OT: What's wrong with this picture?

[DirtRoadie]

Not strictly the image, but the whole scenario:
http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121108/NEWS01/121109595/Cyclist-critical-after-Bodo-crash

Yes, absolutely OT here. But nobody even seems to care anymore.
DR

[Dan O]

On Nov 8, 9:20 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> Not strictly the image, but the whole scenario:http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121108/NEWS01/121109595/Cyclis...

>
> Yes, absolutely OT here. But nobody even seems to care anymore.

The gut on the cager?

SMIDSY?

Run over by both (front and rear) wheels? At pulling into the "Office
Depot" speed?

Witness wants to remain anonymous?

Dragged 40 feet? ... wait a sec'... victim landed on the hood... then
fell off... *then* got run over? ... both wheels... then dragged 20
feet? (The lardass driver *still* in the drivers seat after the cops
arrive?)

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

Didn't read any mention of a helmet either way (though I'll bet she
was wearing one). Nothing wrong with that.

[Dan O]

On Nov 8, 10:24 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 9:20 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Not strictly the image, but the whole scenario:http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121108/NEWS01/121109595/Cyclis...
>
> > Yes, absolutely OT here. But nobody even seems to care anymore.
>

One more... a Toyota that looks to be the size of a U-Haul truck?

one more... "raised her hands moments before impact"? How many
moments? No hands on the bars?... (I don't mean to question her skill
and ability to take evasive action... horrifying)

[Dan O]

... at least she yelled (didn't seem to do much good, though)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?group=rec.bicycles.tech&q=dan+o+why+not+yell&qt_g=Search+this+group

[James]

Very nasty. Sounds like she needed special ninja skills.

--
JS.

[datakoll]

MORE COFFEE

cyclist failed to stop at intersection

[DirtRoadie]

On Nov 9, 5:57 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> MORE COFFEE
>
> cyclist failed to stop at intersection

No need to.
A "T" intersection where the southbound rider had the ROW.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=+37.251591%C2%B0,-107.876575%C2%B0&aq=&sll=38.997934,-105.550567&sspn=7.187137,8.415527&vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=37.249888,-107.873318&spn=0.014382,0.016437&t=h&z=16
DR

[DirtRoadie]

All true.
The thing that initially jumped out at me was the failure of the cops
to issue a citation.
But the revised article clarifies that (while not exactly painting a
rosy picture).
It now reads "Charges against Wagner [the driver] are pending, Shupe
said. Police are waiting to see if Richards survives before
determining whether to cite the driver with careless driving causing
serious bodily injury or vehicular homicide, he said."

It is all utterly horrifying. More so because the victim is a
friend.
DR

[Duane Hébert]

Sorry to hear about your friend DR. I hope should makes it ok.

It's hard to see how the driver didn't see her. We're talking about
turning into a mall in broad daylight.

I wish I could say that it was a rare occurrence but sadly we've had 3
club members hit by cars this season. Fortunately all survived but 2
are not back on their bikes yet. The sad part is that of these 3
situations the motorist was at fault in all 3 but only one even received
a ticket and that for running a stop.

[DirtRoadie]

Word from her husband last night was that she was lucid and stable,
but would undoubtedly have a LONG recovery.
And from an update a few minutes ago, she's messed up (technical term)
but at least survival seems highly likely.
Ironically, almost exactly a year ago he broke his femur in a
cyclocross crash. As bad as that was, when surgically pinned together
he was walking on it in less than two months. In contrast she has a
crushed pelvis and, even in the best case, is looking at being non
weight bearing for six months.

> It's hard to see how the driver didn't see her.  We're talking about
> turning into a mall in broad daylight.

Exactly. Flat, open, no obstructions to visibility whatsoever.

>   I wish I could say that it was a rare occurrence but sadly we've had 3
> club members hit by cars this season.  Fortunately all survived but 2
> are not back on their bikes yet.  The sad part is that of these 3
> situations the motorist was at fault in all 3 but only one even received
> a ticket and that for running a stop.

That is truly unfortunate.
DR

[Dan O]

Obviously the driver was brain dead. The normal everyday
braindeadness went to complete shut down when the rider landed on the
hood, and the driver _kept driving_ into the damned Office Depot!
Then, instead of getting out to help the person she'd just hurt, *sat*
in the truck.

>   I wish I could say that it was a rare occurrence but sadly we've had 3
> club members hit by cars this season.  Fortunately all survived but 2
> are not back on their bikes yet.  The sad part is that of these 3
> situations the motorist was at fault in all 3 but only one even received
> a ticket and that for running a stop.

