are both of us are going to get
> hurt. Don't just assume I can brake more quickly for you, or that I don't
> count just because I am not a car! Yes, I will do everything I can to
> avoid you, but I really would like you not to just step off the curb in
> front of me as if I'm not there..."
I was whipping down Third Avenue downtown, and one of my co-workers, a
manager in accounting, was jaywalking in front of me. Since he recognized
me, he stopped and stuck out his big ass at me! He thought it was funny, but
I thought it was nearly an accident in the making. Does he realize I'm
moving as fast as all the cars? Or maybe he doesn't care, seeing how me +
bike weighs still probably 100 pounds less than he does? Sheesh!
Seattle Balrog
Fair enough.
> If there's
> not enough room for the driver to see ahead, I won't wave them to pass,
> and might even pull in front to prevent them from passing. Why?
> Because if they pull around and start passing and then a car is suddenly
> coming straight toward them, their instinct will be to cut straight over
> and send me off the road. Not a good thing.
Interesting. I read the first sentence and my first thought was to
note that it's a bad idea to try to illicitly take on the role of
traffic cop. The explanation makes some sense BUT most car drivers
have no idea why you're doing this and it's easily misunderstood.
> One hope I have for this conversation, SB, is that you'll think about
> some of these things and share them with others who don't do much
> cycling and can't understand why the cyclists won't let them get around
> sometimes. It's not that we don't respect your time; but if it's
> between costing you another minute or two or potentially sending one of
> us to the ER, well, we all have to set our priorities...
Ive driven cars, motorcycles and bikes for over 20 years now and have
done so without ever harming anyone. I've had a car cut me off on a
bike and ended up with gravel in my palms; I've used every defensive
motorcycling trick in the book.
What I'm still struggling with is the notion that given the current
status of roads, trails, bicycles are the element that makes things
substantially dicier. On roads, they make driving safely a harder;
on trails, I end up feeling like I'm walking down the line of a live
rifle range and will be safe as long as I stay in my little lane. Not
real relaxing and nervewracking with a kid along.
So I hope this exchange will be educational n both directions.
Don
Claire Petersky
> I asked the local police dept. about the relevant laws and the
> responding officer noted that he jogs on this trail and
> frequently sees bikes racing there, rollerbladers barrelling
> along, as well as pedestrians not watching where they're going.
> Which makes me question the wisdom of having it be a shared use
> trail: I'm not in the habit of being in condition white but
> it would be nice to not have kids risking serious injury in
> what should be a relaxing walk by the river.
Based on your location (Seattle) and the reference to the river, I figure
you are referring to the Sammamish River Trail, or the Bothell portion of
the Burke-Gilman. I would agree that there are many cyclists using these
trails inappropriately. We use these trails mostly when we are out riding
with our kids, and our speeds are 8 - 12 mph. Even then, we coach our kids
on safe passing practices, because these trails are so heavily used by
slower moving traffic, particularly on weekends.
When I'm done with a long ride out to Snohomish and Monroe, and I just want
to get home, I don't take the SRT -- there are streets that parallel the
trail you can take instead, and you can ride at 18 or 20 mph and not feel
like you are endangering yourself and others.
Bill Davidson
> As long as we're talking about church incidents, I might as well relate
> this one. My church is located in an urban neighborhood, and I frequently
> bike to services. The last time I went, I was locking up my bike to the
> end of the stair rail as I always do, when one of the other congregation
> members came along, said hi to me, and said, "It's a shame you have to do
> that, isn't it?" I said "Yeah," but then I thought: Know what I should
> have said? "Yeah, but you lock your car everywhere you go, don't you?" I
> mean, really: some people seem to think that the neighborhood the church
> is in is a place where you have to tie everything down to prevent its
> being stolen, and that it's a shame a person can't just leave a bike lying
> around unlocked there. But then again, who these days leaves their car
> unlocked just about anywhere? So, why should bikes be any different?
About 10 years ago I attended a convention in Eau Claire Wisconsin and I
was surprised to see that people in that town just leaned their bikes up
against the side of the house with no locks. There are places where you
can get away without locks.
A friend of mine who grew up in a small town in Mississippi told me that
up until the 1970's most people in his town not only left their cars unlocked
but they also left their car keys in the car! It just wasn't a problem until
then. I think he mentioned that a couple of years ago people actually even
started locking the doors to their house at night.
I also think it's odd that your fellow congregation member might have thought
it had something to do with an urban neighborhood. Suburban areas are every
bit as bad for bike (and car) theft. I've had two (locked) bikes stolen from
suburban areas. One was in a commercial storage space and was missing a seat,
crank, rear deraileur and brakes and they still stole it. At least it was only
a Schwinn Varsity.
Sadly, places where locks are not needed are becoming more and more rare.
--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.
Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Pinky: Yes, Brain, but if our knees bent the other way,
how would we ride a bicycle?
Rick Donnelly
>
> > If there's
> > not enough room for the driver to see ahead, I won't wave them to pass,
> > and might even pull in front to prevent them from passing. Why?
> > Because if they pull around and start passing and then a car is suddenly
> > coming straight toward them, their instinct will be to cut straight over
> > and send me off the road. Not a good thing.
>
> Interesting. I read the first sentence and my first thought was to
> note that it's a bad idea to try to illicitly take on the role of
> traffic cop. The explanation makes some sense BUT most car drivers
> have no idea why you're doing this and it's easily misunderstood.
>
This is an action that I have done on more than one occasion. Before
starting my move toward the left, I signal my intentions and then work as
hard as possible to maintain or increase my speed. The drivers (usually)
back off and allow me to do this and I've had only a couple of instances
where the driver attempted to cut me off. When this happens, there is
nothing to do but cede ground to them (some drivers feel a left turn signal
means that they should get there before the cyclist or they'll be stuck
behind you forever). Remarkably, both instances I can recall this happening
was in heavy traffic during the evening commute (though it's happened more
than that, there are two notable occasions that stick with me). In both
instances, I later passed the vehicle and left it well behind due to the
traffic load.
The point is, that this type of behavior often does not result in any saved
time. So it goes.
...stuff deleted
>
> What I'm still struggling with is the notion that given the current
> status of roads, trails, bicycles are the element that makes things
> substantially dicier. On roads, they make driving safely a harder;
> on trails, I end up feeling like I'm walking down the line of a live
> rifle range and will be safe as long as I stay in my little lane. Not
> real relaxing and nervewracking with a kid along.
>
> So I hope this exchange will be educational n both directions.
>
> Don
>
Personally, I avoid trails and bike paths whenever possible. There are
instances when I will cycle same, but seldom at speed and never during heavy
use times (sunrise Sunday morning is a good, low use, time, for example).
Rick
Seattle Balrog
> lane, I have a definite reason for doing so. Motorists may not
> understand the reason, but that's of no consequence to me.
However, most of the Balkanization in our society comes from
<Cool Hand Luke>"Your basic failure to communicate"</Cool Hand Luke>.
I always leave room for pedestrians and bicyclists when driving,
when safety is at stake. Having this new knowledge might make me
a safer driver. Promoting that sort of understanding in Ohio might
increase your safety.
(Then again, I've known people from Ohio... :)
DB
AndyMorris
news:trudee-0909...@pg053.clarityconnect.com...
> LOL...Hey, I want to complain about the jaywalkers! It amazes me when I
> see some people step out onto a busy multi-lane road practically in front
> of me, at a spot where there is no crosswalk. I feel like saying "Uh,
> excuse me--if I run into you, chances are both of us are going to get
> hurt. Don't just assume I can brake more quickly for you, or that I don't
> count just because I am not a car! Yes, I will do everything I can to
> avoid you, but I really would like you not to just step off the curb in
> front of me as if I'm not there..."
> --
> Trudi
Around 20 years ago I hit a jaywalker at around 17mph.
I lost big time :-)
He walked away, maybe he called the ambulance, I was out of it, I woke up in
hospital with a cracked skull and concussion. Wreaked frame, forks h-bars
and front wheel. I guess I clipped him with my h-bars, twisted the front
wheel and hit the deck head first.
