New article on old study, cause of car bike crashes
Peter Cole
Old study, but one I hadn't seen. The author of the referenced paper
(David Tomlinson) analyzed 2 years of crashes in Toronto and concluded
motorists were at fault 90% of the time. My apologies if this is old news.
Friar Broccoli
> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-...
>
> Old study, but one I hadn't seen. The author of the referenced paper
> (David Tomlinson) analyzed 2 years of crashes in Toronto and concluded
> motorists were at fault 90% of the time. My apologies if this is old news.
From the article:
"...motorists was the cause of 90 percent of these crashes. Among the
leading causes: running a stop sign or traffic light, turning into a
cyclist’s path, or opening a door on a biker."
I've had bikes damaged or destroyed from three out of four of the
above
causes. So far I have missed being doored.
My two "favorites":
(1) Old lady turns into bike lane ahead of me (for a gas station). I
was
going about 30Km and was thrown under the car. She had stopped when
I
hit, but began moving again. Fortunately another lady in the car
screamed
at her to stop or I would be walking with a terrible limp today,
assuming
I lived.
(2) Lady comes to FULL stop at stop sign.
I having also stopped proceed through intersection.
So does she, completely destroying the back wheel of my bike.
And yes, she said: "But I did my stop!"
I also came within a fraction of a second of being an X person
earlier this summer when a guy went through a stop at about
80 Km an hour. I hit him as he swirved, but I cannot complain
because I went through that stop without looking too.
notme
> because I went through that stop without looking too.
Do you always blow through stop signs? Or was this a "once" occurrence?
RonSonic
>> but I cannot complain
>> because I went through that stop without looking too.
>
>Do you always blow through stop signs?
Not any more, I'll bet.
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
JG
other percent for that matter. In fact, 20% of the reported accidents
were uncategorizable due to incomplete reporting etc. A good number
of the rest involved accidents with riders on sidewalks or crosswalks,
which is generally against the vehicle code most places. So it looks
like someone might have made something up...
Friar Broccoli
> > but I cannot complain
> > because I went through that stop without looking too.
>
> Do you always blow through stop signs?
Normally I stop, go slowly, or "blow through" depending
on visibility and the traffic that I see or hear.
> Or was this a "once" occurrence?
Aside from the very healthy dose of fear it has
given me, it was (for me) an interesting accident
in at least two ways.
I am a winter cyclist (down to -30C/-20F) and am
careful to always take the same route at the same
time so that drivers can get used to me.
This particular intersection is an extremely open
exit off a highway that has next to no traffic on it
when I normally go through it at around 5:50AM.
However, I did frequently see one black van and
got into the habit of maneuvering around him at the
intersection so that neither of us needed to slow
down, normally by angling toward him so that he
had already passed when I reached the spot where
he had been.
I guess I had lost my fear of the intersection because
it was so extremely open, and one morning when I
was unusually tired and deeply preoccupied by other
problems I went straight through without thinking or
looking.
I suppose the driver of the black van came so close
to hitting me, because he expected me to veer toward
and behind him at the last minute. (Now I can more
easily recognize his van because he has not repaired
the two long gouges I made when I hit him.)
Habits, especially risky ones, can be very dangerous.
They must kill a lot of people.
Frank Krygowski
> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-...
>
> (David Tomlinson) analyzed 2 years of crashes in Toronto and concluded
> motorists were at fault 90% of the time. My apologies if this is old news.
The discussion I'm reading among other knowledgeable cyclists
indicates a lot of skepticism of that report. IIRC, pretty much every
other study puts the split at much closer to 50/50 in terms of cyclist/
motorist culpability.
FWIW, I'd prefer that society put the blame on motorists whenever
possible. I think a motorist should drive as carefully as, say, a
forklift operator who's in a "big box" hardware store, passing
customers. But I can't pretend that cyclists are that blameless. For
example, while the data's not solid, there have been indications that
roughly a quarter of fatally injured cyclists had been drinking.
Another large percentage are nighttime fatalities with no bike
lights. IIRC, both those were using data from the southern U.S..
Maybe Toronto is different... but I'm still skeptical.
And on my bike commute today, I saw two wrong-way riders, two sidewalk
riders (it's illegal in the city), and three cyclists in the dark with
no lights. One wrong-way sidewalk guy did a near-vertical wheelie
through a crosswalk. Yesterday, my wife and I saw six wrong way
cyclists. In fact, I think I was the only cyclist I saw these last
two days who was actually riding legally the whole time!
(OK, I admit, I rolled through two stop signs at about five miles per
hour. But so did the cars passing through ahead of me.)
- Frank Krygowski
RobertH
Sounds like the moral of your story is that the deliberate garden
variety lawbreaking of sober adult bicyclists is overblown as a safety
concern. Maybe it's time to spread the Idaho Stop around the nation.
Peter Cole
My mistake. The report found that 10% of cyclists were at fault, 70% of
motorists, 20% unknown, Still, if the unknown category had the same
distribution, it would be 87% to 13%.
Peter Cole
> On Aug 31, 12:03 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-...
>>
>> Old study, but one I hadn't seen. The author of the referenced paper
>> (David Tomlinson) analyzed 2 years of crashes in Toronto and concluded
>> motorists were at fault 90% of the time. My apologies if this is old news.
>
> The discussion I'm reading among other knowledgeable cyclists
> indicates a lot of skepticism of that report. IIRC, pretty much every
> other study puts the split at much closer to 50/50 in terms of cyclist/
> motorist culpability.
The was another study of car-bike crashes in NYC that reached results
similar to the Tomlinson report. I'm very skeptical of the "50/50"
statistics, since most it seems were categorized by the police.
JG
http://www.velomondial.net/velomondiall2000/PDF/TOMLINSO.PDF
says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about fault. Nor does it say anything about
90% or 70% or any other large percentage.
JG
Clive George
news:7bddd5f3-95b0-4dbc...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Are you sure about that?
I've just had a look at it. I expected to find the information there, but
fairly well hidden. But no, it was blatently obvious.
Look at figure 3. Tell me why that doesn't answer your query.
JG
> "JG" <j...@cox.net> wrote in message
Well, I don't have a query. I'm making a statement. Figure 3 says
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about fault. It categorizes accidents into types.
Obviously you are reading "Motorist Overtaking" and thinking "Motorist
at fault". But that does not follow.
Clive George
I think for anybody sane it does. I don't really mind you claiming what you
claim, since it's now apparent that you're not being terribly helpful to the
discussion.
Graham
There is a qualifier in the text :
It would appear that most of these cases were minor impacts that occurred
when impatient motorists attempted to squeeze past a cyclist, with the
occasional disastrous result.
Graham.
RobertH
The 10% figure actually came from that NYC paper, the researcher
recently tried to correct the impression that the number came from the
Toronto study.
Once you take out the wrecks involving child cyclists, which most
researchers don't bother to do, the portion of these wrecks that are
the bicyclist's fault is somewhere between the 10% and the 50% cited
by FK above. Once you remove the drunken idiots the number sinks
pretty low.
Michael Press
<d21c7e96-66df-4a14...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 12:03 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-...
> >
> > Old study, but one I hadn't seen. The author of the referenced paper
> > (David Tomlinson) analyzed 2 years of crashes in Toronto and concluded
> > motorists were at fault 90% of the time. My apologies if this is old news.
>
> The discussion I'm reading among other knowledgeable cyclists
> indicates a lot of skepticism of that report. IIRC, pretty much every
> other study puts the split at much closer to 50/50 in terms of cyclist/
> motorist culpability.
The is the consensus among papers that I read.
> FWIW, I'd prefer that society put the blame on motorists whenever
> possible. I think a motorist should drive as carefully as, say, a
> forklift operator who's in a "big box" hardware store, passing
> customers. But I can't pretend that cyclists are that blameless. For
> example, while the data's not solid, there have been indications that
> roughly a quarter of fatally injured cyclists had been drinking.
> Another large percentage are nighttime fatalities with no bike
> lights. IIRC, both those were using data from the southern U.S..
> Maybe Toronto is different... but I'm still skeptical.
>
> And on my bike commute today, I saw two wrong-way riders, two sidewalk
> riders (it's illegal in the city), and three cyclists in the dark with
> no lights. One wrong-way sidewalk guy did a near-vertical wheelie
> through a crosswalk. Yesterday, my wife and I saw six wrong way
> cyclists. In fact, I think I was the only cyclist I saw these last
> two days who was actually riding legally the whole time!
Wrong way cyclists are a menace. One day some
mutton head is going to get in my way. Another
floppy-shod, fright-wigged, baggy-pantalooned,
red-nosed multi-cellular organism is wont to ride
the sidewalk straight into the pedestrian walk
just as I am negotiating my 20 mph right turn
through the corner.
> (OK, I admit, I rolled through two stop signs at about five miles per
> hour. But so did the cars passing through ahead of me.)
Police cruisers around here roll through stop
signs. I was riding with a patrol officer. He
breezed an amber light. He said that if you cross
the white line into an intersection on amber,
then you are legal.
--
Michael Press
Peter Cole
Actually, it does, have you read it?
"The individual categories in these systems
are based on the actions of the vehicle deemed primarily responsible for
the crash. Since many
collisions involve a certain degree of error on the part of both road
users, secondary contributing
factors were also recorded, in order to provide a more complete and
impartial understanding of
each type of incident."