(Sending out positive ways to the cosmic vibe... )

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/09/2012 10:07 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
<snip>

>> Sorry to hear about your friend DR. I hope should makes it ok.
> Word from her husband last night was that she was lucid and stable,
> but would undoubtedly have a LONG recovery.
> And from an update a few minutes ago, she's messed up (technical term)
> but at least survival seems highly likely.
> Ironically, almost exactly a year ago he broke his femur in a
> cyclocross crash. As bad as that was, when surgically pinned together
> he was walking on it in less than two months. In contrast she has a
> crushed pelvis and, even in the best case, is looking at being non
> weight bearing for six months.

Fortunately she's still young enough to recover well from something like
that. Best wishes.

>> It's hard to see how the driver didn't see her. We're talking about
>> turning into a mall in broad daylight.
>
> Exactly. Flat, open, no obstructions to visibility whatsoever.

Yeah, it's ridiculous that the driver will probably get off with some
token slap on the wrist.

>> I wish I could say that it was a rare occurrence but sadly we've had 3
>> club members hit by cars this season. Fortunately all survived but 2
>> are not back on their bikes yet. The sad part is that of these 3
>> situations the motorist was at fault in all 3 but only one even received
>> a ticket and that for running a stop.
>
> That is truly unfortunate.

Not a good year. We've had the usual few spills due to nasty roads, a
couple due to bad riding and these three.

We have 450 members but usually don't see this many auto accidents. I
think that it's a lot to do with all the road construction we've had
this year. Everyone is on edge.

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/09/2012 10:34 AM, Dan O wrote:

I think that's right. A few years ago, a woman was riding up Lakeshore
blvd here and got hit by someone coming the other way and turning into
to her. The rider went over the hood of the car, breaking the wind
shield in the process and ended up on the ground. The driver stopped
for a second and then continued on. Seems that she was late to pick up
the kid at the day care.

[datakoll]

DUH

.....EXPERIENCED RIDER FORGETS NEWTON.....

well, its ego time again folks...

one more experienced cyclist cut down at an intersection failing in failure to see a large barn approaching, failure to anticipate, failure to remeber.

BTW, riding across parking lots willynilly like thru parking slots, from slot areas across lanes to next slot area disreguarding the painted lines is extremely illegal and leaves rider without recourse if squashed by a YUgo

HINT: best appraoch is avoiding the parking lot or choosing the least dangerous entry and exit point.

rider in jeporedee here was prob just riding along spaced out on riding along which is off course another citation.

YO DARWIN....

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 10:08 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 9:16:26 AM UTC-5, DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 5:57 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > MORE COFFEE
>
> > > cyclist failed to stop at intersection
>
> > No need to.
>
> > A "T" intersection where the southbound rider had the ROW.
>

> >http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=+37.25159...

>
> > DR
>
> DUH
>
> .....EXPERIENCED RIDER FORGETS NEWTON.....
>
> well, its ego time again folks...
>
> one more experienced cyclist cut down at an intersection failing in failure to see a large barn approaching, failure to anticipate, failure to remeber.
>

The head on left cross is one of the hardest things to anticipate.
Expecting it would basically make any reasonable forward progress
prohibitively stressful in town. I've no doubt that the brain dead
driver who had no business piloting the high-speed barge failed to
signal.

> BTW, riding across parking lots willynilly like thru parking slots, from slot areas across lanes to next slot area disreguarding the painted lines is extremely illegal and leaves rider without recourse if squashed by a YUgo
>

Illegal? On private property?

I understand the risks (like sidewalks, too), but use parking lots
(especially big empty corner lot ones) to great advantage.

> HINT:  best appraoch is avoiding the parking lot or choosing the least dangerous entry and exit point.
>

Sure, I can go along with that (unless the least dangerous point is
waaaaaaay over there somewhere and/or this spot is more fun.)

> rider in jeporedee here was prob just riding along spaced out on riding along...

Well, that happens; but I'm not sure about probably here.

> ... which is off course another citation.
>

I wonder how they write that up, tho

> YO DARWIN....

Opinions always subject to variation, but I doubt that was major
factor in this case. (Survival of the lardass brain dead cager? The
timid sidewalk-only bicyclist?)

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 10:50 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 10:08 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, November 9, 2012 9:16:26 AM UTC-5, DirtRoadie wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 5:57 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > MORE COFFEE
>
> > > > cyclist failed to stop at intersection
>
> > > No need to.
>
> > > A "T" intersection where the southbound rider had the ROW.
>
> > >http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=+37.25159...
>
> > > DR
>
> > DUH
>
> > .....EXPERIENCED RIDER FORGETS NEWTON.....
>
> > well, its ego time again folks...
>
> > one more experienced cyclist cut down at an intersection failing in failure to see a large barn approaching, failure to anticipate, failure to remeber.
>
> The head on left cross is one of the hardest things to anticipate.
> Expecting it would basically make any reasonable forward progress
> prohibitively stressful in town.