I later decided that I should treat it as my fault. That way I could learn
from the experience and adjust my riding to allow for the unpredictability
of pedo's.
Anyway I'm more an more of the opinion that on shared use roads, ALL traffic
should move at a speed that allows for the slowest and least alert users to
be safe.
Cars should wait to pass cyclists safely. In the same way, City streets are
shared use, cars, cyclist & pedo's, part of that use is standing and
gossiping, then crossing the road to buy some fags or whatever. All users
should proceed at a speed that allows people to do that safely.
There is more to life that getting somewhere else as fast as possible.
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK
Trudi Marrapodi
Petersky" <cpet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Trudi Marrapodi" <tru...@clarityconnect.competent> wrote in message
> news:trudee-0909...@pg053.clarityconnect.com...
>
> > LOL...Hey, I want to complain about the jaywalkers! It amazes me when I
> > see some people step out onto a busy multi-lane road practically in front
> > of me, at a spot where there is no crosswalk. I feel like saying "Uh,
> > excuse me--if I run into you, chances are both of us are going to get
> > hurt. Don't just assume I can brake more quickly for you, or that I don't
> > count just because I am not a car! Yes, I will do everything I can to
> > avoid you, but I really would like you not to just step off the curb in
> > front of me as if I'm not there..."
>
> I was whipping down Third Avenue downtown, and one of my co-workers, a
> manager in accounting, was jaywalking in front of me. Since he recognized
> me, he stopped and stuck out his big ass at me! He thought it was funny, but
> I thought it was nearly an accident in the making. Does he realize I'm
> moving as fast as all the cars? Or maybe he doesn't care, seeing how me +
> bike weighs still probably 100 pounds less than he does? Sheesh!
Yeah. This actually brings up the subject for me of how one handles
friends in cars who yell "Hi" and distract your attention, or honk their
horns. Mind you, friends are great, but I don't think they always realize
that cycling sometimes requires more attention and care than most people
pay when they are driving (even when they should). When I hear a horn
honk, my first thought is "Oh no, someone's got a problem with me." It
isn't unless I see a familiar car that I know it's a friend. And I may
just not want the distraction, especially if I'm in a complex traffic
situation. Anyone else have this problem?
Trudi Marrapodi
<bil...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
> Trudi Marrapodi wrote:
> > As long as we're talking about church incidents, I might as well relate
> > this one. My church is located in an urban neighborhood, and I frequently
> > bike to services. The last time I went, I was locking up my bike to the
> > end of the stair rail as I always do, when one of the other congregation
> > members came along, said hi to me, and said, "It's a shame you have to do
> > that, isn't it?" I said "Yeah," but then I thought: Know what I should
> > have said? "Yeah, but you lock your car everywhere you go, don't you?" I
> > mean, really: some people seem to think that the neighborhood the church
> > is in is a place where you have to tie everything down to prevent its
> > being stolen, and that it's a shame a person can't just leave a bike lying
> > around unlocked there. But then again, who these days leaves their car
> > unlocked just about anywhere? So, why should bikes be any different?
>
> About 10 years ago I attended a convention in Eau Claire Wisconsin and I
> was surprised to see that people in that town just leaned their bikes up
> against the side of the house with no locks. There are places where you
> can get away without locks.
It's nice there are still places like that.
> A friend of mine who grew up in a small town in Mississippi told me that
> up until the 1970's most people in his town not only left their cars unlocked
> but they also left their car keys in the car! It just wasn't a problem until
> then. I think he mentioned that a couple of years ago people actually even
> started locking the doors to their house at night.
Oh, sure, there must still be some small towns like that. And one of the
ways I measure how old I am is that I am old enough to remember when TV
public-service announcements saying "Lock your car. Take your keys" were
common! I'm sure that it's hard for anyone born after 1970 to believe that
people actually once used to have to be TOLD via TV ads to lock their car
and take the keys with them, but 'tis true! (Of course, these commercials
never depicted the danger of leaving the keys in the car as being
something like getting your car stolen and stripped for parts. It was
always something like "if you don't, some teenagers will take it for a
joyride.")
> I also think it's odd that your fellow congregation member might have thought
> it had something to do with an urban neighborhood. Suburban areas are every
> bit as bad for bike (and car) theft. I've had two (locked) bikes stolen from
> suburban areas. One was in a commercial storage space and was missing a seat,
> crank, rear deraileur and brakes and they still stole it. At least it
was only
> a Schwinn Varsity.
It's not that odd. Many people want to think that crime happens only in
cities. Of course, they're wrong, but somehow, it comforts them to think
this, perhaps because they live in the 'burbs and only come to the city to
work or attend church.
> Sadly, places where locks are not needed are becoming more and more rare.
>
> --Bill Davidson
That's for sure...
Trudi Marrapodi
<seattle...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hey! I resemble that remark! ;-)
--
Trudi
"A man does not recover from such jolts--he becomes a different person and, eventually, the new person finds new things to care about."
--F. Scott Fitzgerald, "Pasting It Together"
Trudi Marrapodi
<AndyM...@DeadSpam.com> wrote:
> "Trudi Marrapodi" <tru...@clarityconnect.competent> wrote in message
> news:trudee-0909...@pg053.clarityconnect.com...
>
> > LOL...Hey, I want to complain about the jaywalkers! It amazes me when I
> > see some people step out onto a busy multi-lane road practically in front
> > of me, at a spot where there is no crosswalk. I feel like saying "Uh,
> > excuse me--if I run into you, chances are both of us are going to get
> > hurt. Don't just assume I can brake more quickly for you, or that I don't
> > count just because I am not a car! Yes, I will do everything I can to
> > avoid you, but I really would like you not to just step off the curb in
> > front of me as if I'm not there..."
> > --
> > Trudi
>
> Around 20 years ago I hit a jaywalker at around 17mph.
>
> I lost big time :-)
>
> He walked away, maybe he called the ambulance, I was out of it, I woke up in
> hospital with a cracked skull and concussion. Wreaked frame, forks h-bars
> and front wheel. I guess I clipped him with my h-bars, twisted the front
> wheel and hit the deck head first.
Yeowch.
> I later decided that I should treat it as my fault. That way I could learn
> from the experience and adjust my riding to allow for the unpredictability
> of pedo's.
It's too bad they're so unpredictable, though.
> Anyway I'm more an more of the opinion that on shared use roads, ALL traffic
> should move at a speed that allows for the slowest and least alert users to
> be safe.
It's too bad that one has to try to look out for the dumbest ones in the
lot, but I guess one does.
> Cars should wait to pass cyclists safely. In the same way, City streets are
> shared use, cars, cyclist & pedo's, part of that use is standing and
> gossiping, then crossing the road to buy some fags or whatever.
I disagree that part of the use is standing and gossiping, especially on a
multilane road. To that, I say "Get on the sidewalk!" ;-)
> All users
> should proceed at a speed that allows people to do that safely.
I would also like to see people on the sidewalks and crosswalks, rather
than them being in the streets talking and me being told to get on the
sidewalk! What's wrong with that picture?
> There is more to life that getting somewhere else as fast as possible.
Agreed, but it's not slowing down for clueless pedestrians that I mind,
it's having to be so alert for them to step out in front of me when I
least expect it.
Rick Donnelly
> Yeah. This actually brings up the subject for me of how one handles
> friends in cars who yell "Hi" and distract your attention, or honk their
> horns. Mind you, friends are great, but I don't think they always realize
> that cycling sometimes requires more attention and care than most people
> pay when they are driving (even when they should). When I hear a horn
> honk, my first thought is "Oh no, someone's got a problem with me." It
> isn't unless I see a familiar car that I know it's a friend. And I may
> just not want the distraction, especially if I'm in a complex traffic
> situation. Anyone else have this problem?
> --
> Trudi
Trudi,
Poise is the only recourse. I tend to ignore people who honk, yell, or wave
as much as possible. Distractions can be dangerous when cycling, especially
if the road surface is uneven or irregular. If you feel a response is
necessary, a quick glance and nod of the head is generally sufficient. If it
is someone you know, this will suffice.
