Educational article

[Frank Krygowski]

Here's a good, educational article. I won't be able to discuss it,
but it's worth reading:

http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/

BTW ... just finished a nighttime ride in Steamboat Springs, CO. My
wife and I comfortably controlled the entire right lane on Main
Street. No hassles at all, as usual.

- Frank Krygowski

[Joe Riel]

Do you mean Lincoln Ave (40)? Through the downtown area the
posted speed limit varies between 25 and 35 mph.

--
Joe Riel

[datakoll]

http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=40.4849769&lon=-106.83171579999998&site=all&smap=1&searchresult=Steamboat%20Springs%2C%20CO%2080487%2C%20USA

6 or 40 ?

[Dan O]

On Jun 8, 10:25 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a good, educational article. I won't be able to discuss it,
> but it's worth reading:
>
> http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>

Just glanced at the article (scripts hung my browser), but what is the
solution? You don't like Monderman where controls are removed and
lanes are *narrowed* to make people figure out what to do for
themselves, and you don't like special facilities for bikes. You just
want bikes to be treated like cars. That's not going to happen. You
can't roll back the clock to horse-and-buggy and tophat days.

I like the idea of a combination of narrow, low traffic roads with
minimal controls, and separate facilities for roads with heavier,
faster traffic that requires more controls.

> BTW ... just finished a nighttime ride in Steamboat Springs, CO. My
> wife and I comfortably controlled the entire right lane on Main
> Street. No hassles at all, as usual.
>

Sincerely glad you're "comfortable", and sincerely wish you a good and
happy time.

[AMuzi]

Steamboat Springs may or may not be typical at any given moment

http://sfist.com/2012/03/07/muni_bus_runs_over_cyclist.php

'lane control' runs right up against physics sometimes

http://laist.com/2013/03/26/18-year-old_bicyclist_hit_killed_by.php

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

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 8, 10:25 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yesterday, my son and I were controlling this road: http://tinyurl.com/p2zqmr8
This general area. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowdey/5546034436
I have to gloat since it rains most of the time. But yesterday it was
really sunny,and I burned up my arms.

Today it was controlling various city streets with some friends. I'm
going to go in to the yard and control some bushes with my gas
trimmer. I intend to dominate my dinner tonight and maybe enslave the
television later on. Grrrr.

-- Jay Beattie.

[datakoll]

doahn froget waving behind cars around into a blind corner

[James]

On 10/06/13 06:55, Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jun 8, 10:25 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's a good, educational article. I won't be able to discuss it,
>> but it's worth reading:
>>
>> http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>>
>> BTW ... just finished a nighttime ride in Steamboat Springs, CO. My
>> wife and I comfortably controlled the entire right lane on Main
>> Street. No hassles at all, as usual.
>>
>

> Yesterday, my son and I were controlling this road: http://tinyurl.com/p2zqmr8
> This general area. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowdey/5546034436
> I have to gloat since it rains most of the time. But yesterday it was
> really sunny,and I burned up my arms.
>
> Today it was controlling various city streets with some friends. I'm
> going to go in to the yard and control some bushes with my gas
> trimmer. I intend to dominate my dinner tonight and maybe enslave the
> television later on. Grrrr.
>

Yesterday...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclist-killed-by-car-in-sydneys-southeast-20130609-2nxs8.html

--
JS

[Duane]

Same thing here. The truck driver, bus driver, soccer mom or whoever is
driving the MV gets treated for shock. The cyclists usually fares worse.

[Frank Krygowski]

Andrew, if you're going to disagree with the concept of lane control,
you should post articles showing a failure of lane control.

What you've posted was one where a cyclist rode "parallel to" a bus
and crashed due to riding into a streetcar track's slot. That's the
opposite of lane control. The other article was a kid riding
southbound, through an intersection into the path of a westbound bus.
That too is totally irrelevant.

The question, as usual, is this: If there's not room for a motorist
to safely pass a bicyclist, what should the cyclist do?

The answer is not "ride in the gutter" or "ride into a road hazard" so
the motorist suffers no delay at all. That attitude argues against
our right to the road.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 10, 8:45 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/2013 10:02 PM, James wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/06/13 06:55, Jay Beattie wrote:
> >> On Jun 8, 10:25 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Here's a good, educational article. I won't be able to discuss it,
> >>> but it's worth reading:
>
> >>>http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>
> >>> BTW ... just finished a nighttime ride in Steamboat Springs, CO. My
> >>> wife and I comfortably controlled the entire right lane on Main
> >>> Street. No hassles at all, as usual.
>
> >> Yesterday, my son and I were controlling this road:

> >>http://tinyurl.com/p2zqmr8 ...

Sounds fine. It's clearly too narrow for a car to pass without
crossing the center line. It would be silly to invite a motorist to
do that.

>
> > Yesterday...
>
> >http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclist-killed-by-car-in-sydneys-southeast-...

>
> Same thing here.  The truck driver, bus driver, soccer mom or whoever is
> driving the MV gets treated for shock.  The cyclists usually fares worse.

James's article gave no information on the lane position of the
cyclists, nor the width of the lane. The Google aerial view certainly
makes the lane look too narrow to safely share. But if it were in the
U.S., most cyclists would be riding at the edge anyway, inviting a
close pass.

I'm familiar with the driver psychology - illogical as it is - that
makes every thirty second delay inside a car feel like an hour. But
I'm baffled by some bicyclists' energetic insistence that either a) we
have to endanger ourselves for the convenience of those impatient
motorists; or b) it really is safest to bump along right at the road's
edge, inches from road hazards, car doors, and invisibility. No
recognized program teaches that, yet so many cherish that belief!

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

Whassamatteru? Get smoked off the roads in CO and now need somethin'
to do?

[James]

On 15/06/13 03:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Jun 10, 8:45 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>> On 6/9/2013 10:02 PM, James wrote:

>>> Yesterday...
>>
>>> http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclist-killed-by-car-in-sydneys-southeast-...
>>
>> Same thing here. The truck driver, bus driver, soccer mom or whoever is
>> driving the MV gets treated for shock. The cyclists usually fares worse.
>
> James's article gave no information on the lane position of the
> cyclists, nor the width of the lane. The Google aerial view certainly
> makes the lane look too narrow to safely share. But if it were in the
> U.S., most cyclists would be riding at the edge anyway, inviting a
> close pass.

The riders reportedly had to move in to the middle of the road to pass a
boat (on a trailer) that was parked on the side of the road.

The elderly driver probably didn't anticipate them moving out to ride
around the boat, and the riders possibly didn't give the driver plenty
of time to brake. It's also possible the driver just had a moment - as
she travelled quite some distance after the collision, and then stopped
when she crashed into another vehicle!

Claims no recollection.

--
JS

[Dan O]

On Jun 14, 10:57 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?group=rec.bicycles.tech&q=tibetanmonkey+take+the+lane&qt_g=Search+this+group

[Andre Jute]

Didn't we have this wretched thread six times already this year? [SIGH} And it's only June.