"The most frequent type of crash involved a motorist entering an
intersection controlled by a stop
sign (73%) or red light (17%), and either failing to stop properly, or
proceeding before it was
safe to do so."
Peter Cole
> Wrong way cyclists are a menace.
Not according to the Tomlinson study, at least not for car-bike crashes.
I've never seen data on bike-bike crashes.
> One day some
> mutton head is going to get in my way. Another
> floppy-shod, fright-wigged, baggy-pantalooned,
> red-nosed multi-cellular organism is wont to ride
> the sidewalk straight into the pedestrian walk
> just as I am negotiating my 20 mph right turn
> through the corner.
You're probably more likely to have that happen with a pedestrian,
they're usually much more common. I wouldn't take a corner at 25 if I
didn't have the sight lines for it, but that's just me.
Peter Cole
My opinion is that in fatal crashes, driver misbehavior is frequently
not recorded mostly because the cyclist is dead and there are no other
witnesses. From the 2006 NYC study:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
In collisions involving serious injury, the motorist fault to cyclist
fault ratio is more like 3:1.
Friar Broccoli
The table (Fig 3) just below, breaking down the accidents
by cause is quite interesting too.
Agrees with my experience.
Fig 3: Most Frequent Crash Types
Number__ Relative
of Cases Frequency_ Crash Type
284 ____ 12.20% ___ Drive Out At Controlled Intersection
277 ____ 11.90% ___ Motorist Overtaking
276 ____ 11.90% ___ Motorist Opens Door in front of Bicyclist
248 ____ 10.70% ___ Motorist Left Turn - Facing Bicyclist
224 ____ 09.60% ___ Motorist Right Turn - Other
179 ____ 07.70% ___ Motorist Right Turn at Red Light
179 ____ 07.70% ___ Drive Out From Lane or Driveway
073 ____ 03.10% ___ Ride Out At Controlled Intersection
059 ____ 02.50% ___ Wrong Way Bicyclist
051 ____ 02.20% ___ Ride Out At Mid-block
Michael Press
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
^^
20 mph
> didn't have the sight lines for it, but that's just me.
Cyclists move much faster than pedestrians and get into
the intersection much faster.
--
Michael Press
JG
general statement backing up the 90% figure, and completely overlooked
that description of the categorization. So it's fair to say the study
finds at least 65% of reported accidents to be the primary
responsibility of the driver. Not 90% fault but not absolutely
nothing either...
Re: the Drive Out At Controlled Intersection statistic, the next
sentence states:
"In just over half of these crashes, the cyclist was struck while
crossing the intersection within the pedestrian crosswalk."
The study goes on to note this is a Toronto condition, (generally it
is a violation of the vehicle code to ride within the crosswalk) and
suggests training the young to walk their bikes.
JG
Peter Cole
> In article <pwtnm.790$Jd7...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong way cyclists are a menace.
>> Not according to the Tomlinson study, at least not for car-bike crashes.
>> I've never seen data on bike-bike crashes.
>>
>>> One day some
>>> mutton head is going to get in my way. Another
>>> floppy-shod, fright-wigged, baggy-pantalooned,
>>> red-nosed multi-cellular organism is wont to ride
>>> the sidewalk straight into the pedestrian walk
>>> just as I am negotiating my 20 mph right turn
>>> through the corner.
>> You're probably more likely to have that happen with a pedestrian,
>> they're usually much more common. I wouldn't take a corner at 25 if I
> ^^
> 20 mph
>> didn't have the sight lines for it, but that's just me.
Sorry about that.
>
> Cyclists move much faster than pedestrians and get into
> the intersection much faster.
>
Fortunately for me, most of the wrong way cyclists I encounter are also
pretty slow. It is a serious hazard, but not too high on my list as it
being fairly rare around here and perhaps not as lethal as some of the
more common ones.
Dan O
How do you go the "wrong way" on a sidewalk or crosswalk?
Jobst Brandt
>>>> Wrong way cyclists are a menace.
>>> Not according to the Tomlinson study, at least not for car-bike
>>> crashes. I've never seen data on bike-bike crashes.
>>>> One day some mutton head is going to get in my way. Another
>>>> floppy-shod, fright-wigged, baggy-pantalooned, red-nosed
>>>> multi-cellular organism is wont to ride the sidewalk straight
>>>> into the pedestrian walk just as I am negotiating my 20 mph right
>>>> turn through the corner.
...nice litany of self righteous derogatory terms!
>>> You're probably more likely to have that happen with a pedestrian,
>>> they're usually much more common. I wouldn't take a corner at
>>> 20mph if I didn't have the sight lines for it, but that's just me.
>> Cyclists move much faster than pedestrians and get into the
>> intersection much faster.
That's what the early grade school "Walk, don't run" advice is about
and most folks do not understand why because they want to reduce their
exposure, so they dash across the street, a classic misunderstanding
of auto vs. pedestrian.
> Fortunately for me, most of the wrong way cyclists I encounter are
> also pretty slow. It is a serious hazard, but not too high on my
> list as it being fairly rare around here and perhaps not as lethal
> as some of the more common ones.
The problem usually arises because the possibility crossing a busy
street to the other side for a short distance and returning to the
original destination side is ungainly if not impossible unless two
large gaps in traffic occur. When encountering an opposing pedestrian
or bicyclist, the person should be allowed to remain closest to the
curb, to not put him in double jeopardy of passing on one's left
between the oncoming bicycle and auto traffic.
Locally there are a few such streets where this occurs. I am glad
that most "wrong way" people sense this condition and do not offer to
pass the oncoming bicyclist on his left as many bicyclists consider
proper, as "right hand traffic" might suggest. Not being a rigid
constructionist, I don't mind meeting people who must ride against
traffic to get where they need to go.
Jobst Brandt
Peter Cole
> When encountering an opposing pedestrian
> or bicyclist, the person should be allowed to remain closest to the
> curb, to not put him in double jeopardy of passing on one's left
> between the oncoming bicycle and auto traffic.
That is always my preference. It's not a rare event around here (Boston)
to have to move left around double parked vehicles, so I just treat
cyclists or pedestrians the same way.
Frank Krygowski
>
> How do you go the "wrong way" on a sidewalk or crosswalk?
By riding opposite the direction of adjacent motor vehicle traffic.
At least one study found that cyclists on a sidewalk who were moving
opposite the adjacent motor vehicle traffic were at much greater
danger than cyclists on the sidewalk who were moving the same
direction as adjacent MV traffic. But IIRC both were at more danger
than riding properly on the road.
It's not hard to see why the wrong-way stuff is more dangerous. A
major source of serious crashes for sidewalk cyclists is a motorist
pulling out from a driveway or side street, looking only (or
primarily) to his left. It's natural because that's where all traffic
except slow pedestrians should be coming from. The relatively fast
cyclist approaching from the right is never seen, and gets creamed.
The nearest I ever came to hitting a cyclist with my car was just that
situation, with darkness and no bike headlight added. He was probably
going about 15 mph. He was lucky I was creeping out very slowly
because of obstructed vision to my left. And one friend of mine, an
ex-racer just returning to riding, did get hit by exactly that
mechanism, except she was on the road, not the sidewalk. (She was
making an inept left turn.)
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
I take a line heading straight at wrong way vehicles and
have never crashed into a wrong way cyclist or car. They
panic and swerve.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Michael Press
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
I distinguish wrong way cyclists from
sidewalk riders that cruise into a pedestrian crosswalk.
The particular case here is a sidewalk rider going
parallel to me, then appearing in the cross walk.
Yes, I look, but I must look at many things, and
sight lines get obscured. The sidewalk riders are
yet another danger to watch for.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
> >>>> Wrong way cyclists are a menace.
>
> >>> Not according to the Tomlinson study, at least not for car-bike
> >>> crashes. I've never seen data on bike-bike crashes.
>
> >>>> One day some mutton head is going to get in my way. Another
> >>>> floppy-shod, fright-wigged, baggy-pantalooned, red-nosed
> >>>> multi-cellular organism is wont to ride the sidewalk straight
> >>>> into the pedestrian walk just as I am negotiating my 20 mph right
> >>>> turn through the corner.
>
> ...nice litany of self righteous derogatory terms!
Thank you! We try.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
That is what I do.
--
Michael Press
Jobst Brandt
>>>> Wrong way cyclists are a menace.
>>> Not according to the Tomlinson study, at least not for car-bike
>>> crashes. I've never seen data on bike-bike crashes.
>>>> One day some mutton head is going to get in my way. Another
>>>> floppy-shod, fright-wigged, baggy-pantalooned, red-nosed
>>>> multi-cellular organism is wont to ride the sidewalk straight
>>>> into the pedestrian walk just as I am negotiating my 20 mph right
>>>> turn through the corner.
>>> You're probably more likely to have that happen with a pedestrian,
>>> they're usually much more common. I wouldn't take a corner at 25
>>> if I didn't have the sight lines for it, but that's just me.
>> I take a line heading straight at wrong way vehicles and have never
>> crashed into a wrong way cyclist or car. They panic and swerve.
> That is what I do.
That sounds like the cars that slice bicyclists to show them they
shouldn't ride on pubic highways. It has parallels in "take the lane"
actions that reek of self righteous confrontation. Can't we just get
along as Rodney said.
Jobst Brandt
Frank Krygowski
> Michael Press wrote [in response to:]
> >> I take a line heading straight at wrong way vehicles and have never
> >> crashed into a wrong way cyclist or car. They panic and swerve.