At times, gestures work well (a wave, even without turning to look), but at
others, they can be misunderstood (i.e. don't point a finger, any finger, as
this will be misconstrued). This gives the driver the feeling that you've
paid attention to them without actually diverting your attention to them
unduly.
Honking, I universally ignore. I do not give a honking driver positive
reinforcement by responding. Eventually, they cease this useless behavior as
it doesn't obtain a response.
Rick
Kyralessa
> Oh, sure, there must still be some small towns like that. And one of
the
> ways I measure how old I am is that I am old enough to remember when
TV
> public-service announcements saying "Lock your car. Take your keys"
were
> common! I'm sure that it's hard for anyone born after 1970 to believe
that
> people actually once used to have to be TOLD via TV ads to lock their
car
> and take the keys with them, but 'tis true! (Of course, these
commercials
> never depicted the danger of leaving the keys in the car as being
> something like getting your car stolen and stripped for parts. It was
> always something like "if you don't, some teenagers will take it for a
> joyride.")
No way! There were really commercials like that? I don't believe it!
('75)
Seattle Balrog
>>something like getting your car stolen and stripped for parts. It was
>>always something like "if you don't, some teenagers will take it for a
>>joyride.")
>
> No way! There were really commercials like that? I don't believe it!
I understand they caused quite an uproar, the upshot being that
their "don't help a good boy go bad" was (rightly, IMO) perceived
as implying that we're all just an impulse away from commiting
a crime.
Some people are but if most of us didn't have good impulse control
I think we'd make the Balkans look like a cub scout campout.
SB
Kyralessa
> >>never depicted the danger of leaving the keys in the car as being
> >>something like getting your car stolen and stripped for parts. It
was
> >>always something like "if you don't, some teenagers will take it for
a
> >>joyride.")
> >
> > No way! There were really commercials like that? I don't believe
it!
>
> I understand they caused quite an uproar, the upshot being that
> their "don't help a good boy go bad" was (rightly, IMO) perceived
> as implying that we're all just an impulse away from commiting
> a crime.
Of course, with that, we're getting into theology, and then we'd have to
take the discussion to another newsgroup...
> Some people are but if most of us didn't have good impulse control
> I think we'd make the Balkans look like a cub scout campout.
And with that comment, you win the Unintentional Irony of the Day
award...
(Think about it a bit...)
Trudi Marrapodi
"Kyralessa" <ryan_lundy@spamless_hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Seattle Balrog" <seattle...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3D7FFA4D...@verizon.net...
> > >>never depicted the danger of leaving the keys in the car as being
> > >>something like getting your car stolen and stripped for parts. It
> was
> > >>always something like "if you don't, some teenagers will take it for
> a
> > >>joyride.")
> > >
> > > No way! There were really commercials like that? I don't believe
> it!
Absolutely! Just as there were ads to get people to use their seat belts.
Of course, nowadays they are not only standard in all vehicles, but laws
require their use--but that was not once the case. Seat belts only began
to appear as standard car equipment in the '60s, and only became required
in the early '70s, I think (and the shoulder harness became standard even
later than the seat belt). There used to be commercials in which people
were shown giving excuses for not wanting to wear their belts (such as
"They're too confining") contrasted with images of people in traction in
the hospital who looked like mummies, the implication being that not
wearing the belt can get you into a situation that's a whole lot more
confining than the belt ever could be.
(Tangent: I have an issue of Sports Illustrated from 1961 in which a
reader comments in a letter to the editor about an earlier article related
to motoring safety, in which a professional driver recommended buying and
using a seat belt in your car, and said something like "Does he *really*
think everyone is going to go out and buy a seat belt for their car?" As
if it were really a whole lot to ask of people to expect them to wear
belts.)
> > I understand they caused quite an uproar, the upshot being that
> > their "don't help a good boy go bad" was (rightly, IMO) perceived
> > as implying that we're all just an impulse away from commiting
> > a crime.
Yeah, I remember that, too. And the consequence of leaving the keys in
your unlocked car was depicted as, well, it's just going to prove too
tempting to some teenager and his pals to get in your car and go for a
little ride...Nothing about how they're going to steal your car for good,
or strip it, or steal the sound system (few people HAD sound systems in
their cars in those days). It was just "Don't let a bunch of kids who
otherwise might be in Boy Scouts building birdhouses come along and decide
that just because you left your keys in the car, they've got the chance to
go for a little ride..."
And, of course, this being the age of sexist ads, girls were never
depicted as being tempted to steal cars. It was always boys.
> Of course, with that, we're getting into theology, and then we'd have to
> take the discussion to another newsgroup...
>
> > Some people are but if most of us didn't have good impulse control
> > I think we'd make the Balkans look like a cub scout campout.
>
> And with that comment, you win the Unintentional Irony of the Day
> award...
>
> (Think about it a bit...)
Oh boy, not going there. We've already got enough political arguments in
this group. ;-)
AndyMorris
>
> It's too bad that one has to try to look out for the dumbest ones in the
> lot, but I guess one does.
>
We're all dumb sometimes, I certainly am, some people are dumb because their
tired, or distracted, some may have a handicap. They still have the right to
use the streets.
> I disagree that part of the use is standing and gossiping, especially on a
> multilane road. To that, I say "Get on the sidewalk!" ;-)
>
Well I'd wonder why we need high speed multilane roads in our cities. :-)
Here I go back on the rant again.. OK ...
Someone is on the factory floor, she is in a hurry, there are many dangerous
machines moving around at high speed in several directions, a single
collision with one machine may kill her. She looks around as she starts to
cross the floor, but unfortunately has misjudged the speed of one machine.
She dies. Her husband sues the her employer for running an unsafe factory.
The factory has to change the way it does things.
If the factory is a city, the floor a street and the machines motor
vehicles, we accept it, its her fault for jay walking, the driver is
blameless because he was following the highway code, she should of looked,
the traffic has to flow quickly or we may be inconvenienced.
Its mad init?
Rant end, maybee
> I would also like to see people on the sidewalks and crosswalks, rather
> than them being in the streets talking and me being told to get on the
> sidewalk! What's wrong with that picture?
Agreed bikes as transport don't belong on the sidewalk, the bike wants to go
fast > 12mph , the pedo shouldn't have to look out for high speed objects.
City streets are about more than traffic passing by though. Cities need
people walking and gossiping on streets to live.
--
Andy Morris
Trudi Marrapodi
<AndyM...@DeadSpam.com> wrote:
> I've come back out of radical slow city militant mode now :-)
>
>
> >
> > It's too bad that one has to try to look out for the dumbest ones in the
> > lot, but I guess one does.
> >
>
> We're all dumb sometimes, I certainly am, some people are dumb because their
> tired, or distracted, some may have a handicap. They still have the right to
> use the streets.
>
>
> > I disagree that part of the use is standing and gossiping, especially on a
> > multilane road. To that, I say "Get on the sidewalk!" ;-)
> >
> Well I'd wonder why we need high speed multilane roads in our cities. :-)
>
> Here I go back on the rant again.. OK ...
>
> Someone is on the factory floor, she is in a hurry, there are many dangerous
> machines moving around at high speed in several directions, a single
> collision with one machine may kill her. She looks around as she starts to
> cross the floor, but unfortunately has misjudged the speed of one machine.
> She dies. Her husband sues the her employer for running an unsafe factory.
> The factory has to change the way it does things.
>
> If the factory is a city, the floor a street and the machines motor
> vehicles, we accept it, its her fault for jay walking, the driver is
> blameless because he was following the highway code, she should of looked,
> the traffic has to flow quickly or we may be inconvenienced.
>
> Its mad init?
>
> Rant end, maybee
That's not how I see it.
I do think, however, that pedos do themselves a favor and make life a
whole lot easier when they use the crosswalks instead of just crossing
wherever and whenever they see fit. It makes them a whole lot more
predictable to the drivers and cyclists, so that they can take care.