Andre Jute

[Dan O]

On Jun 14, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Didn't we have this wretched thread six times already this year? [SIGH} And it's only June.
>

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?group=rec.bicycles.tech&q=dan+o+spiel&qt_g=Search+this+group

[Dan O]

On Jun 14, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Didn't we have this wretched thread six times already this year? [SIGH} And it's only June.
>

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?group=rec.bicycles.tech&q=dan+o+spiel&qt_g=Search+this+group

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 15, 2:41 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Didn't we have this wretched thread six times already this year? [SIGH} And it's only June.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?group=rec.bic...
>

Dan loves linking to previous threads, even though there's obviously
no new information contained in those links.

What I brought here on June 9 did bring in new information. It's a
long, extensively researched article on something we'd been
discussing, including a detailed history of the issue. It's gotten
quite a bit of comment on more serious forums.

As is often the case, nobody here gives evidence of having read it.
Perhaps some did read, but won't admit that it argues against their
beliefs. I suspect, though, that most just won't risk having their
beliefs challenged.

Here it is again:
http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/

- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 7:41:18 AM UTC+1, Dan O wrote:
> On Jun 14, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Didn't we have this wretched thread six times already this year? [SIGH} And it's only June.
>
> >
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?group=rec.bicycles.tech&q=dan+o+spiel&qt_g=Search+this+group

Holy Fertilizer, even I didn't think it was quite that big a bee in Franki-boy's bonnet. Three pages of links to the same-old same-old.

Mind you, one thing you can say for Krygo is that he's mindless persistent. Maybe we should give him is dearest wish and make him a spokesman for cyclists -- as a going-away present, so he can go harangue his congressman, and leave us to get on with our cycling.

Andre Jute
Off for a ride over the sunkissed hills of beautiful West Cork

[Andre Jute]

Only Franki-boy Krygowski, a professor of welding, would prejudge a perfectly innocent piece as offensively pushy, in his own style, by headlining it "Educational article". Someone should tell that wanker that RBT is made up of largely middleaged men of solid achievements in their professions, who read "educational articles" last and with jaundiced eye. Krygowski is the first person I've ever met of whom it is inadequate to say that he is his own worst enemy. What an eejit.

Andre Jute

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 6:25:29 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[Dan O]

On Jun 15, 8:01 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2:41 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 11:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Didn't we have this wretched thread six times already this year? [SIGH} And it's only June.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?group=rec.bic...
>
> Dan loves linking to previous threads, even though there's obviously
> no new information contained in those links.
>

That was exactly the point: It's a recurrent spiel. When you're
gone, it could easily be automated by a cross-indexed database of your
favorite references, talking points, colloquialisms, "very good
friend" anecdotes, etc.

> What I brought here on June 9 did bring in new information. It's a
> long, extensively researched article on something we'd been
> discussing, including a detailed history of the issue. It's gotten
> quite a bit of comment on more serious forums.
>

Way to disparage the entire group.

"... we talk about coffee, New York, dawters, dawgs, you know no big
whoop... "

Now, had you pointed to or quoted an intelligent example of those
comments here... but if we're just to take your word for it, what's
that worth?

> As is often the case, nobody here gives evidence of having read it.
> Perhaps some did read, but won't admit that it argues against their
> beliefs. I suspect, though, that most just won't risk having their
> beliefs challenged.
>

Surely we'd embrace the glorious truth of your religion, but for our
damned character faults.

> Here it is again:http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>

I'll give it another try and get back to you...

[Dan O]

On Jun 15, 11:18 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 8:01 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

> > http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>
> I'll give it another try and get back to you...

1) The picture at the top: I see nothing wrong with the passing
clearance sharing the lane, and if the other lane is occupied, this
allows for more continuous flow of all traffic. (If the passing truck
fails to slow and execute the pass with due caution, that's another,
separate matter entirely.)

2) "male driver of a powerful car" ("intact" male? with "powerful
jaws"? :-)

“You aint no f***ing car man, get on the sidewalk.” ("the world view
of most people today"?)

"Sped away", from "the left lane", "cutting it close" to a stopped
bicyclist (?)

3) "1911 – now: Lane lines are invented and become common" (Just how
far do you want to roll back the hands of time, anyway?)

"Now: No room on the road for bicycles" (Huh?)

4) "Thus the original UVC authors were apparently already thinking
that all vehicles were motor vehicles, a viewpoint that still exists
among highway and transportation professionals today."

Ridiculous.

5) "[B]y 1930 most street users agreed that most streets were chiefly
motor thoroughfares."

Obviously. (Though Portland is beginning to show the inevitable winds
of change in the decline of the car culture.)

6) "A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely
within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the
driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with
safety."

Okay.

"The requirement that a vehicle must be driven within a single lane
means that a vehicle cannot occupy two lanes at the same time (except
when changing lanes, of course)."

Does not even logically follow from the above.

7) "The result is a mismatch between the historic concept of the
bicycle as a vehicle and the basic idea of a lane's being for a single
line of vehicles."

Not at all. There is no historic concept that bicycles need a full
lane all to themselves (just you, the monkey man, and a handful of
other kooks).

8)

"What happens when a lane is not wide enough for a faster vehicle to
safely overtake a bicycle within the lane?"

Answer: The overtaking vehicle leaves the lane (at least partially)
in order to pass. (Duh.)

"What happens when riding far to the right means being close enough to
parked cars to be 'doored'?"

Answer: The blithe idiot might get doored. (Duh.)

"Is it acceptable for motorists to pass bicyclists without changing
lanes?"

Answer: Yes.

"Where on a laned roadway should a slower bicyclist ride?"

Answer: As far right as practicable. (Or, in my state, anyway,
optionally as far left as practicable on one way streets.)

"Is a bicyclist prohibited from moving left or right within a lane
without first signaling and checking to see if the movement can be
made with safety?"

Answer: Um... yeah, I think so (but I don't bother signalling unless
negotioation is called for).

9) ... This is taking *way* too long. I'm going to scroll :-) *way*
down and look for any proposed solutions...

(Caught this on the way: "Why is that same understanding not extended
to bicyclists who, because of air resistance, are incapable of going
as fast as cars on level ground?"

That's funny :-) I always thought it was the big motors that made
cars faster.)

... This is pretty good: "Despite his resentment, the motorist must
tolerate the walker, the cyclist, and the wagon. Not only must he
tolerate them, he must learn to cooperate with them, give way to them,
and help make it possible for them to go their ways in safety."

And this is cogent: "That leaves mainly bicyclists for modern drivers
to resent."

Scapegoats.

Aha: " UVC 11-1205 – Riding on roadways and bicycle paths
(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as
near to the right-hand side of the roadway as practicable, exercising
due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same
direction. 15

I have not been able to find any background on this addition, but we
can be pretty sure that no bicyclists were involved in the discussion.
The end of World War II was still a year away, and most people who
would have cared were either in the service or otherwise occupied.