> > That is what I do.
Me too.
> That sounds like the cars that slice bicyclists to show them they
> shouldn't ride on pubic highways.
There are major differences in that wrong-way cycling is universally
illegal, as well as flagrantly stupid, and it puts correctly riding
cyclists like myself at risk. I deal with such people the way I deal
with loose dogs: I take control. They get to deal with the trouble
they cause.
> It has parallels in "take the lane"
> actions that reek of self righteous confrontation.
I don't believe you've ever explained what you do when riding in a
lane that's too narrow to safely share.
I've got to ride in lanes that are about eight feet wide in some
places. There's no way I'm going to try to share those lanes with a
motorist. It's physically impossible. Even ten foot lanes are
rarely, if ever, safely shareable.
So what do you do, Jobst - take to the sidewalk, or stand meekly on
the curb until all traffic is past? Or do you trust the highly
skilled motorists to barely brush your left elbow with their right
mirror as you ride in the gutter glass?
It may be that if you rode further from the gutter, you wouldn't have
so many "cars that slice bicyclists to show them they shouldn't ride
on pubic highways." Gutter bunnies complain about close passes a lot
more than lane-takers do.
- Frank Krygowski
Jobst Brandt
>>>> I take a line heading straight at wrong way vehicles and have
>>>> never crashed into a wrong way cyclist or car. They panic and
>>>> swerve.
>>> That is what I do.
> Me too.
Me too! I would panic and swerve in the possibility of an imminent
head-on collision with an unyielding bicyclist. I don't see that this
sort of confrontation is useful.
>> That sounds like the cars that slice bicyclists to show them they
>> shouldn't ride on pubic highways.
> There are major differences in that wrong-way cycling is universally
> illegal, as well as flagrantly stupid, and it puts correctly riding
> cyclists like myself at risk. I deal with such people the way I
> deal with loose dogs: I take control. They get to deal with the
> trouble they cause.
There is no trouble. This is not like two express trains approaching
on the same track. As you may have noticed, there were no reports of
crashes in this thread, only of righteous indignation.
>> It has parallels in "take the lane" actions that reek of self
>> righteous confrontation.
> I don't believe you've ever explained what you do when riding in a
> lane that's too narrow to safely share.
I see you believe that passing cars will run over you. That is not
what occurs. Cars back up behind an unyielding bicyclist and they all
find the bicyclist a rude impediment. That is why, even where there
is safe passage, because the car that doesn't pass is possibly an
alarmist rather than having a concern for safety, i either slow to a
standstill or put a foot down at the edge of the road.
Back to "wrong way" bicyclists, I pass on the left or right depending
on the situation. Santa Cruz CA has pedestrian/bicycle paths and many
bike lanes, without center stripes and one way streets with two way
pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
> I've got to ride in lanes that are about eight feet wide in some
> places. There's no way I'm going to try to share those lanes with a
> motorist. It's physically impossible. Even ten foot lanes are
> rarely, if ever, safely shareable.
You seem to ignore that one can let intermittent faster traffic pass
as the "turnouts" on our local mountain highways make possible. A
bicycle can do the same even where there isn't a full passing turnout.
In some events, I pull over and stop if cars back up behind.
> So what do you do, Jobst - take to the sidewalk, or stand meekly on
> the curb until all traffic is past? Or do you trust the highly
> skilled motorists to barely brush your left elbow with their right
> mirror as you ride in the gutter glass?
How do you "stand meekly" with a courtesy of letting faster traffic
pass? I think you are letting your machismo show.
> It may be that if you rode further from the gutter, you wouldn't
> have so many "cars that slice bicyclists to show them they shouldn't
> ride on pubic highways." Gutter bunnies complain about close passes
> a lot more than lane-takers do.
I can assure you that the opposite is true. When I have ridden with
"take the laners" we have been honked at, sliced, and yelled at by
irate car drivers. In contrast, I ride on local highways that have at
best less than a foot of pavement beyond the lane edge strip and I get
no hostile responses as long as I ride as close to the edge as is
reasonably practical.
We've had this discussion, not long ago, about riding in a way that
doesn't insult the intelligence of people in cars as "take the lane"
clearly does. If a car cannot pass safely, they wait until there is a
passing opportunity, they don't want blood, but they also don't know
how inept the bicyclist is and that's where much of the trouble
arises.
Jobst Brandt
Michael Press
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> >>>> Wrong way cyclists are a menace.
>
> >>> Not according to the Tomlinson study, at least not for car-bike
> >>> crashes. I've never seen data on bike-bike crashes.
>
> >>>> One day some mutton head is going to get in my way. Another
> >>>> floppy-shod, fright-wigged, baggy-pantalooned, red-nosed
> >>>> multi-cellular organism is wont to ride the sidewalk straight
> >>>> into the pedestrian walk just as I am negotiating my 20 mph right
> >>>> turn through the corner.
>
> >>> You're probably more likely to have that happen with a pedestrian,
> >>> they're usually much more common. I wouldn't take a corner at 25
> >>> if I didn't have the sight lines for it, but that's just me.
>
> >> I take a line heading straight at wrong way vehicles and have never
> >> crashed into a wrong way cyclist or car. They panic and swerve.
>
> > That is what I do.
>
> That sounds like the cars that slice bicyclists to show them they
> shouldn't ride on pubic highways.
To you. I engage wrong way cyclists in dialogue.
> It has parallels in "take the lane"
> actions that reek of self righteous confrontation.
No it is not parallel; since I do not preach "take the lane."
> Can't we just get
> along as Rodney said.
Since we are quoting scripture,
Matthew 5:10.
--
Michael Press
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > There are major differences in that wrong-way cycling is universally
> > illegal, as well as flagrantly stupid, and it puts correctly riding
> > cyclists like myself at risk. I deal with such people the way I
> > deal with loose dogs: I take control. They get to deal with the
> > trouble they cause.
>
> There is no trouble. This is not like two express trains approaching
> on the same track. As you may have noticed, there were no reports of
> crashes in this thread, only of righteous indignation.
Any dangerous situation produces far more avoidance maneuvers and near
misses than actual incidents. That doesn't mean the situations are
not dangerous. And IIRC, about two years ago there was a bike-bike
fatality in California caused by a head-on crash. Surely you can
visualize this possibility.
As for "no trouble" - is it no trouble if the wrong way cyclist is
riding in the dark, with no headlights or reflectors? Is it "no
trouble" if a lane is wide enough for one bicyclist to share with
motor vehicles, but not wide enough for two opposing bikes and a motor
vehicle? If you see no trouble there, you're not looking.
> > I don't believe you've ever explained what you do when riding in a
> > lane that's too narrow to safely share.
>
> I see you believe that passing cars will run over you.
On the contrary, what they may do is pass too closely for safety, and
thus sideswipe me or force me off the road. I've known people that
have experienced that. I've known people who were repeatedly brushed
by close passes until they summoned the courage to take the lane, at
which point their problems stopped. And when I was new to the
concept, the same thing happened to me.
I know they will not run over me, which is why I take the lane to
discourage unsafe passing.
So what _do_ you do? I'm talking about the common situation where the
lane is perhaps ten feet wide, the truck behind is about seven feet
wide and the cyclist wisely wants more than a few inches clearance
from the passing vehicle.
> That is not
> what occurs. Cars back up behind an unyielding bicyclist and they all
> find the bicyclist a rude impediment. That is why, even where there
> is safe passage, because the car that doesn't pass is possibly an
> alarmist rather than having a concern for safety, i either slow to a
> standstill or put a foot down at the edge of the road.
When I am in the _very_ rare situation that several cars back up
behind me, I am willing to turn off to let them pass. But again, that
is _very_ rare in my riding. It is much more common for me to ride on
a four-lane where each lane is too narrow to safely share. I don't
share, and the only typical inconvenience to a motorist is that he
must change lanes to pass. The worst inconvenience is that he may be
delayed by perhaps fifteen seconds. My right to safely use the road
trumps his desire to get to the next traffic light fifteen seconds
sooner.
> You seem to ignore that one can let intermittent faster traffic pass
> as the "turnouts" on our local mountain highways make possible. A
> bicycle can do the same even where there isn't a full passing turnout.
> In some events, I pull over and stop if cars back up behind.
As do I - rarely. Cars (plural) almost never back up behind me. When
they do, it's even less frequent that they do so for more than fifteen
seconds. They can deal with that just as they deal with Amish buggies
about 30 miles north or east of me - where I've seen and experienced
backups of ten vehicles that lasted for, oh, a couple minutes. Like
cyclists, the Amish have a LEGAL right to the road.
> > It may be that if you rode further from the gutter, you wouldn't
> > have so many "cars that slice bicyclists to show them they shouldn't
> > ride on pubic highways." Gutter bunnies complain about close passes
> > a lot more than lane-takers do.
>
> I can assure you that the opposite is true. When I have ridden with
> "take the laners" we have been honked at, sliced, and yelled at by
> irate car drivers. In contrast, I ride on local highways that have at
> best less than a foot of pavement beyond the lane edge strip and I get
> no hostile responses as long as I ride as close to the edge as is
> reasonably practical.
All I can say is that our experiences differ markedly. The most
expert cyclists I've met also disagree with you. I'm talking about
people who have devoted major portions of their life to studying,
testing, learning and teaching about these sorts of issues.
> We've had this discussion, not long ago, about riding in a way that
> doesn't insult the intelligence of people in cars as "take the lane"
> clearly does. If a car cannot pass safely, they wait until there is a
> passing opportunity...