Scott Munro
<AndyM...@DeadSpam.com> wrote:
>Someone is on the factory floor, she is in a hurry, there are many dangerous
>machines moving around at high speed in several directions, a single
>collision with one machine may kill her. She looks around as she starts to
>cross the floor, but unfortunately has misjudged the speed of one machine.
>She dies. Her husband sues the her employer for running an unsafe factory.
>The factory has to change the way it does things.
>
>If the factory is a city, the floor a street and the machines motor
>vehicles, we accept it, its her fault for jay walking, the driver is
>blameless because he was following the highway code, she should of looked,
>the traffic has to flow quickly or we may be inconvenienced.
>
>Its mad init?
Not really. A factory floor and a city street are different places;
there is no contradiction in the existence of different rules of
conduct in each place.
Two men are on the football field during a play. One of them is
holding the football. The second deliberately drives his shoulder as
hard as possible into the first's midsection, knocking him to the
ground. He's a hero. The crowd cheers and his teammates gather around
to offer congratulations.
If the football field is a basketball court, and the football a
basketball, then the second guy gets thrown out of the game, suspended
for several games, fined, and possibly prosecuted.
--
Scott Munro
"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the
greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness,
without tuition or restraint."
--Edmund Burke, *Reflections on the Revolution in France*
Rick Donnelly
>
> That's not how I see it.
>
> I do think, however, that pedos do themselves a favor and make life a
> whole lot easier when they use the crosswalks instead of just crossing
> wherever and whenever they see fit. It makes them a whole lot more
> predictable to the drivers and cyclists, so that they can take care.
> --
> Trudi
Trudi,
All of my dangerous incidents with cars as a pedestrian have occurred in
crosswalks. Jaywalking has the advantage that you only have to deal with
traffic approaching from 2 directions. At crosswalks, people making turns
are the primary source of danger. I have been driven at, had vehicles crash
through the sidewalk where I was standing, had objects hurled at me, been
forced to dive to avoid being hit by a motorist, drivers run lights and
drive around me like a pylon. Since I am mobile, and very aware, none of
these events have resulted in more than a few bruises and scrapes (I walk a
lot in a city that does not like pedestrians).
Eventually, I gave up on using crosswalks. I avoid them like the plague.
Since doing so, I've never had a close call with a motor vehicle. Jaywalking
may be a problem in some locations. In San Jose, it is how you protect your
life.
Rick
PS: As I said before, society and social systems work when few individuals
violate the basic tenets of that society. Once violating the laws (no matter
how stupid we feel they are) becomes the norm, most systems begin to fail.
This is the degree of anarchy I see in the region where I live.
Jkpoulos7
>> police
>
>I was the one who posted that incident. I rode for some four hours that
>day and was passed by hundreds of cars.
What a cry baby!! Near misses are part of cycling on open roads. Ride on trails
if you don't like cars or are afraid to get hurt.
brian
that more and more these days bikes are restricted
from riding on trails. I think solidarity would
go a long way in promoting cycling as legitimate
transportation and recreation.
in article 20020913190227...@mb-fb.news.cs.com, Jkpoulos7 at
jkpo...@cs.com wrote on 9.13.02 5:02 PM:
erl
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:3D7D59D7...@cc.ysu.edu...
>
> Sorry, but no, not in general. It depends on the situation. If my
> taking the lane will delay you an additional twenty seconds, and if my
> ceding the lane will delay ME twenty seconds, then I see no reason to
> leave the lane. My time is worth as much as yours.
>
> Five cars behind me? I'd probably do it out of politeness. But again,
> it's just not a frequent occurrence.
>
Good for you. I'd add that if I'm busting my ass up a hill, and ceding
the lane will require me to wait behind a friggin parade that includes
several eighteen-wheelers, I may just keep that lane for another ten
seconds or more until, say, I cross that bridge (or whatever). Then
I'll get back on the shoulder. My precious momentum sometimes
is more valuable than a few seconds for those with infernal combustion
engines. More valuable in the grand scheme of things, I mean, not
just to me. No, I'm not entirely sure what that means either.
Kyralessa
news:20020913190227...@mb-fb.news.cs.com...
Thank you for illustrating the perils of quoting out of context.
erl
"AndyMorris" <AndyM...@DeadSpam.com> wrote in message
news:alr1r0$rm9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snnnip>
> City streets are about more than traffic passing by though. Cities need
> people walking and gossiping on streets to live.
>
Trudi Marrapodi
Donnelly" <rjd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...stuff deleted
> >
> > That's not how I see it.
> >
> > I do think, however, that pedos do themselves a favor and make life a
> > whole lot easier when they use the crosswalks instead of just crossing
> > wherever and whenever they see fit. It makes them a whole lot more
> > predictable to the drivers and cyclists, so that they can take care.
> > --
> > Trudi
>
>
> Trudi,
>
> All of my dangerous incidents with cars as a pedestrian have occurred in
> crosswalks. Jaywalking has the advantage that you only have to deal with
> traffic approaching from 2 directions. At crosswalks, people making turns
> are the primary source of danger. I have been driven at, had vehicles crash
> through the sidewalk where I was standing, had objects hurled at me, been
> forced to dive to avoid being hit by a motorist, drivers run lights and
> drive around me like a pylon. Since I am mobile, and very aware, none of
> these events have resulted in more than a few bruises and scrapes (I walk a
> lot in a city that does not like pedestrians).
This is a depressing situation. I believe it. Unfortunately it seems to be
a driver's world in most places, and crosswalks can be very scary for
pedestrians.
> Eventually, I gave up on using crosswalks. I avoid them like the plague.
> Since doing so, I've never had a close call with a motor vehicle. Jaywalking
> may be a problem in some locations. In San Jose, it is how you protect your
> life.
I'm not sure that more unpredictability is the solution to the
unpredictability of others. Especially on a busy multilane road in which
vehicles are constantly turning on and off as they go in and out of
driveways of businesses. I don't think jaywalking is any safer there than
using the crosswalk is.
AndyMorris
news:lml3ousn2crn96s3m...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:01:17 +0100, "AndyMorris"
> <AndyM...@DeadSpam.com> wrote:
>
> >Someone is on the factory floor, she is in a hurry, there are many
dangerous
> >machines moving around at high speed in several directions, a single
> >collision with one machine may kill her. She looks around as she starts
to
> >cross the floor, but unfortunately has misjudged the speed of one
machine.
> >She dies. Her husband sues the her employer for running an unsafe
factory.
> >The factory has to change the way it does things.
> >
> >If the factory is a city, the floor a street and the machines motor
> >vehicles, we accept it, its her fault for jay walking, the driver is
> >blameless because he was following the highway code, she should of
looked,
> >the traffic has to flow quickly or we may be inconvenienced.
> >
> >Its mad init?
>
> Not really. A factory floor and a city street are different places;
> there is no contradiction in the existence of different rules of
> conduct in each place.
>
Sorry I'm feeling a bit dim tonight, so please explain again. Why do accept
lower standards of safety on city streets than we would in a factory? Why do
we expect all pedestrians to be aware of the location and speed of many
vehicles before they try to cross the road, when we wouldn't accept a
factory that needed that level of awareness by its staff to be safe?
> Two men are on the football field during a play. One of them is
> holding the football. The second deliberately drives his shoulder as ...
People playing sport accept the risk on injury or death, they have a set of
rules that trade off risk against the excitement of sport, on our roads
whose risk is being traded for whose excitement?. Should my children have to
accept that if they use the public right of way to walk to their friends
house?
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK
erl
"Rick Donnelly" <rjd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BRMf9.56$Le2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> ...stuff deleted
<and still more excellent stuff deleted>
I'll chime in on this one -- occasionally a driver will approach
from behind and give a quick honk, thinking they are doing you
a big favor, letting you know they'll be passing soon. I find
this to be tremendously annoying. As if the road noise from
their massive SUV tires aren't going to give me a clue. But I
never ever let them know I am annoyed; instead, I like to give a
little courtesy wave as they go by.
On the positive side, once I was approached from behind by
some guy (apparently a cyclist himself, I'm guessing) with great
big lungs. He must have been almost a quarter mile behind when
he started whooping and hollaring like he'd just won the lottery.