For those of you have spent all your life under this law, this change
might seem minor, but denying bicyclists the right to use travel lanes
like other drivers is actually the biggest legal challenge to bicycles
using roads that has ever happened in the US."

/*****************************/

The author obviously "resents" the "as far right as practicable" rule,
which only makes perfect sense to “prevent undue interference with the
flow of traffic.”

Heh: "I was one of the new adult bicyclists who started bicycling
during the “bike boom” of the early 1970s, and soon thereafter became
involved in bicycling advocacy."

Are you sure you didn't write this yourself, Frank?

"I distinctly remember a more experienced rider yelling, “Never pass a
right turning car on the right!” That was my first exposure to the
possibility that bicyclists need not expose themselves to unnecessary
danger... "

Fucking DUH!

10) (or maybe 11 - I've stopped counting)

"The contrast with bicycles is notable. Even though bicycles are
lighter and less robust than motorcycles, the NCUTLO believed that
motorcyclists, but not bicyclists, should be entitled to use a full
lane, meaning that bicyclists did not deserve the same protections as
motorcyclists."

Idiot! Bicyclists are absolutely afforded the same "protection" for
being passed safely. The difference is that motors and thus speed
potential may reasonably be expected to “prevent undue interference
with the flow of traffic.”

(jeez lousie not even halfway down yet and all I'm hearing is sour
grapes from this author; where are the proposed solutions?)

"... during the meeting of the full NCUTLO... "

More "meetings". I see why you like this article.

"I was one of many bicycling advocates who took part in that effort.
Our intent was to make it clear when bicyclists were not required to
ride at the edge"

The "edge". Nobody here at rbt (except *you*) characterizes or
interprets "as far right as practicable" to mean "the edge".

Aha - a proposed exception as far right as practicable: "For purposes
of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too
narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side
within the lane."

If the marked lane is not wide enough for a car or truck to pass
_without *partially* leaving the lane_, then the whole damn thing is
all mine (?) That's just fucking stupid.

"All across the country, bicyclists who do stray from the right edge
of the roadway are being cited and convicted."

Really. Got data? And can we see evidence that these bicyclists "all
across the country" were not creating "undue interference with the
flow of traffic.”

Let's say you *do* have multiple lanes in the same direction of
travel, aside from the fact that such roads are generally conceived to
accomodate substantial motor traffic, are "chiefly motor
thoroughfares", and not preferred routes for bicyclists who choose to
exercise their multitude of options, when you "control the [right]
lane", you not only slow traffic in that lane, but the need for
slowing vehicles to wait for an opportunity to change lanes and then
move to the faster lane when they can get in slows traffic in *both*
lanes; and this effect cascades across all the lanes you care to have
(like the roads those Orlando dicks ride on).

This is getting ridiculous. I'm going to scroll all the way down for
this this guy's bottom line...

... oh, I was almost there - the rest is mostly reader
"comments" (I'll let you pick an intelligent one for me; I'm awfully
tired of this web page by now)..

Okay, here it is:

"Along with repealing the FTR law, we need to encourage cities,
counties and states to design roads and to install traffic control
devices that recognize bicyclists as having full lane use rights.
Instead of designing only for fast motor vehicles, highway engineers
need to design streets and highways for a variety of speeds. On all
streets and highways where bicycling is permitted, we need squared-off
intersections that encourage motorists to drive more slowly and yield
to bicyclists instead of high speed ramps that discourage yielding to
slower bicyclists. Instead of the Share the Road sign, we need to
expand use of the Bikes May Use Full Lane sign. Instead of shared lane
markings (what some people call sharrows) in the gutter or in the door
zone, we need them in the middle of the lane."

I don't know about anywhere else, but I've seen sharrows cropping up,
and I've *never* seen one anywhere but irght smack dab in the middle
of the lane.

"... teaching school children how to drive their bicycles... "

Indeed. "Drive" bike, not "Ride Bike!"

"But the first step is repealing the FTR law. As long as the FTR law
is on the books, bicyclists will continue to be marginalized and
denied full lane use rights."

Ah, so the proposed solution is chaos. Nice.

[Dan O]

On Jun 15, 2:45 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 11:18 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 8:01 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>
> > I'll give it another try and get back to you...
>

<snip>

>
> "But the first step is repealing the FTR law. As long as the FTR law
> is on the books, bicyclists will continue to be marginalized and
> denied full lane use rights."
>
> Ah, so the proposed solution is chaos. Nice.

From the comments:

"... and since we have some evidence that you imagine you can read
minds, there might not be any data behind that at all, not even a
small non-random sample. (I’m a big fan of arguing from facts, and I
don’t much like this bit of imputing motives and forcing choices. You
should stop doing that."

(I can certainly relate to *that* ;-)

("Sometimes it is fun to pull off the path and watch the turtles or...
" :-)

"I agree that such laws need to be repealed and think that the author
made a good case, but nearly stopped reading because I thought this
article was just another vehicularist manifesto with nothing new to
say."

"So it’s a belief that is responsible for the low modal share of
bicycling in the US, not the actual quality of the experience
discovered by those who try it? What an amazing idea."

[Dan O]

On Jun 15, 8:07 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2:45 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 11:18 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 15, 8:01 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > >http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>
> > > I'll give it another try and get back to you...
>
> <snip>
>

You say that you guys who are willing to learn these things don't seem
to have the problems that the rest of us do. Granted, you *will*
typically get extra passing clearance, because overtaking motorists
think, "What is that looney doing in the middle of the road?!", and
figure it advisable to steer well clear of weirdos. But the author of
this article seems to have humongous chips on both shoulders about
*something* - to the point of thinking "the world view of most people
today" is “You aint no f***ing car man, get on the sidewalk" (just not
always expressed so profanely). Hmm...

You like to say something about vehicular cycling is not being tried
and found too difficult, but thought too difficult and not tried; but
one of the more cogent POV's in the comments is from "a former
enthusiastic VCist", who "was there at the start, and was gung-ho for
decades", and who mentions "the failure of vehicular cycling as public
policy".

I am also stunned by the nealry complete and what can only be
deliberate omission of bike lanes from the discussion.

Here's a familiar refraint: "you’re reading things into the article
[message] that aren’t there."

Do you guys all go to the same church or something?

Wow, this comment is worth having read the article - thanks!:

'Pretty much any cycling nonsense here can be intuitively explained,
even to a confirmed 100% motorist, as “well, if cars were six feet
long, two feet wide, and you could pick it up one hand, how do you
think people around here would drive them?”'

[Frank Krygowski]

First, I'm feeling a bit proud that I got you to read even part of the
article, Dan. And it took only a little cajoling!

Second, do you notice the discussion level in the comments is a bit
higher than your "fucking DUH" remarks?