How many counterexamples would you like?
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
> On Sep 3, 9:52 am, Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote [in response to:]
>>>> I take a line heading straight at wrong way vehicles and have never
>>>> crashed into a wrong way cyclist or car. They panic and swerve.
>>> That is what I do.
>
> Me too.
>
>> That sounds like the cars that slice bicyclists to show them they
>> shouldn't ride on pubic highways.
>
> There are major differences in that wrong-way cycling is universally
> illegal, as well as flagrantly stupid, and it puts correctly riding
> cyclists like myself at risk. I deal with such people the way I deal
> with loose dogs: I take control. They get to deal with the trouble
> they cause.
It's my impression (I could be wrong) that wrong way cyclists are just
ignorant of the law and safety issues. I don't think riding straight at
them educates in any way.
Jobst Brandt
>>>>> I take a line heading straight at wrong way vehicles and have
>>>>> never crashed into a wrong way cyclist or car. They panic and
>>>>> swerve.
>>>> That is what I do.
>> Me too.
>>> That sounds like the cars that slice bicyclists to show them they
>>> shouldn't ride on pubic highways.
>> There are major differences in that wrong-way cycling is
>> universally illegal, as well as flagrantly stupid, and it puts
>> correctly riding cyclists like myself at risk. I deal with such
>> people the way I deal with loose dogs: I take control. They get to
>> deal with the trouble they cause.
> It's my impression (I could be wrong) that wrong way cyclists are
> just ignorant of the law and safety issues. I don't think riding
> straight at them educates in any way.
Somehow pedestrians manage to walk on downtown sidewalks passing each
other on left or right and never causing a confrontation with oncoming
walkers. The same goes for bicycles and pedestrians, as I mentioned
about Santa Cruz where the two are mixed in two way traffic. It isn't
hard to visualize doing the same for bicyclists who aren't racing at
maximum speed, something that isn't reasonable in city traffic anyway.
If bicycles were equipped with auto horns, a one second honk would
have the same effect on the oncoming rider as it does(n't) when irate
car divers do it. Traditionally the one-second-honk is not carrying
a warning message but rather one that says, "Hey look, that guy is
violating my space, and I'm pissed off!" a clear self righteous move.
Jobst Brandt
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
>
> > There are major differences in that wrong-way cycling is universally
> > illegal, as well as flagrantly stupid, and it puts correctly riding
> > cyclists like myself at risk. I deal with such people the way I deal
> > with loose dogs: I take control. They get to deal with the trouble
> > they cause.
>
> It's my impression (I could be wrong) that wrong way cyclists are just
> ignorant of the law and safety issues. I don't think riding straight at
> them educates in any way.
I think it does demonstrate to them that there's a problem with their
behavior. I also tell them that they're riding on the wrong side, and
that it's illegal and dangerous.
Granted, there are some cyclists who ignore me, and a couple have
gotten mad. OTOH, I've had many that have changed to the proper side
of the road, and one woman who said "I know, I'm sorry, I'll cross
over now."
Sometimes people do benefit from feedback.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> Somehow pedestrians manage to walk on downtown sidewalks passing each
> other on left or right and never causing a confrontation with oncoming
> walkers.
Pedestrians have a typical speed of 2 mph to 3 mph, a stopping
distance of roughly one foot and the ability to immediately jump
sideways. Cyclists have typical speeds of 8 mph to 20 mph, much
longer stopping distances and more stability problems. The two
classes are not very similar. This is why every state treats cyclists
as vehicle operators, not pedestrians. (And why, in many places, it's
illegal to ride a bike on a sidewalk.)
> The same goes for bicycles and pedestrians, as I mentioned
> about Santa Cruz where the two are mixed in two way traffic.
The AASHTO manual for the design of bicycle facilities disagrees. For
example, it containst the statement that pedestrians and bicycles "mix
poorly."
> It isn't hard to visualize doing the same for bicyclists who aren't racing at
> maximum speed, something that isn't reasonable in city traffic anyway.
I've never raced at maximum speed in city traffic. However, I've
often ridden at 20 mph, a perfectly reasonable speed. I don't need
problems from someone closing head on at a relative speed of 40 mph.
It's no more desirable for me than it would be for the operator of a
motor scooter or motorcycle - and I trust you're not arguing in favor
of wrong-way operation of those two-wheelers?
There is no more fundamental rule of the road than the separation of
opposite direction vehicle traffic. It's senseless to argue against
this rule.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> On Sep 4, 10:37 am, Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Somehow pedestrians manage to walk on downtown sidewalks passing each
> > other on left or right and never causing a confrontation with oncoming
> > walkers.
>
> Pedestrians have a typical speed of 2 mph to 3 mph, a stopping
> distance of roughly one foot and the ability to immediately jump
> sideways. Cyclists have typical speeds of 8 mph to 20 mph, much
> longer stopping distances and more stability problems. The two
> classes are not very similar. This is why every state treats cyclists
> as vehicle operators, not pedestrians. (And why, in many places, it's
> illegal to ride a bike on a sidewalk.)
Here it's not only legal to ride on the sidewalk (except where
specifically prohibited by e.g. local municipal ordinance - usually in
downtown shopping areas where the business people just don't want
hoodlums mixing with their "customers"), and also crosswalks, and
bicycle riders there are regarded essentially as pedestrians. There
is no speed limit on sidewalks, but bicyclists must audibly warn and
yield to pedestrians, and must travel no faster than a normal walking
speed onto and across driveways and crosswalks.
>
> > The same goes for bicycles and pedestrians, as I mentioned
> > about Santa Cruz where the two are mixed in two way traffic.
>
> The AASHTO manual for the design of bicycle facilities disagrees. For
> example, it containst the statement that pedestrians and bicycles "mix
> poorly."
>
> > It isn't hard to visualize doing the same for bicyclists who aren't racing at
> > maximum speed, something that isn't reasonable in city traffic anyway.
>
> I've never raced at maximum speed in city traffic. However, I've
> often ridden at 20 mph, a perfectly reasonable speed. I don't need
> problems from someone closing head on at a relative speed of 40 mph.
Amazing that you have time not only to tell them what they're doing
wrong, but to lecture them further on it's illegality and danger, and
they still have time to reply, "Sorry - I'll cross over now." (I
usually just barely have time for a "f***in' eh!" :-)
> It's no more desirable for me than it would be for the operator of a
> motor scooter or motorcycle - and I trust you're not arguing in favor
> of wrong-way operation of those two-wheelers?
We're talking about the sidewalk.
>
> There is no more fundamental rule of the road than the separation of
> opposite direction vehicle traffic. It's senseless to argue against
> this rule.
>
I can't believe you persist in arguing for one-way sidewalks. Needing
to go in the opposite direction of immediately accessible travel lanes
is by far my most common reason for ever taking to the sidewalk at
all.
AMuzi
The big red sign "Wrong Way Do Not Enter" didn't help much
either.
Jobst Brandt
>>>>>> I take a line heading straight at wrong way vehicles and have
>>>>>> never crashed into a wrong way cyclist or car. They panic and
>>>>>> swerve.
>>>>> That is what I do.
>>> Me too.
>>>> That sounds like the cars that slice bicyclists to show them they
>>>> shouldn't ride on pubic highways.
>>> There are major differences in that wrong-way cycling is
>>> universally illegal, as well as flagrantly stupid, and it puts
>>> correctly riding cyclists like myself at risk. I deal with such
>>> people the way I deal with loose dogs: I take control. They get
>>> to deal with the trouble they cause.
>> It's my impression (I could be wrong) that wrong way cyclists are
>> just ignorant of the law and safety issues. I don't think riding
>> straight at them educates in any way.
> The big red sign "Wrong Way Do Not Enter" didn't help much either.
We have similar signs on many residential streets that have steel
posts and oil pan smashers to prevent commuters driving their cars
there, while they are open to bicycles with sidewalks for non
motorized traffic. I have not see such signs with facing traffic on
two way streets where traffic density makes crossing to the to other
side difficult, especially for short runs on the same side of the
street.
Jobst Brandt
jay
> On Aug 31, 8:13 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 12:03 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-...
>
> > > Old study, but one I hadn't seen. The author of the referenced paper
> > > (David Tomlinson) analyzed 2 years of crashes in Toronto and concluded
> > > motorists were at fault 90% of the time. My apologies if this is old news.
>
> > The discussion I'm reading among other knowledgeable cyclists
> > indicates a lot of skepticism of that report. IIRC, pretty much every
> > other study puts the split at much closer to 50/50 in terms of cyclist/
> > motorist culpability.
>
> > possible. I think a motorist should drive as carefully as, say, a
> > forklift operator who's in a "big box" hardware store, passing
> > customers. But I can't pretend that cyclists are that blameless. For
> > example, while the data's not solid, there have been indications that
> > roughly a quarter of fatally injured cyclists had been drinking.
> > Another large percentage are nighttime fatalities with no bike
> > lights. IIRC, both those were using data from the southern U.S..
> > Maybe Toronto is different... but I'm still skeptical.
>
> > And on my bike commute today, I saw two wrong-way riders, two sidewalk
> > riders (it's illegal in the city), and three cyclists in the dark with
> > no lights. One wrong-way sidewalk guy did a near-vertical wheelie
> > through a crosswalk. Yesterday, my wife and I saw six wrong way
> > cyclists. In fact, I think I was the only cyclist I saw these last
> > two days who was actually riding legally the whole time!