Boy, could this guy yell. He let up as he was passing me, then,
after he'd gone by, he started whooping again, shaking his fist
in enthusiasm and giving me the thumbs-up. If this guy is half
as enthusiastic upon sighting a cyclist, imagine how he climbs.
Needless to say, I didn't find this behavior the least bit annoying;
in fact, much the opposite.
Finally, (not that this is exactly relevant), if I'm appraoching a
side street and I'm signalling that I'm going straight (i.e., please
don't pull out in front of me, mister), occasionally I'll get a wave
from the driver that says, "I see your signal, I know what you
mean, and no, I won't pull out in front of you". I like to give
these types a sharp salute as I go by, to let them know I appreciate
the fact that they've acknowledged that they see me.
Trudi, I feel your pain, even if I've never experienced it. My advice
to you is to gently break the news to your friends. They'll feel bad
and apologize up and down, which will probably make you feel
bad too. But you'll all get over it, and a little education is always
a good thing, no?
James Hodson
letting me proceed normally. The only times I don't is when my hands
are busy on the shifters of signalling to move elsewhere.
My theory is that that driver will treat other bike riders with
courtesy in the future.
Conversely, I try not to swear at "bad" drivers - they may just be
having an off day - but I do give them the patented Hodson Evil Stare.
Erl, that whooping, hollering and fist-shaking guy is either an
*extremely* keen cyclist or was little mad :-)
James
Scott Munro
> "Scott Munro" <counterrev...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:lml3ousn2crn96s3m...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:01:17 +0100, "AndyMorris"
> > <AndyM...@DeadSpam.com> wrote:
> > >If the factory is a city, the floor a street and the machines motor
> > >vehicles, we accept it, its her fault for jay walking, the driver is
> > >blameless because he was following the highway code, she should of
> looked,
> > >the traffic has to flow quickly or we may be inconvenienced.
> > >
> > >Its mad init?
> >
> > Not really. A factory floor and a city street are different places;
> > there is no contradiction in the existence of different rules of
> > conduct in each place.
> >
>
> Sorry I'm feeling a bit dim tonight, so please explain again.
Okay. The point I am making is a logical one. The factory floor and
the street are different places. There is no contradiction, let alone
"madness," in having different codes governing behavior in each place.
>Why do accept
> lower standards of safety on city streets than we would in a factory?
Assuming for the sake of argument that we do, why not? Perhaps the
costs of increasing pedestrian rights are considered to be too high,
while the costs of increasing factory safety are not. The balance of
competing goods (e.g., safety and productivity) will not be the same
at all times and in all places.
I'm not suggesting that current rules (again, assuming for the sake of
argument that you have described them correctly) are necessarily
correct; that's a different argument. I'm just saying that there is no
contradiction in having one set of rules on a factory floor and a
different set on city streets.
Kyralessa
news:am3bor$ovc$2...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> I'll chime in on this one -- occasionally a driver will approach
> from behind and give a quick honk, thinking they are doing you
It used to be the law that you have to sound your horn when you're going
to pass someone; quite noisy towns we'd all live in if everyone actually
did that. I can't find this rule in the current MO driver's manual,
though, so perhaps they did away with it since no one ever follows
it...?
> Finally, (not that this is exactly relevant), if I'm appraoching a
> side street and I'm signalling that I'm going straight (i.e., please
> don't pull out in front of me, mister), occasionally I'll get a wave
> from the driver that says, "I see your signal, I know what you
> mean, and no, I won't pull out in front of you". I like to give
> these types a sharp salute as I go by, to let them know I appreciate
> the fact that they've acknowledged that they see me.
A little courtesy goes a long way, especially these days where drivers
seem to be worse than ever. While I'm cycling I always try to
acknowledge those who are noticeably polite, even if they're just doing
what's legal, because I'd rather someone be polite out of good feeling
than mere legal obligation.
Risto S Varanka
: PS: As I said before, society and social systems work when few individuals
: violate the basic tenets of that society. Once violating the laws (no matter
: how stupid we feel they are) becomes the norm, most systems begin to fail.
I would see the "basic tenets of society" as a rather multilayered
and multifaceted thing. And I don't think most people drive and
live by the laws, but instead by the established practice of the
society. (Or well, they at least seem to conform to the general
standard of the society, more or less. But why they live as they
do, is because of several causes.)
Driving just by the law (written or enforced) might be somewhat
dangerous, so most people take some extra care, for the safety of
themselves and others. On the other hand, the social system of
traffic regulation allows quite a bit of flex, so traffic might be
reasonably safe and effective, even though a number of laws were
casually broken.
: This is the degree of anarchy I see in the region where I live.
This would mean there is no strong good conduct or traffic culture
into which drivers would be expected to conform, even outside what
the laws say.
Hmm, are we burrowing too deeply into social and behavioural
science already? :-)
We seem to generate lots of threads that aren't related to just
riding bicycles...
--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/
risto varanka at no spam please helsinki fi
Risto S Varanka
: Sorry I'm feeling a bit dim tonight, so please explain again. Why do accept
: lower standards of safety on city streets than we would in a factory? Why do
: we expect all pedestrians to be aware of the location and speed of many
: vehicles before they try to cross the road, when we wouldn't accept a
: factory that needed that level of awareness by its staff to be safe?
Factory machines are fairly simple to make behave in a
predictable, safe way. The workers only need to follow a number
of procedures and precautions. Traffic in urban areas, however,
can be fairly unpredictable, because the environment is complex,
the actors are human, and they are moving with different means
into different directions, with different goals and expectations.
If you could sue the mayor when somebody dies in traffic, it might
be difficult to get good mayors and also traffic planning would be
more ruthless. There would be more restrictions, travel times
would be longer, road building more expensive, and law enforcement
more costly...
Traffic might be a very hard case of social control. I'm not sure
if a Western-style pluralistic society makes it harder. People
have their own habits and ideas, and see to their own interests.
Very safe traffic would require a very high degree of uniformity
and especially discipline of action.
Risto S Varanka
ยง:> I would also like to see people on the sidewalks and crosswalks, rather
:> than them being in the streets talking and me being told to get on the
:> sidewalk! What's wrong with that picture?
: Agreed bikes as transport don't belong on the sidewalk, the bike wants to go
: fast > 12mph , the pedo shouldn't have to look out for high speed objects.
This leads us to traffic compartimentalization. Different kind of
traffic should have different routes, so the traffic environment
can be kept simpler. At least in Europe you can find interesting
examples on routes with different profiles. There is (or was, it
is under works now) a street in Helsinki where only trams, taxis
(and some professional traffic) and bicycles were allowed. In the
Netherlands they have special highways for faster bicycle traffic.
And so on...
I would like diversity and modularity in city planning in general.
A good city would have skyscrapers, real forest (or desert?) and
bike paths.
: City streets are about more than traffic passing by though. Cities need
: people walking and gossiping on streets to live.
I somewhat agree. Streets are mostly for traffic. There should
be special loitering areas, undisturbed by traffic. This could
mean pedestrian-only shopping streets, marketplaces and squares,
little gossip pockets beside traffic routes, or areas for
excercise and recreation. Design should provide for special
groups such as skateboarders as well.
AndyMorris
Would it really or would it just need lower speed limits and rigourous
enforcment of those limits, along with enforcement of rules we have at the
moment and serious penalties for breaking those rules.
If discount the pleasure people get from driving fast, would that really
restrict peoples freedom of movement to any great degree. Would the freedom
of non-motorists be increased by the safer and less intimidating
environment?
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK
Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
AndyMorris
>
> I somewhat agree. Streets are mostly for traffic. There should
> be special loitering areas, undisturbed by traffic. This could
> mean pedestrian-only shopping streets, marketplaces and squares,
> little gossip pockets beside traffic routes, or areas for
> excercise and recreation. Design should provide for special
> groups such as skateboarders as well.