Now, on the "failure of vehicular cycling as public policy": That's an
idea that's been discussed before in this forum. As I believe I've
explained, those who make the claim have a mistaken impression of the
objective of vehicular cycling. Its techniques are not intended to
tremendously increase the number of people riding bikes; instead, its
techniques are intended to make riding better for those who use the
techniques while riding their bikes. It makes it possible to ride
wherever one needs to, no special facilities required. It makes such
riding safer, often faster, and more pleasant. It takes away most of
the confusion and uncertainty that less knowledgeable riders
experience.

[Frank Krygowski]

Sorry for following up on my own post, but I accidentally bumped the
trackpad and sent that post before I was done.

Anyway: People like dr2chase seem to think the objective of vehicular
cycling is, instead, to get lots of butts on bikes; and that it's
therefore failed. That's like claiming your circular saw is a failure
because it can't polish your car. Success or failure must be judged
by actual objectives. VC techniques achieve their _real_ objectives
very well.

BTW, it's not that "butts on bikes" is a bad thing. Personally, I
like seeing places where lots of people ride bikes. I like it even
better when those people don't ride like twits - e.g. riding wrong-
way, blasting through red lights, switching sides of the road at whim,
etc.

But one of the main reasons the U.S. doesn't have cycling as prevalent
as some other countries is that Americans tend to believe bikes don't
belong on the roads, and that riding on the roads is terribly
dangerous. The fashionable "solution" is to call for special paint
stripes, or (in the last five years) for even more segregation in the
badly misnamed "protected bike lanes" (AKA "cycletracks").

Seems to me that strategy carries the message that one dare not ride
where such segregation doesn't exist. As I've mentioned, I've heard
that expressed very clearly by non-cyclists hoping to promote cycling.

I think a better solution is a much stronger acceptance of our rights
to the road. There are other things that can be done as well, of
course - but if everyone really accepted the idea that bicyclists have
as much right to safe road use as motorists, things would greatly
improve.

What dismays me is that so many cyclists argue against those road
rights.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

First, I read "part" of it the first time (even though the scripty
crap hung my browser). Moreover, I am far from "incurious", and read
lots and lots of the crap that you reference. Doesn't make it any
less stinky.

> Second, do you notice the discussion level in the comments is a bit
> higher than your "fucking DUH" remarks?
>

"Higher", eh? Well, you seem to have a "low" opinion of my
"discussion level".

> Now, on the "failure of vehicular cycling as public policy": That's an
> idea that's been discussed before in this forum. As I believe I've
> explained, those who make the claim have a mistaken impression of the
> objective of vehicular cycling.

No, the guy who said that was not just talking about "butts on bikes;
he was talking about the complete and utter failure.

> Its techniques are not intended to
> tremendously increase the number of people riding bikes; instead, its
> techniques are intended to make riding better for those who use the
> techniques while riding their bikes.

Fine, if you and Aunt Bea need a whole lane to yourself, knock
yourself out.

> It makes it possible to ride
> wherever one needs to, no special facilities required.

Ah... "makes it possible". Well, it's news to me that this was not
possible otherwise.

> It makes such
> riding safer, often faster, and more pleasant.

That's why the guy who was a vehicularist for decades says, "and I
cannot help but notice that it is often far more relaxing to *not*
“share” the road with cars."

> It takes away most of
> the confusion and uncertainty that less knowledgeable riders
> experience.

Hmm... then why do you devotees think so highly of your knowledge and
experience?

[Dan O]

Fine. Use them; don't abuse them; keep your proselytizing to the
congregation.

> BTW, it's not that "butts on bikes" is a bad thing. Personally, I
> like seeing places where lots of people ride bikes. I like it even

> better when those people don't ride like twits...

Way to be supercilious.

> - e.g. riding wrong-
> way, blasting through red lights, switching sides of the road at whim,
> etc.
>

“well, if cars were six feet long, two feet wide, and you could pick
it up one hand, how do you think people around here would drive them?”

> But one of the main reasons the U.S. doesn't have cycling as prevalent
> as some other countries is that Americans tend to believe bikes don't
> belong on the roads, and that riding on the roads is terribly
> dangerous. The fashionable "solution" is to call for special paint
> stripes, or (in the last five years) for even more segregation in the
> badly misnamed "protected bike lanes" (AKA "cycletracks").
>

Amsterdam Now!

> Seems to me that strategy carries the message that one dare not ride
> where such segregation doesn't exist.

Seems to you.

> As I've mentioned, I've heard
> that expressed very clearly by non-cyclists hoping to promote cycling.
>

"it stands the only evidence I have that anyone believes that is your
claim that some people believe that, and since we have some evidence

that you imagine you can read minds, there might not be any data
behind that at all, not even a small non-random sample. (I’m a big fan
of arguing from facts, and I don’t much like this bit of imputing
motives and forcing choices. You should stop doing that."

> I think a better solution is a much stronger acceptance of our rights
> to the road. There are other things that can be done as well, of
> course - but if everyone really accepted the idea that bicyclists have
> as much right to safe road use as motorists, things would greatly
> improve.
>

And if honey came out of everybody's butt...

> What dismays me is that so many cyclists argue against those road
> rights.

"it stands the only evidence I have that anyone believes that is your
claim... "

[Dan O]

(I really did sincerely wish you happiness and all the best on your
recent sabbatical :-) Now that you're back, though, I won't have to
resort to inviting the Jehovah's Witnesses in for "discussion" ;-)

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>As is often the case, nobody here gives evidence of having read it.

(...)
>http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/

As proof that I read the article, I found that clicking on some of the
pictures in Firefox ver 21.0, would produce a Javascript based slide
show of 23 images. Image 5 is black and the viewer hangs on Image 9.
The remainder are erratic, sometimes causing the viewer loading
indicator to endlessly spin. Some of the images can be seen in:
<http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-01.jpg>
<http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-23.jpg>
by changing the number in the URL, but most are missing. I suspect a
synchronization error between the Lucid v1.5 theme for WordPress and
the photo archive as the likely culprit.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Dan O]

On Jun 15, 11:18 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 10:15 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> > Now, on the "failure of vehicular cycling as public policy":

<snip>

>
> > It makes it possible to ride
> > wherever one needs to, no special facilities required.
>
> Ah... "makes it possible". Well, it's news to me that this was not
> possible otherwise.
>
> > It makes such
> > riding safer, often faster, and more pleasant.
>
> That's why the guy who was a vehicularist for decades says, "and I
> cannot help but notice that it is often far more relaxing to *not*
> “share” the road with cars."
>
> > It takes away most of
> > the confusion and uncertainty that less knowledgeable riders
> > experience.
>
> Hmm... then why do you devotees think so highly of your knowledge and
> experience?

... and why - with all those totally groovy things going for it - does
it fail to get butts on bikes?