>
> > (OK, I admit, I rolled through two stop signs at about five miles per
> > hour. But so did the cars passing through ahead of me.)
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Sounds like the moral of your story is that the deliberate garden
> variety lawbreaking of sober adult bicyclists is overblown as a safety
> concern. Maybe it's time to spread the Idaho Stop around the nation.
What's the "Idaho Stop"? The opposite of the "California Stop"?
Jobst Brandt
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-...
>>>> Old study, but one I hadn't seen. The author of the referenced
>>>> paper (David Tomlinson) analyzed 2 years of crashes in Toronto
>>>> and concluded motorists were at fault 90% of the time. My
>>>> apologies if this is old news.
>>> The discussion I'm reading among other knowledgeable cyclists
>>> indicates a lot of skepticism of that report. IIRC, pretty much
>>> every other study puts the split at much closer to 50/50 in terms
>>> of cyclist/ motorist culpability.
>>> FWIW, I'd prefer that society put the blame on motorists whenever
>>> possible. I think a motorist should drive as carefully as, say, a
>>> forklift operator who's in a "big box" hardware store, passing
>>> customers. But I can't pretend that cyclists are that
>>> blameless. For example, while the data's not solid, there have
>>> been indications that roughly a quarter of fatally injured
>>> cyclists had been drinking. Another large percentage are
>>> nighttime fatalities with no bike lights. IIRC, both those were
>>> using data from the southern U.S... Maybe Toronto is
>>> different... but I'm still skeptical.
>>> And on my bike commute today, I saw two wrong-way riders, two
>>> sidewalk riders (it's illegal in the city), and three cyclists in
>>> the dark with no lights. One wrong-way sidewalk guy did a
>>> near-vertical wheelie through a crosswalk. Yesterday, my wife and
>>> I saw six wrong way cyclists. In fact, I think I was the only
>>> cyclist I saw these last two days who was actually riding legally
>>> the whole time!
>>> (OK, I admit, I rolled through two stop signs at about five miles
>>> per hour. But so did the cars passing through ahead of me.)
>> Sounds like the moral of your story is that the deliberate garden
>> variety lawbreaking of sober adult bicyclists is overblown as a
>> safety concern. Maybe it's time to spread the Idaho Stop around
>> the nation.
> What's the "Idaho Stop"? The opposite of the "California Stop"?
I don't know either whether it is an ordnance or not, but the gist is
that red lights and stop signs are yield signs for bicyclists,
something that is practiced by most big city bicycle messengers who
also ride on any part of public rights of way that meet their need.
That includes riding, gasp! "wrong way" on side walks, and opposite to
traffic on one way streets.
Been doing it for many years in SF, SJ and other SF Peninsula cities
as well as in European cities. I have not heard of any harm arising
from this practice or from my riding in that style. I suspect those
who are most annoyed at this practice are themselves afraid of what
might occur if they rode that way and don't want to see anyone else
get away with it.
It sounds much like people are afraid of riding without a helmet, who
proselytize with bloody horror stories and publicly chastise riders
without helmets. They yell across downtown streets "where's your
helmet" as though calling to the public to stone the violator of the
helmet faith. It's the self righteous, one second, car horn syndrome:
"Look he's violating the law!"
Jobst Brandt
Jobst Brandt
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-...
>>>> Old study, but one I hadn't seen. The author of the referenced
>>>> paper (David Tomlinson) analyzed 2 years of crashes in Toronto
>>>> and concluded motorists were at fault 90% of the time. My
>>>> apologies if this is old news.
>>> The discussion I'm reading among other knowledgeable cyclists
>>> indicates a lot of skepticism of that report. IIRC, pretty much
>>> every other study puts the split at much closer to 50/50 in terms
>>> of cyclist/ motorist culpability.
>>> FWIW, I'd prefer that society put the blame on motorists whenever
>>> possible. I think a motorist should drive as carefully as, say, a
>>> forklift operator who's in a "big box" hardware store, passing
>>> customers. But I can't pretend that cyclists are that
>>> blameless. For example, while the data's not solid, there have
>>> been indications that roughly a quarter of fatally injured
>>> cyclists had been drinking. Another large percentage are
>>> nighttime fatalities with no bike lights. IIRC, both those were
>>> using data from the southern U.S... Maybe Toronto is
>>> different... but I'm still skeptical.
>>> And on my bike commute today, I saw two wrong-way riders, two
>>> sidewalk riders (it's illegal in the city), and three cyclists in
>>> the dark with no lights. One wrong-way sidewalk guy did a
>>> near-vertical wheelie through a crosswalk. Yesterday, my wife and
>>> I saw six wrong way cyclists. In fact, I think I was the only
>>> cyclist I saw these last two days who was actually riding legally
>>> the whole time!
>>> (OK, I admit, I rolled through two stop signs at about five miles
>>> per hour. But so did the cars passing through ahead of me.)
>> Sounds like the moral of your story is that the deliberate garden
>> variety lawbreaking of sober adult bicyclists is overblown as a
>> safety concern. Maybe it's time to spread the Idaho Stop around
>> the nation.
> What's the "Idaho Stop"? The opposite of the "California Stop"?
I don't know either whether it is an ordnance or not, but the gist is
that red lights and stop signs are yield signs for bicyclists,
something that is practiced by most big city bicycle messengers who
also ride on any part of public rights of way that meet their need.
That includes riding, gasp! "wrong way" on side walks, and opposite to
traffic on one way streets.
Been doing it for many years in SF, SJ and other SF Peninsula cities
as well as in European cities. I have not heard of any harm arising
from this practice or from my riding in that style. I suspect those
who are most annoyed at this practice are themselves afraid of what
might occur if they rode that way and don't want to see anyone else
get away with it.
It sounds much like people afraid of riding without a helmet, who
Nate Nagel
I've had several near-incidents where cyclists riding the wrong way on
the sidewalk have nearly run into the side of my car (or my bike, even
worse!) as they attempt to occupy the same space that I need to to be
able to see if it's safe to proceed.
Part of the problem, of course, is that this is unusual enough behavior
that I'm not conditioned to expect it and therefore am looking more to
my left than my right for possible conflicts. However, I don't know
that this is all *my* fault, at least from a US-centric perspective, as
it is not unreasonable to assume that all immediate conflicts will be
coming from one's left.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Peter Cole
> I've had several near-incidents where cyclists riding the wrong way on
> the sidewalk have nearly run into the side of my car (or my bike, even
> worse!) as they attempt to occupy the same space that I need to to be
> able to see if it's safe to proceed.
>
> Part of the problem, of course, is that this is unusual enough behavior
> that I'm not conditioned to expect it and therefore am looking more to
> my left than my right for possible conflicts. However, I don't know
> that this is all *my* fault, at least from a US-centric perspective, as
> it is not unreasonable to assume that all immediate conflicts will be
> coming from one's left.
>
> nate
>
I nearly hit a sidewalk jogger in these circumstances (driving). I
considered it entirely my fault, apologized profusely, and swore to
myself I'd be much more careful in the future.
Clive George
news:QQiom.1227$tl3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> I've had several near-incidents where cyclists riding the wrong way on
>> the sidewalk have nearly run into the side of my car (or my bike, even
>> worse!) as they attempt to occupy the same space that I need to to be
>> able to see if it's safe to proceed.
>>
>> Part of the problem, of course, is that this is unusual enough behavior
>> that I'm not conditioned to expect it and therefore am looking more to my
>> left than my right for possible conflicts. However, I don't know that
>> this is all *my* fault, at least from a US-centric perspective, as it is
>> not unreasonable to assume that all immediate conflicts will be coming
>> from one's left.
>
> considered it entirely my fault, apologized profusely, and swore to myself
> I'd be much more careful in the future.
Over here the rules are that pedestrians on the pavement (sidewalk to you)
in those circumstances have right of way over vehicles turning in or out of
the side road.
Jobst Brandt
.. and over here pedestrians always have the right of way when in a
pedestrian zone or cross walk unless progressing against a red light.
However, we were talking about "wrong way" bicyclists and how illegal
and dangerous it is in the presence of righteous, law abiding citizens
who challenge them with head-on collisions.
Let's not overlook the willful cause of such a collision.
Jobst Brandt
Nate Nagel
But a wrong-way cyclist is not a pedestrian, legally or in fact.
(because the cyclist is much faster moving than a pedestrian, and
therefore more difficult for another road user to spot, especially if
there are hedges or buildings close to the sidewalk.)
I'd also argue that a cyclist that is riding on the sidewalk that does
not come to a stop or a near stop at a road crossing, no matter how the
road is signalized (or not) is not exercising due care. (of course, I'd
also argue that any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at all, barring unusual
circumstances, is just plain wrong to being with.)
Dan O
> >news:QQiom.1227$tl3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>> I've had several near-incidents where cyclists riding the wrong way on
> >>> the sidewalk have nearly run into the side of my car (or my bike, even
> >>> worse!) as they attempt to occupy the same space that I need to to be
> >>> able to see if it's safe to proceed.
>
> >>> Part of the problem, of course, is that this is unusual enough behavior
> >>> that I'm not conditioned to expect it and therefore am looking more to my
> >>> left than my right for possible conflicts. However, I don't know that
> >>> this is all *my* fault, at least from a US-centric perspective, as it is
> >>> not unreasonable to assume that all immediate conflicts will be coming
> >>> from one's left.