How about "there should be special transit areas, unemcumbered by loiterers,
these should be spaced about 1 mile apart so that a speed limit of 10 miles
per hour on normal streets whould cause a delay of only 6 min to reach the
nearest transit street"
Rick Donnelly
"Risto S Varanka" <rvar...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:anvjnu$nge$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> Rick Donnelly <rjd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : PS: As I said before, society and social systems work when few
individuals
> : violate the basic tenets of that society. Once violating the laws (no
matter
> : how stupid we feel they are) becomes the norm, most systems begin to
fail.
>
> I would see the "basic tenets of society" as a rather multilayered
> and multifaceted thing. And I don't think most people drive and
> live by the laws, but instead by the established practice of the
> society. (Or well, they at least seem to conform to the general
> standard of the society, more or less. But why they live as they
> do, is because of several causes.)
>
Indeed. They are both varied and, generally flexible. For example, driving
through a light just as it turns red is, often, safe. Most systems will
safely, and easily, tolerate this behavior if it does not become the norm.
Once it becomes the norm, however, those who are forced to wait those few
extra seconds through the lights will begin to resent it. Those who are 5 or
6 cars back really resent it, so when the light turns red on them, they take
the same liberties. Eventually, the system falls apart, which is why
policing systems (especially the automated versions), are imposed.
Personally, I'd rather tolerate a little variation rather than an automated
photo system, but the system (in this region) needs some active policing.
Personally, I feel this is a sad state of affairs.
> Driving just by the law (written or enforced) might be somewhat
> dangerous, so most people take some extra care, for the safety of
> themselves and others. On the other hand, the social system of
> traffic regulation allows quite a bit of flex, so traffic might be
> reasonably safe and effective, even though a number of laws were
> casually broken.
>
Agreed. This is also why I'd rather deal with a policeman than an automated
system. There may well be rational reasons for driving illegally. A
policeman can exercise judgement, a computerized camera cannot.
> : This is the degree of anarchy I see in the region where I live.
>
> This would mean there is no strong good conduct or traffic culture
> into which drivers would be expected to conform, even outside what
> the laws say.
>
Indeed. When you can, on a daily basis, see people driving on the wrong side
of the road, running red lights, threatening each other, and generally
behaving anti-socially when driving their (predominantly) overlarge SUV's,
then yes, you have to assume that the basic rules of social function have
failed or are, at the least, are not generally accepted. Conformity to rules
affecting the rights and safety of others cannot happen without a strong
police or public service effort. I'd prefer the latter, but the other is
being imposed.
> Hmm, are we burrowing too deeply into social and behavioural
> science already? :-)
>
Well, this is about societal aspects of cycling and, thus, only loosely off
topic. Right?
Rick
Risto S Varanka
: Risto S Varanka wrote:
:>
:> I somewhat agree. Streets are mostly for traffic. There should
:> be special loitering areas, undisturbed by traffic. This could
:> mean pedestrian-only shopping streets, marketplaces and squares,
:> little gossip pockets beside traffic routes, or areas for
:> excercise and recreation. Design should provide for special
:> groups such as skateboarders as well.
: How about "there should be special transit areas, unemcumbered by loiterers,
: these should be spaced about 1 mile apart so that a speed limit of 10 miles
: per hour on normal streets whould cause a delay of only 6 min to reach the
: nearest transit street"
10 mile speed limit sounds quite radical. The average delay to
reach a transit street would in fact be under 3 minutes (.5 miles
/ 10 miles per hour). If one makes two trips on the average day
that makes for a total of 12 minutes of delay on the average day.
If my average transit time is currently 60 minutes, that's a 20%
increase. That's already grounds to oppose such an idea but
probably not enough of delay to call it preposterous. Professional
traffic which does several trips a day (like taxis) would be much
less satisfied with the proposition, though.
Personally I don't see that much need for loitering either...
Maybe it's just my messed up life style =)
One more real problem I see with your proposition is that quite a
few schoolkids die when crossing the transit streets. If car
speeds are down to about 20 mph in the typical residential area, I
think that means in the great majority of cases that
car-pedestrian collisions will be nonfatal.
Risto S Varanka
:> Hmm, are we burrowing too deeply into social and behavioural
:> science already? :-)
:>
: Well, this is about societal aspects of cycling and, thus, only loosely off
: topic. Right?
In specialized newsgroups one would have professionals and other
knowledgeable people, for a hopefully even more fruitful
discussion.
If one tries to change the society, preaching to the converted is
not that effective tactic either.
Risto S Varanka
:> be difficult to get good mayors and also traffic planning would be
:> more ruthless. There would be more restrictions, travel times
:> would be longer, road building more expensive, and law enforcement
:> more costly...
:>
:> Traffic might be a very hard case of social control. I'm not sure
:> if a Western-style pluralistic society makes it harder. People
:> have their own habits and ideas, and see to their own interests.
:> Very safe traffic would require a very high degree of uniformity
:> and especially discipline of action.
: Would it really or would it just need lower speed limits and rigourous
: enforcment of those limits, along with enforcement of rules we have at the
: moment and serious penalties for breaking those rules.
That means higher costs and increased travel times... My
"discipline and uniformity" might be a bit vague there... If one
has read writers like Foucault, one sees that our society already
has advanced systems for disciplining people. There are
institutions like the school that train people for years to behave
in an orderly fashion.
When talking about traffic accidents, the risk often concentrates.
Drivers speed and run lights on some streets, some drivers drink
and drive repeatedly, and so on. A high degree of safety requires
that all members of the social system internalize the discipline
to a certain degree, and keep check on their own actions.
If you have proper discipline, that doesn't need to cost so much
or increase transit times to a considerable degree. The difficult
part is how to bring it about...
: If discount the pleasure people get from driving fast, would that really
: restrict peoples freedom of movement to any great degree.
Car owners would lose, or seem to lose, their speed advantage.
: Would the freedom
: of non-motorists be increased by the safer and less intimidating
: environment?
Probably. Threat of cars probably keep some people from biking,
and they are restricted to the mass transit. If there is a mass
transit...
Not to mention that a civilized society should seek to provide a
high level of personal safety for its members.
AndyMorris
> 10 mile speed limit sounds quite radical. The average delay to
> reach a transit street would in fact be under 3 minutes (.5 miles
> / 10 miles per hour). If one makes two trips on the average day
> that makes for a total of 12 minutes of delay on the average day.
> If my average transit time is currently 60 minutes, that's a 20%
> increase. That's already grounds to oppose such an idea but
> probably not enough of delay to call it preposterous. Professional
> traffic which does several trips a day (like taxis) would be much
> less satisfied with the proposition, though.
maybe 20 mph , strongly enforced would be enough, my point was not to start
a grand plan but to question the assumptions narrow our possibilities.
12 mins a day is small compared to the wait time most people would have to
do to use public transport.
>
> Personally I don't see that much need for loitering either...
> Maybe it's just my messed up life style =)
>
Maybe not, but along side loitering could be having a conversation while
walking, walking with kids, allowing kids to walk unaccompanied, kids
cycling, roller skating...
All these thing are less easy or pleasant with car traffic
I have 2 kids and recently their school has had a 'Walk to school' week, so
I did and it was great fun, but the speed and density of traffic can make a
real difference.
> One more real problem I see with your proposition is that quite a
> few schoolkids die when crossing the transit streets.
Sorry, are we saying that to reduce the risks on some roads we should make
all roads more dangerous so that kids stay indoors?
> If car
> speeds are down to about 20 mph in the typical residential area, I
> think that means in the great majority of cases that
> car-pedestrian collisions will be nonfatal.
along with much less noise and pollution.
Also re the added time thing.
Isn't this something that over time the market would adjust to? Either we
would work slightly less and have a slightly smaller TV or fewer SkyTV
channels, or we would live closer to work.
Scott Munro
wrote:
>AndyMorris <AndyM...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>ยง:> I would also like to see people on the sidewalks and crosswalks, rather
>:> than them being in the streets talking and me being told to get on the
>:> sidewalk! What's wrong with that picture?
>
>: Agreed bikes as transport don't belong on the sidewalk, the bike wants to go
>: fast > 12mph , the pedo shouldn't have to look out for high speed objects.