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 16, 2:42 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
>
>
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >As is often the case, nobody here gives evidence of having read it.
> (...)
> >http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>
> As proof that I read the article, I found that clicking on some of the
> pictures in Firefox ver 21.0, would produce a Javascript based slide
> show of 23 images.  Image 5 is black and the viewer hangs on Image 9.
> The remainder are erratic, sometimes causing the viewer loading
> indicator to endlessly spin.  Some of the images can be seen in:
> <http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-01.jpg>
> <http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-23.jpg>
> by changing the number in the URL, but most are missing.  I suspect a
> synchronization error between the Lucid v1.5 theme for WordPress and
> the photo archive as the likely culprit.

Hmm. While I certainly looked at all the images, I didn't click any.
Reviewing it now, I didn't seem to have any problems. Only a few
linked to videos (some of which I've seen before, others will have to
wait until this evening), but I didn't notice any slide shows. Which
images gave you those problems?

Regarding discussion above the "fuckin' DUH" level, let me make it
clear that I don't agree with everything the authors write. In
particular, I don't have a problem with motorists passing me partly
within my lane, so long as they give me adequate passing clearance.
Dan Gutierrez calls those "straddle passes" and seems to detest those,
but many people who are well known in vehicular cycling advocacy seem
to disagree with him on that point.

Which, BTW, is an indication that (contrary to Dan's slander) we are
not automatons who slavishly obey some official VC dogma. Discussion
within this community is pretty spirited and intelligent. (For
example, I'm sure John Forester's current opinion on helmets has been
influenced by my correspondence.)

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 16, 2:56 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 11:18 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 10:15 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>

> > > [Riding as a legitimate vehicle operator] makes such

> > > riding safer, often faster, and more pleasant.
> >

> > > It takes away most of
> > > the confusion and uncertainty that less knowledgeable riders
> > > experience.
>
> > Hmm... then why do you devotees think so highly of your knowledge and
> > experience?

I'm not sure what you're not understanding, or why you're not
understanding it.

What I've seen is that knowledge of vehicular cycling has made my
riding much easier and more pleasant. I have a much better
understanding of my legal rights, of the best methods of handling
unfamiliar roads and intersections, of the behavior that causes
motorists to treat me with politeness and respect. I experience far
fewer dangerously close passes, I get far fewer attempts to right hook
or left cross me. And I'm confident in my ability to ride wherever I
want, on existing roads. Riding is _much_ better than before.
(Admittedly, "before" was long, long ago - but I'm still learning
techniques that make things even better.)

> ... and why - with all those totally groovy things going for it - does
> it fail to get butts on bikes?

For the same reason that turning on your stereo doesn't produce a cup
of coffee, Dan. That's not it's objective.

Now if you want to talk about why so many bike riders don't buy into
the logic of vehicular cycling, we can do that.

As exhibit #1, you can certainly display your thinking processes for
all to see. You can give logical justifications for the riding you've
described - the drunken trips to the grocery, the no-lights and wrong-
way riding, the jumps and wheelies through intersections and all the
rest.

After that, maybe we can return to your justifications for riding so
close to the edge that motorists squeeze by with inches to spare
within a lane too narrow to safely share - despite the legal right of
the cyclist to ride in a way to discourage that.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Jun 16, 9:15 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2:42 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
> > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >As is often the case, nobody here gives evidence of having read it.
> > (...)
> > >http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>
> > As proof that I read the article, I found that clicking on some of the
> > pictures in Firefox ver 21.0, would produce a Javascript based slide
> > show of 23 images. Image 5 is black and the viewer hangs on Image 9.
> > The remainder are erratic, sometimes causing the viewer loading
> > indicator to endlessly spin. Some of the images can be seen in:
> > <http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-01.jpg>
> > <http://iamtraffic.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Image-23.jpg>
> > by changing the number in the URL, but most are missing. I suspect a
> > synchronization error between the Lucid v1.5 theme for WordPress and
> > the photo archive as the likely culprit.
>
> Hmm.

<snip>

> I didn't seem to have any problems.

Naturally.

<snip>

>
> Regarding discussion above the "fuckin' DUH" level, let me make it
> clear that I don't agree with everything the authors write. In
> particular, I don't have a problem with motorists passing me partly
> within my lane, so long as they give me adequate passing clearance.
> Dan Gutierrez calls those "straddle passes" and seems to detest those,
> but many people who are well known in vehicular cycling advocacy seem
> to disagree with him on that point.
>

How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do
you position yourself in such a lane?

How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you
position yourself in such a lane?

<snip>

[Jay Beattie]

I think in your part of the world, taking the lane means you move left
about six inches -- aren't you in [unnamed, secret rural town] with a
river and a bridge? Riding around that part of the Valley, you're
taking the lane no matter where you are.

Yesterday's ride -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/visit-bend/8341005116/
(minus the pack of cyclists). I was at a conference in Bend and drove
home this morning and did one of my usual loops just to shake out
the legs.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 16, 6:17 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do
> you position yourself in such a lane?
>
> How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you
> position yourself in such a lane?

First, let's be clear that the appropriate measurement is not the
pavement width. Instead, it's the width of the reasonably rideable
pavement. Potholes, glass, bad gravel, railroad tracks, drain grates
etc. are not rideable.

Second, the boundary between "wide enough to safely share" and "too
narrow to safely share" is fuzzy. It can vary depending on the width
of the approaching vehicles (assuming the traffic is reasonably
light). It depends on the traffic volume, on the speed of the motor
vehicles, the speed of the bicyclist, on whether it's a straight and
simple road or whether one's approaching an intersection, and more.

And I'd say it depends to a degree on the bicyclist's judgement. But
as the cited article explains, lots and lots of bicyclists have their
judgement unduly influenced by a false belief that they have no real
right to the road.

Numbers? For me, I'll almost never share an 11 foot lane. I'll
almost always share a 14 foot lane. 12 foot lanes are common on major
roads, and I occasionally share them (narrow car approaching, no
intersections, slow speed, etc.). Sometimes I'll use "control and
release," where I ride lane center then move over a bit when the car
gets closer and has slowed. Generally, I don't share those lanes. In
fact, I now have learned that things work much better if I obviously
take those lanes, so motorists have plenty of time to work out their
lane changes and passing maneuvers. See (again)
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

How many bicyclists stop to measure the widrh of a lane? I've been riding a bicycle for over 50 years and i couldn't tell you the width of any lane. Just how do you determine how many feet wide a lane is?

Cheers

[Dan O]

On Jun 16, 8:58 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 6:17 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do
> > you position yourself in such a lane?
>
> > How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you
> > position yourself in such a lane?
>

What I was looking for here is under wnat conditions you'd accomodate
a "straddle pass".

> First, let's be clear that the appropriate measurement is not the
> pavement width. Instead, it's the width of the reasonably rideable
> pavement. Potholes, glass, bad gravel, railroad tracks, drain grates
> etc. are not rideable.
>

I agree that road conditions matter. I don't necessarily agree that
those (etc.) are "unrideable" (that would make it tough to get
anywhere even with no other trafffic); but I do agree that - when
being passed by a motor vehicle - you need the most optimum, stable
conditions under your bike.