> >> I nearly hit a sidewalk jogger in these circumstances (driving). I
> >> considered it entirely my fault, apologized profusely, and swore to myself
> >> I'd be much more careful in the future.
>
> > Over here the rules are that pedestrians on the pavement (sidewalk to you)
> > in those circumstances have right of way over vehicles turning in or out of
> > the side road.
>
> But a wrong-way cyclist is not a pedestrian, legally or in fact.
Yes, in fact and legally a bicyclist is essentially the same as a
pedestrian on the sidewalk or crosswalk (in my state, anyway). (And
what's with this ridiculous assertion of a "wrong-way" on the sidewalk
or crosswalk?)
> (because the cyclist is much faster moving than a pedestrian, and
> therefore more difficult for another road user to spot, especially if
> there are hedges or buildings close to the sidewalk.)
It is against the law here for bicyclists to enter or cross a driveway
or crosswalk faster than a normal walking speed. Only an idiot blasts
into the potential path of cars without knowing it's clear anyway.
>
> I'd also argue that a cyclist that is riding on the sidewalk that does
> not come to a stop or a near stop at a road crossing, no matter how the
> road is signalized (or not) is not exercising due care.
Duh! They should at least slow enough to be sure that it's safe to
proceed.
> (of course, I'd
> also argue that any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at all, barring unusual
> circumstances, is just plain wrong to being with.)
Fuck you!
Dan O
Uh, I believe that's the *crosswalk* you're talking about, which is
absolutely among the most sacred spaces wherein pedestrians
essentially *always* have the right-of-way.
>
> Part of the problem, of course, is that this is unusual enough behavior
> that I'm not conditioned to expect it and therefore am looking more to
> my left than my right for possible conflicts. However, I don't know
> that this is all *my* fault, at least from a US-centric perspective, as
> it is not unreasonable to assume that all immediate conflicts will be
> coming from one's left.
>
Yes, it is.
Frank Krygowski
> On Sep 4, 8:05 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pedestrians have a typical speed of 2 mph to 3 mph, a stopping
> > distance of roughly one foot and the ability to immediately jump
> > sideways. Cyclists have typical speeds of 8 mph to 20 mph, much
> > longer stopping distances and more stability problems. The two
> > classes are not very similar. This is why every state treats cyclists
> > as vehicle operators, not pedestrians. (And why, in many places, it's
> > illegal to ride a bike on a sidewalk.)
>
> Here it's not only legal to ride on the sidewalk (except where
> specifically prohibited by e.g. local municipal ordinance - usually in
> downtown shopping areas where the business people just don't want
> hoodlums mixing with their "customers"), and also crosswalks, and
> bicycle riders there are regarded essentially as pedestrians. There
> is no speed limit on sidewalks, but bicyclists must audibly warn and
> yield to pedestrians, and must travel no faster than a normal walking
> speed onto and across driveways and crosswalks.
I don't know where your "here" is - perhaps you're referring to your
state. I don't know of any states with blanket provisions against
sidewalk cycling, but I know there are many cities that forbid it.
And it's not hard to justify. I think it was Ottowa where a quite
elegant study found that sidewalk cycling had a crash rate over 13
times as great as riding on adjacent roads.
> Amazing that you have time not only to tell them what they're doing
> wrong, but to lecture them further on it's illegality and danger, and
> they still have time to reply, "Sorry - I'll cross over now." (I
> usually just barely have time for a "f***in' eh!" :-)
Unfortunately, I developed a way of doing it because I've seen so
blasted many wrong-way cyclists. But it's not a lecture. I usually
just say something like "Riding against traffic is illegal and
dangerous." That's three seconds worth of talk. When they're not
coming at me head on, but are riding in my direction on the opposite
side of the street, I might amplify it to, oh, five or six seconds.
> > It's no more desirable for me than it would be for the operator of a
> > motor scooter or motorcycle - and I trust you're not arguing in favor
> > of wrong-way operation of those two-wheelers?
>
> We're talking about the sidewalk.
Wherever. We've been talking about both roads and sidewalks. Check
upthread.
> > There is no more fundamental rule of the road than the separation of
> > opposite direction vehicle traffic. It's senseless to argue against
> > this rule.
>
> I can't believe you persist in arguing for one-way sidewalks. Needing
> to go in the opposite direction of immediately accessible travel lanes
> is by far my most common reason for ever taking to the sidewalk at
> all.
Here's what I'm arguing for: Bikes on roads, and always in the proper
direction, except for _very_ unusual circumstances. When (if ever) on
sidewalks, bikes speed should reasonably match pedestrian speeds; and
sidewalk cyclists should plan on yielding to _everyone_ - not only
peds, but to any driver that may pop out of or into a driveway or side
street.
Most people who ride wrong-way on streets, and who ride sidewalks at
all, do so because they think legal street riding is more dangerous.
They're very, very wrong. They are putting themselves in danger, and
when they're on the roads, they're putting correctly riding cyclists
in danger.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Nate Nagel]:
>
> (And
> what's with this ridiculous assertion of a "wrong-way" on the sidewalk
> or crosswalk?)
This was covered above, but here it is again: At least one study
found that riding a bike on a sidewalk against the direction of
adjacent traffic was far more dangerous than riding on a sidewalk in
the same direction as adjacent traffic. But both were worse than
riding on the road. I think I can dig out the citation if you need
it.
> > (of course, I'd
> > also argue that any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at all, barring unusual
> > circumstances, is just plain wrong to being with.)
>
> Fuck you!
Wow. This from a guy who complains about imagined offenses in others'
posts?
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Yesterday morning around 7:00 I was riding past the fairgrounds. The
fair is going on this week, but not this early in the morning. They
have this temporary 4-way stop set up for the fair traffic (stop signs
on old car rims that they can just roll out onto the street). I can
not only see that there is no* traffic, pedestians, etc. approaching
from any direction, but I can hear that there are no cars coming from
anywhere around there. *No traffic, that is, except for the city
Police car coming toward me in the opposite direction. He stops at
the 4-way, and I slow as I approach, stand up on the pedals, look and
listen in all directions. He pulls forward straight through the
intersection. Seeing him go straight through and our paths not in any
conflict, I roll on into the intersection and begin to speed back up.
Sgt Stedenko immediately whips a U-turn, hits the rollers, and toots
his horn at me. When I come to a stop (for the first time in over an
hour and a half of riding so far that morning), he walks up and starts
giving me the business about obeying the law and how you have to ride
your bike around as if life was some big championship game of
Parcheesi. I thanked him for taking the opportunity to educate me,
but I can still think of no reason whatsoever to stop in that
situation except maybe to impress Sgt Stedenko with my profound
respect for law and order. The whole time we're there straightening
me out for the good of society, we did not see or hear a single car
come anywhere near the intersection.
Dan O
My maneuver, BTW - treating a stop sign as a "Yield" - is an "Idaho
Stop", and is generally legal in the state of Idaho.
AMuzi
I ride daily in a four foot striped lane at the left edge of
a busy one way street. It would not be so disconcerting in a
suburban lane.
Dan O
> On Sep 4, 10:35 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote [in response to
> Nate Nagel]:
>
>
>
> > (And
> > what's with this ridiculous assertion of a "wrong-way" on the sidewalk
> > or crosswalk?)
>
> This was covered above, but here it is again: At least one study
> found that riding a bike on a sidewalk against the direction of
> adjacent traffic was far more dangerous than riding on a sidewalk in
> the same direction as adjacent traffic. But both were worse than
> riding on the road.
Not if you need to go against traffic and/or just want sanctuary.
(You just have to be careful -especially at driveways and stuff.)
> I think I can dig out the citation if you need
> it.
I'm not interested. All of the supposed hazards must obviously be at
driveways and crosswalks - the places where cars go. Just watch out
for these and sidewalks can be quite safe.
>
> > > (of course, I'd
> > > also argue that any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at all, barring unusual
> > > circumstances, is just plain wrong to being with.)
>
> > Fuck you!
>
> Wow.
Yeah, that was brusque, and I'm sorry, but not to anyone in
particular.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/e00fa428decedca2
(No, I'm not stalking anybody :-)
> This from a guy who complains about imagined offenses in others'
> posts?
>
At least I'm up front with my bullshit :-)
Tom Sherman °_°
People should not inflict their spoiled brats upon public spaces.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If your kid is raising a ruckus in a public place, and someone says
something nasty to you about it, YOU DESERVE IT. KEEP YOUR GODDAMNED
BRATS UNDER CONTROL. - Nate Nagel
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
>> But a wrong-way cyclist is not a pedestrian, legally or in fact.
>
>Yes, in fact and legally a bicyclist is essentially the same as a
>pedestrian on the sidewalk or crosswalk (in my state, anyway).
What state is that?
Michael Press
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@sonic.net> wrote:
People I see riding the wrong way and call out to
are either sheepish or very defensive. What I get
away with is so much more fun than riding the
wrong way on a bicycle that it would beggar your imagination.
> It sounds much like people are afraid of riding without a helmet, who
> proselytize with bloody horror stories and publicly chastise riders
> without helmets. They yell across downtown streets "where's your
> helmet" as though calling to the public to stone the violator of the
> helmet faith. It's the self righteous, one second, car horn syndrome:
> "Look he's violating the law!"