There's no evading it, either. Either you just come to a complete
stop for every oncoming car that *might* turn left into every
driveway, and trackstand there looking at the driver to make *sure*
they're not going for it (they like to keep creeping even when they do
intend to let you by first, and of course now that *you're* stopped
they may think they have the right-of-way...), or you... well... there
aren't really any other good ways around it.

(Just looked at the map. No place to bail in this one, either.)

<snip>

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 11:04 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 10:50 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 10:08 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, November 9, 2012 9:16:26 AM UTC-5, DirtRoadie wrote:
> > > > On Nov 9, 5:57 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > MORE COFFEE
>
> > > > > cyclist failed to stop at intersection
>
> > > > No need to.
>
> > > > A "T" intersection where the southbound rider had the ROW.
>
> > > >http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=+37.25159...
>
> > > > DR
>
> > > DUH
>
> > > .....EXPERIENCED RIDER FORGETS NEWTON.....
>
> > > well, its ego time again folks...
>
> > > one more experienced cyclist cut down at an intersection failing in failure to see a large barn approaching, failure to anticipate, failure to remeber.
>

I will acknowledge my own failure at times to remember something very
important, having been hit *twice* by cars looking left and turning
right (twice should be enough to ram the message home for me from now
on, and I'll count my blessings and try not to wonder too much what
possible reason there could be for me to receive them).

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 10:08 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

(will just have to find context upthread)

>
> rider in jeporedee here was prob just riding along spaced out on riding along which is off course another citation.
>

The most charitable explanation I can think of (and it turns my
stomach to offer this driver any charity) is that the driver probably
regarded bicycles as hardly moving, and this one obviously had the
capacity to be cooking at a good clip.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

People who have studied this, constructed bicycling training courses, certified instructors for those courses, gotten feedback from those instructors and their students, generally say this:

The best defense against a left cross is to be very visible. That usually means being out in the lane, where an oncoming driver is looking, not close to the gutter. Bright clothing probably helps, and lights at night certainly help too.

Another benefit of being near lane center is that if a left cross commences, the cyclist has a chance at doing a quick turn to his right, and making the turn before the motorist. The motorist has an added second or so to notice the cyclist, and may brake in time. And even if the cyclist hits the car, it's more of a glancing blow, less of a head on.

I avoided such a collision just once, by making that kind of snap turn. That was before I knew the value of being more visible. Since learning to stay out the gutter, I've never needed that evasive maneuver. But I'm ready for it, just in case.

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

Where in the article does it state that this bicyclist ws NOT in the centre of the lane?

Cheers

[datakoll]

> No need to.
>
> A "T" intersection where the southbound rider had the ROW.
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=+37.251591%C2%B0,-107.876575%C2%B0&aq=&sll=38.997934,-105.550567&sspn=7.187137,8.415527&vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=37.249888,-107.873318&spn=0.014382,0.016437&t=h&z=16
>
> DR

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

no need 2....a fine explainaaaaation. labored breathing ? why breath ?

uhhh tilt the screen....I doahn hava mouse on hand....does the cyclist see the intersection or not ?

I have the miles for suggesting the T is a slow to stop with vehicles waiting to enter main roadway.

surly the enter side has a stop. the truck stopped then ran over the cyclist who happened to drive in front of the truck who happened to drive in front of the truck who happened to drive in front of the truck who happened to drive in front of the truck.....

what other method Is there for getting IN FRONT OF THE TRUCK ?

YOU SEE MY POINT ?

now if the cyclist had run into the truck's side...then what ?

on the other...the contact window is against the truck. no reason why truck should not see cyclist in that window...minus truck...mega

butbutbut the cycle stops NOW...why did she not stop ?

RIGHT OF WAY has no value here....OR THERE

i have a limited view of the GooImage but does it suggest a LSR by the cyclist

no LSR's near PL's

as for Dano....one could slow down with age....enlarge probs fpr survival

[datakoll]

woman needs 2 witlesses...not D. Betrayus

[Wes Groleau]

On 11-09-2012 01:24, Dan O wrote:
> Dragged 40 feet? ... wait a sec'... victim landed on the hood... then

> fell off...*then* got run over? ... both wheels... then dragged 20
> feet? (The lardass driver*still* in the drivers seat after the cops
> arrive?)

If I were one of those cops, I would have said,
"Get out of the vehicle. Stand over there. Don't move."

Kind of foolish being in front of a vehicle while a driver
who just ran over someone is still behind the wheel.