But basically I was asking oyu the same question you always ask us in
your eight-and-a-half foot truck and ten foot lane scenario - in which
you always So for the purposes of discussion, let's assume "rideable"
conditions.

(I have to say, it sounds like you're saying, "It depends." :-)

> Second, the boundary between "wide enough to safely share" and "too

> narrow to safely share" is fuzzy. It can vary depending on...

(Thought so. :-)

> ... the width

> of the approaching vehicles (assuming the traffic is reasonably
> light). It depends on the traffic volume, on the speed of the motor
> vehicles, the speed of the bicyclist, on whether it's a straight and
> simple road or whether one's approaching an intersection, and more.
>

"... and more." So, It depends.

> And I'd say it depends...

Ah, "it depends"....

> ... to a degree on the bicyclist's judgement. But
> as the cited article...

What article? (Consider quoting relevant context.)

> ... explains, lots and lots of bicyclists have their

> judgement unduly influenced by a false belief that they have no real
> right to the road.
>

You're changing the subject.

> Numbers? For me, I'll almost never share an 11 foot lane. I'll
> almost always share a 14 foot lane. 12 foot lanes are common on major
> roads, and I occasionally share them (narrow car approaching, no
> intersections, slow speed, etc.). Sometimes I'll use "control and
> release," where I ride lane center then move over a bit when the car
> gets closer and has slowed. Generally, I don't share those lanes. In
> fact, I now have learned that things work much better if I obviously
> take those lanes, so motorists have plenty of time to work out their
> lane changes and passing maneuvers.

So, lane center, then. If you're two feet wide at lane center in a 12
foot lane, and you probably want three feet of passing clearance, that
doesn't accomodate much of a "straddle pass", now does it. And if you
*sometimes* move right a little *after* forcing them to slow first, I
have to say that doesn't sounds like it might be ""undue interference

with the flow of traffic.”

> See (again)http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with...
>

I won't "lower" myself to your level of discussion by saying anything
about "riding like twits". If it works for you and Aunt Bea - nothing
wrong with that. As Monderman says, "When Grandma walks out into the
road, you accommodate her" (something like that). Just see if you can
say the same four little words for other approaches.

[Dan O]

On Jun 16, 10:21 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 8:58 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 6:17 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > How wide is a lane that is wide enough to safely share, and where do
> > > you position yourself in such a lane?
>
> > > How narrow is a lane is not wide enough to safely share, where do you
> > > position yourself in such a lane?
>
> What I was looking for here is under wnat conditions you'd accomodate
> a "straddle pass".
>
> > First, let's be clear that the appropriate measurement is not the
> > pavement width. Instead, it's the width of the reasonably rideable
> > pavement. Potholes, glass, bad gravel, railroad tracks, drain grates
> > etc. are not rideable.
>
> I agree that road conditions matter. I don't necessarily agree that
> those (etc.) are "unrideable" (that would make it tough to get
> anywhere even with no other trafffic); but I do agree that - when
> being passed by a motor vehicle - you need the most optimum, stable
> conditions under your bike.
>
> But basically I was asking oyu the same question you always ask us in
> your eight-and-a-half foot truck and ten foot lane scenario - in which

> you always...

Uh, my turn to hit send before finished. ... in which you always
scornfully reject "it depends".

And before you start in characterizing my approach as drunk wrong-way
no-lights chaos, let me describe my approach:

I generally look for and use routes that minimize interaction with
other traffic. And then I mostly ride anywhere I want to.

But when there is other traffic to deal with - to accomodate and be
accommodated by - I ride as far right as practicable. Actually, let
me qualify that - I ride as far right as practicable if I stay on the
same road with them. I may very well look for an alterantive that
takes me completely out of the practical equation for them. They may
still wonder if I'm going to pop back out in front of them, but I'm
not - that doesn't make any sense at all.

If an adjacent lane is clear for them to use or "straddle" into, I
will maintain a substantial but reasonable space to my right (maybe a
foot-and-a-half or two). If the adjacent lane is unavailable to them,
I will ride carefully within a foot of the right edge (unless
conditions there are bad enough to pose too much risk of a crash). In
almost all cases, the overtaking motorist will *still* wait until they
can at least straddle into the next lane, in some fewer case they will
carefully pass in the same lane, and in some very few cases they will
make a statement of disregard as they pass. But i'm not about to
create "undue interference with the flow of traffic" as SOP because of
those very few assholes who are going to give me the business whatever
I do.

As I've said, there are two places in all my many miles and many
routes where I "take the lane" such that motorists must wait until the
adjacent lane is clear: One is a very short, narrow little bridge
over a ditch; and een there my mere presence *anywhere* on the bridge
necessitates passing cars at least straddle the center line; so there
I stay out a couple of feet from the left edge so as not to invite
some real idiot trying to squeeze by in the same lane.

The other place I is a very fast descent with hairpin curves -
visibility ahead is insufficient to ensure availability of the
adjacent lane for a safe pass at that speed, *and* the road is in very
bad shape, with eroding edges and patches and potholes and washboard
whoop-de-doos - such that it is necessary for me to use most of the
lane just for a reasonably rideable line down the hill. So here I
*do* make it clear to traffic approaching from behind that I'm using
the whole lane, and they universally lay back and wait. The curves
and and my speed being such that it would take a real lunatic to even
consider trying to pass there.

Other than that, I try to not to impede the flow of traffic, *mostly*
by avoiding situations where it's even an issue, but also by using my
riding ability to choose a line that accomodates passing traffic, with
the often realized hope (I'd *like* to say expectation, but that would
be rather naive) of reciprocal regard.

But yes, I do inevitably find myself in the hairy midst of hostile
cagerland cluster*&^%, and then - for a little while - until I can
bust back out of there - it's... what's that movie called - "Premium
Rush"? ;-) (Sorry, but "if cars were six feet long, two feet wide,

and you could pick it up one hand, how do you think people around here

would drive them?”)

[Duane]

On 6/15/2013 2:28 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> Didn't we have this wretched thread six times already this year? [SIGH} And it's only June.
>

yep.

[Duane]

On 6/17/2013 3:11 AM, Dan O wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes

> http://www.co.linn.or.us/visitus/scio.php

>
>> Riding around that part of the Valley, you're
>> taking the lane no matter where you are.
>>
>

> True. Also, traffic is light to nonexistent, so an adjacent lane is
> usually available for passing.
>
>> Yesterday's ride --http://www.flickr.com/photos/visit-bend/8341005116/

>> (minus the pack of cyclists).
>

> Nice. "velvety smooth asphalt and wide bike lanes", climbing through
> the mountains - sounds de-stressing.
>

Beautiful. Good roads are something we don't have much in Quebec.
Saturday spent the morning in Ontario around a place called Van Kleek
Hill with nice roads and some nice rollers. Sunday rode around home and
the roads were that much worse. It was like a fast descent in Sarajevo.

>> I was at a conference in Bend and drove
>> home this morning and did one of my usual loops just to shake out
>> the legs.
>>
>

> That's a long day. And here I am only riding when I *have* to (sort
> of).