I do not want to dodge a bicyclist riding
straight at me. One more road hazard to have to
devote attention to, it approaches me at much
higher speed than a road litter, and it is all so
unnecessary. It violates the "ride predictably" guideline.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<39a23e30-61e0-46cb...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not brusque: it is dismissive and
offensive. Adding your lack of remorse means that
your argument ought not be addressed at all until
you show that you understand the points of view
that do not accord with yours.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
I was walking down Grant Street in SF. A child with mom was whining.
An older gent passing looked down, shook his head, and said something.
The child stopped. I adopted his approach. Sometimes I will get
the child's eye and say "No whining." Shocking how well it works.
Whining and fussing is a rotten foundation for behavior;
so do a child a favor today.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<cac18df3-8ab8-4510...@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
You come to a full stop because he is a man doing a job,
and you respect him for it.
--
Michael Press
Ben C
[...]
> I was walking down Grant Street in SF. A child with mom was whining.
> An older gent passing looked down, shook his head, and said something.
> The child stopped. I adopted his approach. Sometimes I will get
> the child's eye and say "No whining." Shocking how well it works.
The child will typically resume his whining within a few seconds. He's
just been momentarily nonplussed by having a strange old man give him a
dirty look. That's all it is.
Michael Press
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2009-09-05, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > I was walking down Grant Street in SF. A child with mom was whining.
> > An older gent passing looked down, shook his head, and said something.
> > The child stopped. I adopted his approach. Sometimes I will get
> > the child's eye and say "No whining." Shocking how well it works.
>
> The child will typically resume his whining within a few seconds. He's
> just been momentarily nonplussed by having a strange old man give him a
> dirty look. That's all it is.
How do you know a dirty look is involved?
>
> > Whining and fussing is a rotten foundation for behavior;
> > so do a child a favor today.
--
Michael Press
Nate Nagel
Hah. I like that. There was just a thread on another newsgroup I read
re: children screaming and carrying on in public. I was surprised how
many people considered it "normal," but then again, it does seem that it
is hard to be in a public place without encountering one.
Tom Sherman °_°
children disturb others.
Jobst Brandt
> I was walking down Grant Street in SF. A child with mom was
> whining. An older gent passing looked down, shook his head, and
> said something. The child stopped. I adopted his approach.
> Sometimes I will get the child's eye and say "No whining." Shocking
> how well it works. Whining and fussing is a rotten foundation for
> behavior; so do a child a favor today.
From my experience that is not such a benign and generous gesture,
because it imputes the mother's child rearing abilities, so much so
that strangers must step in to take up the slack, especially if it
works. That whiny children are often a product of parental
accommodation of such behavior is also suspected even by parents who
are doing so.
It's analogous to aiming head-on at wrong way bicyclists. The massage
of "I know the law and I'll try to punish you for not toeing the
line." I don't see it as an elegant way of making a point. Besides,
we don't know whether the child was suffering from some malady.
Jobst Brandt
Dan O
> In article
> <39a23e30-61e0-46cb-9812-95c9311ef...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Don't think that I don't understand why some people don't want
bicycles on the sidewalk. Don't think that I don't understand why
some people don't want bicycles on the road. Don't think that I don't
understand why some people don't want to cope with a complaining
child. Don't think that I don't understand why some people want me to
follow traffic laws like a game of Parcheesi.
Nate Nagel
Because whenever people expect other people to act in a certain way, and
they don't, "accidents" happen. In quotations because when someone is
riding at 10-15 MPH on a sidewalk and flies through an intersection
while a car is easing into the crosswalk trying to see traffic coming
from his left, and the POB slams into the side of a car, that's not
really an "accident."
Dan O
And by that reasoning, "... any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at all...
is just plain wrong.. " (?)
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...] Don't think that I don't
> understand why some people don't want to cope with a complaining
They won't let me use duct tape!
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us
that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of
us do not. - Jay Griffiths
Tom Sherman °_°
Yes.
Nate Nagel
I didn't say that. But generally when I see riders on the sidewalk,
they're committing many more offenses than just being on the sidewalk, e.g.
- no lights or reflectors after dark
- going the wrong way as often as not
- not stopping or slowing for intersections, esp. when crossing
residential streets
Plus, I just don't see the point, unless we're talking about somewhere
like Loudoun County (for those not familiar, Loudoun County is basically
farmland that has recently been turned into a suburb of DC despite being
something like 40 miles away at its closest point; therefore all
development has been very car-centric, seeing as Metro has yet to reach
beyond Vienna) where you have high-ish speed roads with no shoulders and
no lower-speed alternative parallel roads. However, if you live
somewhere like that, you're probably not reading this esteemed newsgroup
anyway, *or* riding a bicycle.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Plus, I just don't see the point, unless we're talking about somewhere
> like Loudoun County (for those not familiar, Loudoun County is basically
> farmland that has recently been turned into a suburb of DC despite being
> something like 40 miles away at its closest point; therefore all
> development has been very car-centric, seeing as Metro has yet to reach
> beyond Vienna) where you have high-ish speed roads with no shoulders and
> no lower-speed alternative parallel roads. However, if you live
> somewhere like that, you're probably not reading this esteemed newsgroup
> anyway, *or* riding a bicycle.
>
Dan O
You said:
> >>>>>>>> (of course, I'd
> >>>>>>>> also argue that any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at all, barring unusual
> >>>>>>>> circumstances, is just plain wrong to being with.)
> But generally when I see riders on the sidewalk,
> they're committing many more offenses than just being on the sidewalk, ...
And for that reason:
> >>>>>>>> (of course, I'd
> >>>>>>>> also argue that any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at all, barring unusual
> >>>>>>>> circumstances, is just plain wrong to being with.)
> ... e.g.
>
> - no lights or reflectors after dark
All the more reason they should be up on the sidewalk.
> - going the wrong way as often as not
There is no wrong way on sidewalks.
> - not stopping or slowing for intersections, esp. when crossing
> residential streets
That's just idiocy - if they can't sufficiently assess that it's clear
to proceed - and already stipulated ("Duh!") Maybe no cars should be
permitted on roads since some people drive like idiots.
>
> Plus, I just don't see the point, ...
You don't see the point, therefor:
> >>>>>>>> (of course, I'd
> >>>>>>>> also argue that any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at all, barring unusual
> >>>>>>>> circumstances, is just plain wrong to being with.)
> ... unless we're talking about somewhere
> like Loudoun County (for those not familiar, Loudoun County is basically
> farmland that has recently been turned into a suburb of DC despite being
> something like 40 miles away at its closest point; therefore all
> development has been very car-centric, seeing as Metro has yet to reach
> beyond Vienna) where you have high-ish speed roads with no shoulders and
> no lower-speed alternative parallel roads. However, if you live
> somewhere like that, you're probably not reading this esteemed newsgroup
> anyway, *or* riding a bicycle.
>
So if, under your "... unusual circumstances... ", you do "... see the
point... ", then and only then it might not be "... just plain
wrong... " for "... any cyclist... " to be "... riding on a sidewalk
at all... "
Dan O
<usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danover...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> But a wrong-way cyclist is not a pedestrian, legally or in fact.
>
> >Yes, in fact and legally a bicyclist is essentially the same as a
> >pedestrian on the sidewalk or crosswalk (in my state, anyway).
>
> What state is that?
"Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, a bicyclist on a
sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a
pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk."
datakoll
motorists, using the term loosely, collide with cyclists and
motorcycles BECAUSE THE IC PEOPLE CANNOT SEE THE 2 WHEEL PEOPLE.
Sheeeet, IC people can't see each others gray gray-blue, tan,
cream ... dit dit dit vehicles.
historically, that was true.
NOW in Lancespace we see a blooming total garb movement where
visibility is kinda pursued by all, specifically by some. and helmets.
More more. So ? one the one hand...
anyway, still seen are the poor riding Wal to Burgerzing, black garb,
no lights...
I have a google alert: bicycle deaths.
BAU Lance or no Lance down there.
Ben C
> In article <slrnha5lis....@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-09-05, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > I was walking down Grant Street in SF. A child with mom was whining.
>> > An older gent passing looked down, shook his head, and said something.
>> > The child stopped. I adopted his approach. Sometimes I will get
>> > the child's eye and say "No whining." Shocking how well it works.
>>
>> The child will typically resume his whining within a few seconds. He's
>> just been momentarily nonplussed by having a strange old man give him a
>> dirty look. That's all it is.
>
> How do you know a dirty look is involved?
Dirty look works best. And the more beetling the brows the better.
Frank Krygowski
> On Sep 5, 6:32 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
> > - no lights or reflectors after dark
>
> All the more reason they should be up on the sidewalk.
Funny, I thought it was a reason they should use lights and reflectors
after dark.
Dan, find us some data that supports the idea of sidewalk cycling. I
can't find any. The best I've seen is that riding sidewalks causes
nearly three times as many crashes per mile. The worst I've seen says
it causes over 13 times as many crashes per mile. What have you
found?
Or haven't you looked?
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Kunich
news:94dfa156-59d8-41ce...@k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan, find us some data that supports the idea of sidewalk cycling. I
> can't find any.
I can't remember where I saw it but there was a study that showed the bike
TRAILS have a higher incidence of car-bike accidents per mile than streets.
Seems that people who ride bike trails don't watch when crossing roads.
datakoll
Unfortunately innaccurate.
Dan O
Fuck you!
Dan O
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And/or that people on roads don't watch when crossing bike trails.
Tom Sherman °_°
Non sequitur.