>
>This leads us to traffic compartimentalization. Different kind of
>traffic should have different routes, so the traffic environment
>can be kept simpler. At least in Europe you can find interesting
>examples on routes with different profiles. There is (or was, it
>is under works now) a street in Helsinki where only trams, taxis
>(and some professional traffic) and bicycles were allowed. In the
>Netherlands they have special highways for faster bicycle traffic.
>And so on...
>
>I would like diversity and modularity in city planning in general.
>A good city would have skyscrapers, real forest (or desert?) and
>bike paths.
I think Americans don't much care for planning. We like things to grow
organically. Planners, after all, tend to be bureaucrats, academics,
and other people with Big Ideas [*shudder*].
Al Gore is the quintessential planner.
>: City streets are about more than traffic passing by though. Cities need
>: people walking and gossiping on streets to live.
>
>I somewhat agree. Streets are mostly for traffic. There should
>be special loitering areas, undisturbed by traffic. This could
>mean pedestrian-only shopping streets, marketplaces and squares,
>little gossip pockets beside traffic routes, or areas for
>excercise and recreation. Design should provide for special
>groups such as skateboarders as well.
--
- Q -
> I would see the "basic tenets of society" as a rather multilayered and
> multifaceted thing. And I don't think most people drive and live by the
> laws, but instead by the established practice of the society. (Or well,
> they at least seem to conform to the general standard of the society,
> more or less. But why they live as they do, is because of several
> causes.)
A good example of the above is driving in Bogota, Colombia. I find
colombian drivers to be unusually agressive, not to mention many times
unobservant of the law. However the traffic system is not chaotic and
anarchic as you'd think it would be. It's actually quite driveable,
because most drivers know how most people drive and simply live with it.
If they're driving down a road and someone changes lanes without warning,
what the heck, they slow down a few seconds and let him by. If there's a
busy intersection with a line of cars waiting to turn right, someone will
eventually turn left and stop in the middle of the intersection to clear
the way for the waiting cars. The law says one thing, the social code of
conduct another, and it works quite well.
> Driving just by the law (written or enforced) might be somewhat
> dangerous, so most people take some extra care, for the safety of
Not exactly. Driving by the law makes traffic safer and many times more
fluent. Think for example a busy highway where someone signals lane
change, like they're suppposed to, and the car behind them yields, like
they're supposed to. In an ideal world where everyone followed the law,
stuff would work like it was envisioned without much trouble.
The problem, I figure, is when you have a mix of both social drivers and
legal drivers. While the legal driver follows one protocol, the social
driver follows another, and crossed messages generate accidents and chaos
on the traffic system.
--
*- Q -*
- Q -
> This leads us to traffic compartimentalization. Different kind of
> traffic should have different routes, so the traffic environment can be
> kept simpler. At least in Europe you can find interesting examples on
In good practice the objects on a certain route should move within a
similar range of speeds, unless they're separated by barriers of some
sort. Bikes should be placed on routes with slower moving traffic, not
with pedestrians. If you have objects moving at a similar speed your
system will move at an orderly speed. When you start to have objects all
over the place moving at different speeds, one slowing the other down in a
random manner, that's when things get ugly.
Europe does offer some interesting examples. I've read about experiments
where bikes and mass transit successfully shared lanes, and cases where
MTVs are slowed down to a low enough speed to allow for safe coexistance
with bikes. In general the key seems to be keeping similar vehicles in the
same space.
> I would like diversity and modularity in city planning in general. A
> good city would have skyscrapers, real forest (or desert?) and bike
> paths.
A good city, IMHO, should be a city: not a dormitory or a shopping mall.
That's what the people in charge of them don't seem to understand. A city
should be a place where you live, sleep, work and play. It should give you
all those opportunities without making you take a 4 hour ride down a
jammed highway.
A good city needs to have, as you mention, parks and green spaces,
otherwise it becomes an dull mass of concrete which people eventually get
tired of. It needs to offer housing and nearby basic commerce and services
to meet the basic needs of the residents.
And if there's one thing that's important in keeping a city alive, it's
the transit system. The option of getting from point A to point B in a
reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost is what allows a city to
grow and expand. That means ditching the idea that we need to build
endless networks of 8 lane highways in order to accomodate everyone's
private motor vehicle. The most successful examples of transportation
networks combine mass transportation, private MTVs, and alternate means
such as bicycles. Bike routes are actually an important asset to a traffic
system, however many cities fail to realize that.
> I somewhat agree. Streets are mostly for traffic. There should be
> special loitering areas, undisturbed by traffic. This could mean
> pedestrian-only shopping streets, marketplaces and squares, little
> gossip pockets beside traffic routes, or areas for excercise and
> recreation. Design should provide for special groups such as
> skateboarders as well.
People are what makes the city. The city isn't the buildings or the roads
or the parks... it's the people. I recently heard an interesting example
of that based in Buffalo, NY. Buffalo is a place that's got impressive
infrastructure, mass transit, parks, you name it... but it's got hardly
any people living there and enjoying the city permanently. The result is
that during off hours Buffalo is esentially a ghost town.
The loitering areas that you speak of are parks and public spaces... but
real parks and public spaces. Many cities take the worst terrain they can
find in the worst area they can find, patch it up with grass, hang a
basketball hoop and call it a park. Result? They create a grassed area
with a basketball hoop, in which nobody wants to be.
Take any "model" city and you'll see that it clearly offers those spaces
without any restriction. Anything from an expanded sidewalk with a couple
of benches in a semicircle to metropolitan parks with extensive trails and
attractions (it depends on the needs of the residents really). The
principle is very simple: a city is built for people, not the other way
around. People and public spaces bring life to a city 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. Their presence on the streets creates a feeling of safety
and helps to control random urban crime. It also gives commerce an
opportunity to display and sell its products, which in turn attracts more
people to the streets and eventually consolidates the urban life cycle.
Take the people away from the streets and stick them in their homes and
offices 24/7, and you get the kinds of urban disasters in which nobody
wants to live that at the present we call cities.
--
*- Q -*
- Q -
> How about "there should be special transit areas, unemcumbered by
> loiterers, these should be spaced about 1 mile apart so that a speed
> limit of 10 miles per hour on normal streets whould cause a delay of
> only 6 min to reach the nearest transit street"
Sounds like a Pedestrian Pocket to me, a planning idea based on pedestrian
traffic. If I remember correctly the idea is that you have areas where
people live clustered around recreational and public facilites. Those
areas are equipped with a system of pedestrian walkways that are designed
so you're only a couple of minutes away from mass transit routes. To get
to work, you walk (or bike?) a couple minutes, and then take a
bus/train/whatever. Sounds like a fun idea, the question is if you could
really convice people to purchase housing in an area where it would be
hard to maintain and operate a motor vehicle.
--
*- Q -*
Guy Chapman
> the question is if you could
> really convice people to purchase housing in an area where it would be
> hard to maintain and operate a motor vehicle.
In some areas in the UK new housing is being built with a no-cars
covenant. They have neighbourhood pool car schemes, but you're not
allowed to own a car if you live there. There doesn't seem to be any
shortage of people signing up.
--
Guy
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (ADSL and DynDNS permitting)
Remove maker of Spam from bikeHO...@chapmanFOODScentral.com
Risto S Varanka
:> I would see the "basic tenets of society" as a rather multilayered and
:> multifaceted thing. And I don't think most people drive and live by the
:> laws, but instead by the established practice of the society. (Or well,
:> they at least seem to conform to the general standard of the society,
:> more or less. But why they live as they do, is because of several
:> causes.)
: A good example of the above is driving in Bogota, Colombia. I find
: colombian drivers to be unusually agressive, not to mention many times
: unobservant of the law. However the traffic system is not chaotic and
: anarchic as you'd think it would be. It's actually quite driveable,
: because most drivers know how most people drive and simply live with it.
I was thinking more of France. I hear the traffic system is
chaotic but still quite driveable, at least from a driver's point
of view.
:> Driving just by the law (written or enforced) might be somewhat
:> dangerous, so most people take some extra care, for the safety of
: Not exactly. Driving by the law makes traffic safer and many times more
: fluent.