But when do you not "have" to?

[Frank Krygowski]

> >http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with...

>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> How many bicyclists stop to measure the widrh of a lane? I've been riding a bicycle for over 50 years and i couldn't tell you the width of any lane. Just how do you determine how many feet wide a lane is?

OK, first please understand I've been involved in bicyclist advocacy
since at least 1980, so I took an interest in lane width long ago.

Now the geek part: At some time in the 1990s, I parked the car I had
then in an empty parking lot, laid down a measuring tape, and marked
my windshield along the bottom. Using those marks, I was able to get
reasonable estimates of lane width as I drove my car.

For a long time, noting lane widths was something I occasionally did
while driving. I'm still curious about it, although my current cars
don't have the windshield marks. (In a Utah small town a few weeks
ago, I noted with amazement that the two lane residential streets were
fully 60 feet wide! I paced that off as I was walking to my car.)

Of course, I don't physically measure lane width as I ride bike, and
my judgement about whether or not to share is not driven by the
number. But by now, I think I'm pretty good at estimating those
numbers, and they're helpful for explaining technique.

(Further geekiness: In my current old Honda station wagon, I've
installed a bubble level device on the driver's door. It allows me to
measure the gradient of a road as I drive. It was helpful recently
when we were working on bicycle transportation maps for the two-county
region.)

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 17, 2:39 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And before you start in characterizing my approach as drunk wrong-way
> no-lights chaos, let me describe my approach:
>
> I generally look for and use routes that minimize interaction with
> other traffic.  And then I mostly ride anywhere I want to.

Fine. Many of us ride quiet roads when the choice exists. It's an
aesthetic thing. But I do lots of my shopping by bike, and most
stores are on busier roads. Acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, I
can get anywhere, even on busy roads. And acting as a legitimate
vehicle operator makes that much more pleasant.

> But when there is other traffic to deal with - to accomodate and be
> accommodated by - I ride as far right as practicable.  Actually, let
> me qualify that - I ride as far right as practicable if I stay on the
> same road with them.  I may very well look for an alterantive that
> takes me completely out of the practical equation for them.  They may
> still wonder if I'm going to pop back out in front of them, but I'm
> not - that doesn't make any sense at all.

Many people ride that way, thinking "alternative that takes me out of
the equation" means sidewalk (up to 13 times as dangerous per mile),
parking lot (where motorists come from any direction without warning),
gravel or grass by the side of the road (where a hidden hole can throw
you down), etc. The imaginary perfect ninja can handle all that; but
real-life cyclists get hurt much more often riding there.

> If an adjacent lane is clear for them to use or "straddle" into, I
> will maintain a substantial but reasonable space to my right (maybe a
> foot-and-a-half or two).  If the adjacent lane is unavailable to them,
> I will ride carefully within a foot of the right edge (unless
> conditions there are bad enough to pose too much risk of a crash).

Yes, as I suspected. The first piece of negative feedback I got in
the first road cycling class I took (back in the early 1980s) was
"You're riding too far to the right," and I was nowhere near one foot
from the edge. Dan, no matter how much it offends you, you do meet
the definition of an edge rider or gutter bunny. (You can decide
which term is more memorable.)

> In
> almost all cases, the overtaking motorist will *still* wait until they
> can at least straddle into the next lane, in some fewer case they will
> carefully pass in the same lane, and in some very few cases they will
> make a statement of disregard as they pass.

However, it's extremely common for people who ride at the edge to
suffer close passes, right hooks, left crosses, pull-outs, etc. And
it's extremely common for people who have learned to move away from
the edge to note that such incidents drop dramatically, to almost
zero. I've described it, my friends have described it, people on VC
forums have described it. In fact, it's not uncommon for those people
to note that they effectively never have such problems any more.

> But i'm not about to
> create "undue interference with the flow of traffic" as SOP because of
> those very few assholes who are going to give me the business whatever
> I do.

I think the disconnect here is the definition of "undue." You think
guaranteeing safe passage from motorists is "undue interference" or
"hall monitor" behavior. I think it's specifically permitted by law,
recommended in all competently written bike safety information, and
the only really logical way to ride. You're willing to kowtow to
motorists simply because they're motorists, and assume additional risk
to save them negligible time. I'm not.

> As I've said, there are two places in all my many miles and many
> routes where I "take the lane" such that motorists must wait until the
> adjacent lane is clear:  One is a very short, narrow little bridge
> over a ditch; and een there my mere presence *anywhere* on the bridge
> necessitates passing cars at least straddle the center line; so there
> I stay out a couple of feet from the left edge so as not to invite
> some real idiot trying to squeeze by in the same lane.

And does it work?

> The other place I is a very fast descent with hairpin curves -
> visibility ahead is insufficient to ensure availability of the
> adjacent lane for a safe pass at that speed, *and* the road is in very
> bad shape, with eroding edges and patches and potholes and washboard
> whoop-de-doos - such that it is necessary for me to use most of the
> lane just for a reasonably rideable line down the hill.  So here I
> *do* make it clear to traffic approaching from behind that I'm using
> the whole lane, and they universally lay back and wait.  The curves
> and and my speed being such that it would take a real lunatic to even
> consider trying to pass there.

So does it work?

> Other than that, I try to not to impede the flow of traffic, *mostly*
> by avoiding situations where it's even an issue, but also by using my
> riding ability to choose a line that accomodates passing traffic, with
> the often realized hope (I'd *like* to say expectation, but that would
> be rather naive) of reciprocal regard.

And as I've said, I seem to have far fewer hassles from motorists than
most cyclists. Perhaps when a person makes it obvious he has
confidence and knows what he's doing, people respond to that?

> But yes, I do inevitably find myself in the hairy midst of hostile
> cagerland cluster*&^%, and then - for a little while - until I can
> bust back out of there - it's... what's that movie called - "Premium
> Rush"? ;-)

Yes, I saw that movie a few months ago. Crazy fantasy bicycling, not
even counting the idea of a guy on a fixie keeping up with a strong
guy on an 11-speed road bike on a long downhill. Too bad there are
guys who believe the fantasy. :-/ Fortunately, most outgrow the
really radical fantasizing by the time they're 25 or so.
Unfortunately, few seem willing to try to learn to improve their real-
world biking. Like teenagers, most bicyclists think they already know
everything.

I know I won't change your mind, Dan. I just thought that some people
might be interested in an in-depth article on the genesis of common
attitudes. And since you seem to tend to forget context, that article
was
http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

I like "Edge Rider" (in *italics* indicating speed :-)

To me a foot from the edge means a foot out of the gutter if there is
one. Gutter is not road, and it's a very poor option to ride in
(though it's not quite "unrideable"). I won't ride within a foot of a
curb, either (curbs and gutters are usually a single entity around
here anyway).

We seem to be having a pretty good discussion here so far. Will have
to get to the rest later. Looking forward to it...