Dan O
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Dan Overman wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 7:18 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 5, 11:03 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 5, 6:32 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >>>> - no lights or reflectors after dark
> >>> All the more reason they should be up on the sidewalk.
> >> Funny, I thought it was a reason they should use lights and reflectors
> >> after dark.
>
> >> Dan, find us some data that supports the idea of sidewalk cycling. I
> >> can't find any. The best I've seen is that riding sidewalks causes
> >> nearly three times as many crashes per mile. The worst I've seen says
> >> it causes over 13 times as many crashes per mile. What have you
> >> found?
>
> >> Or haven't you looked?
>
> > Fuck you!
>
> Non sequitur.
>
... and the data he rode in on.
Look, I got into this because someone suggested that people were going
the wrong way on the sidewalk. I asked how could anyone be going the
"wrong way" on a sidewalk, and, amazingly, arguments were made that
there *was* a wrong direction to travel on the sidewalk. This
flabbergasted me. But on top of that, Frank, et al, took this
opportunity to impugn anyone riding a bicycle on the sidewalk at all,
and then Nate (who doesn't know what he's talking about), comes along
and says, "... any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at all... is just
plain wrong... " I'd had it up to here [pointing about to chin] with
his biased, baseless, clueless yet always ready judgment and vitriol,
was too tired to fuck around trying to make him understand my point of
view anymore, and supplied a concise response.
Then (after licking his "one bike is enough" wounds for a while) Nate
comes back with more nonsense about bicyclists blithely flying out
into the road and slamming into the side of hapless motorists. I ask
him if by this reasoning "... any cyclist riding on a sidewalk at
all... is just plain wrong... ", which he denies having said, then
repeats his complaint about bicyclists blithely blasting into the path
of oncoming traffic (something he says is done all the time by nearly
every bicyclist he sees - only he among them has any common sense at
all), adding complaints about people "going the wrong way as often as
not" (imagine that: 50% of sidewalk traffic going one way, 50% going
the other way - oh the humanity!), and "no lights or reflectors after
dark".
I respond that if some guy is somewhere with his no lights or
reflectors bike, and he needs to get somewhere else, it's probably
better to ride on the sidewalk than on the road. Still more amazing
and flabbergasting - in a supercilious and condescending tone - Frank
argues against this (!), and then proceeds to try and impugn me for
lacking the "data" to support my position.
My position is this: I am very grateful to have the option of bailing
out of traffic and onto the sidewalk from time to time. When I do
this, it is often because I need to go in the opposite direction of
the immediately accessible traffic lanes (although there can be any
number of other reasons, including simple sanctuary from car
traffic). I ride carefully on the sidewalk, yielding the right-of-way
to pedestrians, cognizant of the potential hazard at driveways and
road crossings where the path comes into potential conflict with car
traffic, and get back on the road when conditions warrant.
I already told Frank that I'm not interested in his "data". I know
that riding on the sidewalk introduces increased hazards in the form
of many driveway and road crossings. Sensible people should also know
this and be able to ride accordingly. (I also imagine that most
sidewalk riding is done by less confident bicyclists, who may very
well be more prone to mishap in the first place.) It offends me that
people would suggest I am simply wrong to ride on the sidewalk, and
that if - against their wisdom - I do anyway, I should at least go in
the "right" direction.
Frank superciliously persists that there *is* a wrong direction to
travel on the sidewalk, and in the same breath suggests that it's
wrong to ride on the sidewalk at all (he can find no data to support
it :-) Nate flat out says that a wrong-way cyclist is not in fact or
legally a pedestrian (when, on the sidewalk, they essentially are),
and that any cyclist riding on a sidewalk is just plain wrong. I know
by now that neither of these guys is ever going to acknowledge any
validity to my point of view, hence my "non sequitur".
AMuzi
>> [...]
>> Plus, I just don't see the point, unless we're talking about somewhere
>> like Loudoun County (for those not familiar, Loudoun County is
>> basically farmland that has recently been turned into a suburb of DC
>> despite being something like 40 miles away at its closest point;
>> therefore all development has been very car-centric, seeing as Metro
>> has yet to reach beyond Vienna) where you have high-ish speed roads
>> with no shoulders and no lower-speed alternative parallel roads.
>> However, if you live somewhere like that, you're probably not reading
>> this esteemed newsgroup anyway, *or* riding a bicycle.
Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
> "Loudoun" is a funny way to spell "Hell".
That's in Michigan:
http://www.hell2u.com/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
RonSonic
>I read a study said 99% ATV riders were involved in a fatal accident.
>Unfortunately innaccurate.
I read a statistic that 74.3% of all statistics were just numbers pulled out of
someone's ass.
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
Tom Sherman °_°
Michael Press
<6775a919-b574-416d...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 9:18 am, Tom Sherman °_°
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> > Dan Overman wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 7:18 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sep 5, 11:03 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> On Sep 5, 6:32 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> > >>>> - no lights or reflectors after dark
> > >>> All the more reason they should be up on the sidewalk.
> > >> Funny, I thought it was a reason they should use lights and reflectors
> > >> after dark.
> >
> > >> Dan, find us some data that supports the idea of sidewalk cycling. I
> > >> can't find any. The best I've seen is that riding sidewalks causes
> > >> nearly three times as many crashes per mile. The worst I've seen says
> > >> it causes over 13 times as many crashes per mile. What have you
> > >> found?
> >
> > >> Or haven't you looked?
> >
> > > Fuck you!
> >
> > Non sequitur.
> >
[...]
Guess what? I did not read what you wrote.
Did not even skim it.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
Not for me. A bit of a smile and a bit of advice.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > I was walking down Grant Street in SF. A child with mom was
> > whining. An older gent passing looked down, shook his head, and
> > said something. The child stopped. I adopted his approach.
> > Sometimes I will get the child's eye and say "No whining." Shocking
> > how well it works. Whining and fussing is a rotten foundation for
> > behavior; so do a child a favor today.
>
> From my experience that is not such a benign and generous gesture,
> because it imputes the mother's child rearing abilities, so much so
> that strangers must step in to take up the slack, especially if it
> works. That whiny children are often a product of parental
> accommodation of such behavior is also suspected even by parents who
> are doing so.
A child is not a chattel; he or she is a fully
paid up member of humanity. The child's job, for
which he or she is well equipped, is to learn how
to socialize. A hint from a fellow human being is
welcome from a child's point of view. Hey look!
I am socializing all by myself.
Sometimes a mother can use the help. She can deal
with her feelings of inadequacy on her own,
because she is a grown-up..
> It's analogous to aiming head-on at wrong way bicyclists. The massage
> of "I know the law and I'll try to punish you for not toeing the
> line."
Wrong. My message is that riding the wrong way puts
bicyclists in danger, is unfair to motorists, and
is violates the "ride predictably" guideline.
> I don't see it as an elegant way of making a point. Besides,
> we don't know whether the child was suffering from some malady.
I can tell.
--
Michael Press
Dan O
> In article <4aa2f648$0$1609$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
>
> > > I was walking down Grant Street in SF. A child with mom was
> > > whining. An older gent passing looked down, shook his head, and
> > > said something. The child stopped. I adopted his approach.
> > > Sometimes I will get the child's eye and say "No whining." Shocking
> > > how well it works. Whining and fussing is a rotten foundation for
> > > behavior; so do a child a favor today.
>
> > From my experience that is not such a benign and generous gesture,
> > because it imputes the mother's child rearing abilities, so much so
> > that strangers must step in to take up the slack, especially if it
> > works. That whiny children are often a product of parental
> > accommodation of such behavior is also suspected even by parents who
> > are doing so.
>
> A child is not a chattel; he or she is a fully
> paid up member of humanity.
Very well put.
Nate, OTOH:
"[person's name] is a taxpayer and a productive member of society.
Your
squalling brat is not. Therefore [person's name] is more important."
nate"
> The child's job, for
> which he or she is well equipped, is to learn how
> to socialize. A hint from a fellow human being is
> welcome from a child's point of view. Hey look!
> I am socializing all by myself.
>
> Sometimes a mother can use the help. She can deal
> with her feelings of inadequacy on her own,
> because she is a grown-up..
>
An exceptionally insightful analysis and astute perspective.
Nate, OTOH:
"The ill-bred trailer trash that patronize Wal-Mart and drag along
their
screaming crotchfruit is one of many reasons that I prefer not to
patronize that store unless absolutely necessary.
nate"
<snip>
>
> > I don't see it as an elegant way of making a point. Besides,
> > we don't know whether the child was suffering from some malady.
>
> I can tell.
>
I believe you probably can.
The referenced post that introduced this discussion, though, was about
an old man who repeatedly hit a two year-old child in the face because
he didn't like her crying.
Nate yells:
"If your kid is raising a ruckus in a public place, and someone says
something nasty to you about it, YOU DESERVE IT. KEEP YOUR GODDAMNED
BRATS UNDER CONTROL."
Nate Nagel
yes, that was in response to someone posted that kids screaming and
crying and carrying on in public was "normal." Do you agree with that
person?
Did I ever say that I supported hitting someone else's kids? No, I was
merely stating that letting your kids carry on in public was
unacceptable, and that the mindset that one should just ignore it
because it's a normal part of everyday life was the correct one to have.
Have standards of decency slipped that much when I wasn't paying
attention?
I may have been blunt and perhaps rude, but that's because I was
responding to rude, stupid people. I don't think I'm *wrong,* however.
If you agree with those people, I don't want to be around your kids
either.