I meant drivers who obey the laws but put in some extra care not
required by law.
Another thing is breaking law to increase safety. Using the
pedestrian side (not really sidewalk) for extra margin on a
bicycle could be a local example on this.
Hmm, I should start bringing a digicam along my daily rides, some
helsinki-by-bike web page would make nice illustration for these
things. And it would be quite interesting to compare traffic
solutions in different countries...
John Albergo
- Q - wrote:
.
.
.
.
>
>The problem, I figure, is when you have a mix of both social drivers and
>legal drivers. While the legal driver follows one protocol, the social
>driver follows another, and crossed messages generate accidents and chaos
>on the traffic system.
>
I've long thought that the process of obtaining a driver's license
should more resemble that for obtaining an pilot's license. There are
plenty of times when the "social" drivers are breaking the law but not
being dangerous. For example, travelling 10 or 20 mph above the limit
on a lightly trafficked freeway is not in itself dangerous especially
when the social norm is to do so. However where things break down is
motorists' understanding of human factors, situational awareness and
physical principles. This is how we end up with other social customs
that are truly dangerous -- following too closely is a prime example
(and epidemic), or speeding in heavier traffic. Handling of adverse
weather and emergency situations are other areas stressed in pilot
training that would benefit motorists. Combine this with more rigorous
proficiency requirements, simulator training and "checkrides" that are
administered as scrupulously as now done by the FAA. Under such a
system I would not object to licensing of cyclists. Again I'd draw an
analogy to aviation where a license is obtained and then separate
ratings added such as seaplane, multi-engine, etc. Passenger-car and
Bicycle could be analogues. Again, this only makes sense when kept in
the same context as pilot licensing now exists. A pilot's license is
not used as a de-facto identification card or as an excuse to tax, but
is meant to certify that the holder is proficient to the task.
Risto S Varanka
: when the social norm is to do so. However where things break down is
: physical principles. This is how we end up with other social customs
: that are truly dangerous -- following too closely is a prime example
: (and epidemic), or speeding in heavier traffic. Handling of adverse
: weather and emergency situations are other areas stressed in pilot
: training that would benefit motorists. Combine this with more rigorous
: proficiency requirements, simulator training and "checkrides" that are
: administered as scrupulously as now done by the FAA.
Generally speaking, Finnish driver education from 10 years back
applied most of these principles. You are calling for a more
rigorous and extensive process which could raise some opposition,
in particular because of increased time and money expenditure.
Handling of emergency situations perhaps doesn't feature that
heavily in current driver education, because it wouldn't
contribute that heavily to safety. It could provide a false sense
of security, which could become dangerous. You note that the
driver's understanding of risk factors in traffic is important -
I'd think it's a vital precondition.
Proper simulator training could be effective. I'm not sure if
it's already feasible, but at least when they learn to make
software cheaply enough or to sell it to everybody... They should
create realistic situations where drivers can learn to
self-control their intentions and understanding. For example, you
could create a course where you are scored based on the time it
takes you to take from point A to B, and disqualified if you break
regulations, have a conflict situation or crash into something.
This would create conflicting intentions which the drivers need to
be trained to manage.
As you hint, some of this training should be when the driver has
gained experience (1 years, 3 years...).
Including bike and truck parts in the simulator training could be
educative for car drivers ^_^
As a side note, perhaps there could be a generic traffic license
which would have the individual vehicle classes (car,
semi-trailer, bicycle) as optional parts. A
how-to-survive-in-traffic class could be of real interest to
starting bike commuters. The general and car-specific parts of
driver education have helped me when I've been riding in traffic.
I'm familiar with the rules I and drivers are supposed to follow,
etc.
Scott Munro
>>
>> I think Americans don't much care for planning. We like things to grow
>> organically. Planners, after all, tend to be bureaucrats, academics,
>> and other people with Big Ideas [*shudder*].
>>
>> Al Gore is the quintessential planner.
>>
>
>
>You are kidding, right? So "organic" growth must consist of strip
>malls, bumper to bumper traffic everywhere, >= one hour commutes,
>deadly car wrecks daily, and freeways paved over everything!
>Wonderful idea. You must have "gasoline running in your veins" - to
>quote the Ford CEO. You think it isn't "bureaucrats and people with
>Big Ideas" that are currently paving over the ever-growing
>auto-dependent and auto-dominated suburban landscapes of America.
>Bravo!
>
>I live in Atlanta, live without a car/ bike everywhere, and see this
>wonderful "organic" growth spreading. Either the U.S. is being
>developed without a truly long term view in mind, or else the long
>term plan is to develop the most inefficient/unpleasant society
>possible for having so much wealth. Your brilliant hydrogen powered
>cars of the future will continue to maim and murder thousands of
>pedestrians, cyclists and auto passengers, and will still be stuck in
>traffic jams.
You take yourself awfully seriously, don't you?
Risto S Varanka
: a grand plan but to question the assumptions narrow our possibilities.
Here quite a few areas have 30 or 40 km/h limit.
10 mph might be good for pedestrians but 20 mph is much better
suited from the bike point of view.
: 12 mins a day is small compared to the wait time most people would have to
: do to use public transport.
That's a major reason why one would ride a bike instead of the
mass transit.
: I have 2 kids and recently their school has had a 'Walk to school' week, so
Hmm I was thinking having kids might make a difference in how one
views these things...
In general, kids and young people easily get underrepresented in
political and administrative organs. That's why special care
should be taken in city planning to accomodate kids.
:> One more real problem I see with your proposition is that quite a
:> few schoolkids die when crossing the transit streets.
: Sorry, are we saying that to reduce the risks on some roads we should make
: all roads more dangerous so that kids stay indoors?
No, I just pointed out that the real problem might be the transit
streets. Your proposition doesn't make things worse but it doesn't
help either with this part... So one might wonder how effective it
would be in increasing overall traffic safety.
:> If car
:> speeds are down to about 20 mph in the typical residential area, I
:> think that means in the great majority of cases that
:> car-pedestrian collisions will be nonfatal.
: along with much less noise and pollution.
I would think there is actually slightly increased pollution. Cars
are planned to perform well at some 70-80 km/h, so they consume
least gasoline if the speed is constantly in that range. I would
figure various emissions would be the lowest in that range as
well.
: Also re the added time thing.
: Isn't this something that over time the market would adjust to? Either we
: would work slightly less and have a slightly smaller TV or fewer SkyTV
: channels, or we would live closer to work.
Maybe, but do we want to? :)
Living closer to work could be a very good idea but that would
really require a much tighter community structure. This is
somewhat difficult to achieve, because there would need to be some
changes in how cities work.
In Helsinki it's difficult to build tighter residential areas,
because there are rules about how much space you need to allocate
to streets and parking places. Big buildins close to each other
also block sunlight, which means darker yards and walkways, and
it's something city planning and architecture tries to avoid.
I would just love very tight settlements... with forests etc. in
between. It would make rail traffic quite viable, resulting in
great efficiency in transportation. The rail system would consist
of conventional trains, the subway and heavy trams/light rail, all
of which would allow transporting bicycles. The major modes of
transportation would be rail and bike...
AndyMorris
> - Q - <pro...@gamebox.net> wrote:
>
>> the question is if you could
>> really convice people to purchase housing in an area where it would
>> be hard to maintain and operate a motor vehicle.
>
> In some areas in the UK new housing is being built with a no-cars
> covenant. They have neighbourhood pool car schemes, but you're not
> allowed to own a car if you live there. There doesn't seem to be any
> shortage of people signing up.
Also in the UK & Europe) are Center Parcs Holiday resorts. One of their key
selling points is that they are car free.
Can you book one for 1/2 term? can you hell.
AndyMorris
>
> You take yourself awfully seriously, don't you?
Wow a yank with irony, you don't see that very often.
>
> I think Americans don't much care for planning. We like things to grow
> organically. Planners, after all, tend to be bureaucrats, academics,
> and other people with Big Ideas [*shudder*].
>
> Al Gore is the quintessential planner.
>
But what do you think?