<snip>

[Dan]

Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 17, 9:19 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2:39 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

On Jun 17, 9:19 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2:39 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

(... split response continued from earlier post)

>
> Dan, no matter how much it offends you, you do meet
> the definition of an edge rider or gutter bunny. (You can decide
> which term is more memorable.)
>

If I can't be "Imaginary Perfect Ninja", then I choose to be called
"Edge Rider"! (Yes, I like that one quite a lot.)

> > In
> > almost all cases, the overtaking motorist will *still* wait until they
> > can at least straddle into the next lane, in some fewer case they will
> > carefully pass in the same lane, and in some very few cases they will
> > make a statement of disregard as they pass.
>
> However, it's extremely common for people who ride at the edge to
> suffer close passes, right hooks, left crosses, pull-outs, etc. And
> it's extremely common for people who have learned to move away from
> the edge to note that such incidents drop dramatically, to almost
> zero. I've described it, my friends have described it, people on VC
> forums have described it. In fact, it's not uncommon for those people
> to note that they effectively never have such problems any more.
>

It works. Great. Knock yourself out. Help those it can help. The
reasons it wouldn't work for me are far, far too interpersonally
relational and psychologically deep and complex to make understood.
I'm sure most people can *kind* of know what I mean. "You don't want
to get mixed up with a guy like me. I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel."

Face it: You like showing and telling others what is right and proper.
You like correcting what you see as improper. You like to control others.
Nothing wrong with that, but it's going to make some people not like you
sometimes.

I can appreciate a summer evening on the porch swing with Aunt Bea,
turtle spotting down to the pond with Opie, going to dinner and a movie
with Helen and Barney and Thelma Lou... but I need more.

Livin' on the edge. A dog who's tasted blood. No turning back.

> > But i'm not about to
> > create "undue interference with the flow of traffic" as SOP because of
> > those very few assholes who are going to give me the business whatever
> > I do.
>
> I think the disconnect here is the definition of "undue." You think
> guaranteeing safe passage from motorists is "undue interference" or
> "hall monitor" behavior. I think it's specifically permitted by law,
> recommended in all competently written bike safety information, and
> the only really logical way to ride.

Nothing wrong with that. I've said if that's what you need I'm okay with it.
I just use those terms (quoted from someone else and _principle of law_)
to point out that some reasonable people might consider it undue.

> You're willing to kowtow to
> motorists simply because they're motorists, and assume additional risk
> to save them negligible time. I'm not.
>

I'm trading some *extra* deference (which I can easily afford. I *like*
riding all over the place and mixing it up and being creative and can
handle the risk and so forth). I'm trading some karmic tolerance for the
shenanigans that I'm inevitably going to engage in ;-)

> > As I've said, there are two places in all my many miles and many
> > routes where I "take the lane" such that motorists must wait until the
> > adjacent lane is clear: One is a very short, narrow little bridge
> > over a ditch; and een there my mere presence *anywhere* on the bridge
> > necessitates passing cars at least straddle the center line; so there
> > I stay out a couple of feet from the left edge so as not to invite
> > some real idiot trying to squeeze by in the same lane.
>
> And does it work?
>

Not really. A couple of cars have whizzed by with a "straddle pass" on the
bridge rather than slow and wait the four or five seconds it would take for
me to get across. I haven't been hit, though; so there's that.

(I have noticed a number of people seem to vroom and zoom close *after* I'm
across seeming to express disapproval of my having been in the way - a
sentiment that I think would be axacerbated by my *deliberately* making
*sure* I was well in the way.)

> > The other place I is a very fast descent with hairpin curves -
> > visibility ahead is insufficient to ensure availability of the
> > adjacent lane for a safe pass at that speed, *and* the road is in very
> > bad shape, with eroding edges and patches and potholes and washboard
> > whoop-de-doos - such that it is necessary for me to use most of the
> > lane just for a reasonably rideable line down the hill. So here I
> > *do* make it clear to traffic approaching from behind that I'm using
> > the whole lane, and they universally lay back and wait. The curves
> > and and my speed being such that it would take a real lunatic to even
> > consider trying to pass there.
>
> So does it work?
>

Well, I'm not sure. ISTR getting passed there once, which seemed pretty
crazy, but being a racer I have to appreciate a totally ballsy pass. I'm
not sure because I don't know if anybody *would* have tried it if I kept
more to the right. I kind of doubt it. It's certainly possible. Then
again, the garlic around my neck seems to ward off all the vampires 100%,
so...

> > Other than that, I try to not to impede the flow of traffic, *mostly*
> > by avoiding situations where it's even an issue, but also by using my
> > riding ability to choose a line that accomodates passing traffic, with
> > the often realized hope (I'd *like* to say expectation, but that would
> > be rather naive) of reciprocal regard.
>
> And as I've said, I seem to have far fewer hassles from motorists than
> most cyclists. Perhaps when a person makes it obvious he has
> confidence and knows what he's doing, people respond to that?
>

Oh, yes - absolutely. It's the underpinning of a zillion romance novels;
and there's something to it.

> > But yes, I do inevitably find myself in the hairy midst of hostile
> > cagerland cluster*&^%, and then - for a little while - until I can
> > bust back out of there - it's... what's that movie called - "Premium
> > Rush"? ;-)
>
> Yes, I saw that movie a few months ago.

I haven't seen it, but...

> Crazy fantasy bicycling,

... I was referring to unrestrained passion, and unhesitant creative
free-thinking. You know - shenanigans.

Don't be so quick with such expressions as "crazy fantasy bicycling" and
"imaginary perfect ninja". Amazing things happen all the time; but you
have to be willing to try.

> not
> even counting the idea of a guy on a fixie keeping up with a strong
> guy on an 11-speed road bike on a long downhill. Too bad there are
> guys who believe the fantasy. :-/ Fortunately, most outgrow the
> really radical fantasizing by the time they're 25 or so.
> Unfortunately, few seem willing to try to learn to improve their real-
> world biking. Like teenagers, most bicyclists think they already know
> everything.
>

And you know this, of course; and you are bound to "correct" it.

> I know I won't change your mind, Dan. I just thought that some people
> might be interested in an in-depth article on the genesis of common
> attitudes.

Except the genesis of attitudes in the article was all about planners
and politics and meetings and public policy and crap like that. I can
discern the genesis of attitudes on the ground and what led to them
pretty well without some less-than-brilliant author who has some definitely
skewed attitudes of their own.

> And since you seem to tend to forget context, that article
> washttp://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/
>

Yeah, thanks for posting. I got a kick out of:

"I distinctly remember a more experienced rider yelling, “Never pass a
right turning car on the right!” That was my first exposure to the
possibility that bicyclists need not expose themselves to unnecessary
danger... "

... and:

'Pretty much any cycling nonsense here can be intuitively explained,

even to a confirmed 100% motorist, as “well, if cars were six feet

long, two feet wide, and you could pick it up one hand, how do you

think people around here would drive them?”'