--
Wes Groleau

Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana!
http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

[DirtRoadie]

On Nov 9, 8:47 am, Duane Hébert <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 10:07 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> Sorry to hear about your friend DR.  I hope should makes it ok.
> > Word from her husband last night was that she was lucid and stable,
> > but would undoubtedly have a LONG recovery.
> > And from an update a few minutes ago, she's messed up (technical term)
> > but at least survival seems highly likely.
> > Ironically, almost exactly a year ago he broke his femur in a
> > cyclocross crash. As bad as that was, when surgically pinned together
> > he was walking on it in less than two months. In contrast she has a
> > crushed pelvis and, even in the best case, is looking at being non
> > weight bearing for six months.
>
> Fortunately she's still young enough to recover well from something like
> that.  Best wishes.
>
> >> It's hard to see how the driver didn't see her.  We're talking about
> >> turning into a mall in broad daylight.
>
> > Exactly. Flat, open, no obstructions to visibility whatsoever.
>
> Yeah, it's ridiculous that the driver will probably get off with some
> token slap on the wrist.
>

Fortunately I don't think that is what is going to happen here.
There is almost no way that a driver could NOT be at fault given the
details of the situation.
And the content at the original news link has been revised .
It's actually a bit strange. It has the tone and content of an
obituary, although, thank goodness, it does not appear that we are
headed there.

And then, there's the last line - a quote from the law enforcement
spokesman.
" 'We want to send out all our best to the victim and hope for a quick
recovery," Shupe said."
While I appreciate (and share) the sentiment, it seems out of place.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

I would have to disagree on that last observation, at least using
what I consider to be a bailout option. Take a look at the "street
view" along the frontage road. The bailout options are plentiful.
Almost nothing but grass or open asphalt in any direction. Yes, a
couple of short sections of curb, but this victim was also a
cyclocross competitor.
But, there was, for example, no guardrail to hop over to safety,
either. Maybe that's your point.
But, regardless, the problem with a bailout is that one has to have
time to execute it. While I don't yet know for certain (I'll learn in
due course) I suspect that this incident occurred with little time for
the victim to react.

DR

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 2:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:04:10 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 10:50 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The head on left cross is one of the hardest things to anticipate.
>
> > > Expecting it would basically make any reasonable forward progress
>
> > > prohibitively stressful in town.
>
> > There's no evading it, either. Either you just come to a complete
>
> > stop for every oncoming car that *might* turn left into every
>
> > driveway, and trackstand there looking at the driver to make *sure*
>
> > they're not going for it (they like to keep creeping even when they do
>
> > intend to let you by first, and of course now that *you're* stopped
>
> > they may think they have the right-of-way...), or you... well... there
>
> > aren't really any other good ways around it.
>
> People who have studied this, constructed bicycling training courses, certified instructors for those courses, gotten feedback from those instructors and their students, generally say this:
>
> The best defense against a left cross is to be very visible. That usually means being out in the lane, where an oncoming driver is looking, not close to the gutter. Bright clothing probably helps, and lights at night certainly help too.
>

None of that applies to when it happens.

> Another benefit of being near lane center is that if a left cross commences, the cyclist has a chance at doing a quick turn to his right, and making the turn before the motorist.
>

Not in this one. (Did you look at the aerial pic?)

> The motorist has an added second or so to notice the cyclist, and may brake in time.

(Still needing coffee, but... wow... even a turning car moves a long
way in a couple of seconds. I am having trouble conceptualizing an
evasive maneuver that gains this.)

> And even if the cyclist hits the car, it's more of a glancing blow, less of a head on.
>

Whoop-de-fuckin-doooo!!

> I avoided such a collision just once, by making that kind of snap turn. That was before I knew the value of being more visible. Since learning to stay out the gutter, I've never needed that evasive maneuver. But I'm ready for it, just in case.
>

I'm not sure this rider would not be offended, but that could just be
me.

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 4:01 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No need to.
>
> > A "T" intersection where the southbound rider had the ROW.
>

> >http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=+37.25159...

>
> > DR
>
> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
>
> no need 2....a fine explainaaaaation. labored breathing ? why breath ?
>
> uhhh tilt the screen....I doahn hava mouse on hand....does the cyclist see the intersection or not ?
>
> I have the miles for suggesting the T is a slow to stop with vehicles waiting to enter main roadway.
>
> surly the enter side has a stop. the truck stopped then ran over the cyclist who happened to drive in front of the truck who happened to drive in front of the truck who happened to drive in front of the truck who happened to drive in front of the truck.....
>
> what other method Is there for getting IN FRONT OF THE TRUCK ?
>
> YOU SEE MY POINT ?
>

Sorry (coffee still not really kicked in), I don't this time (usually
do).

> now if the cyclist had run into the truck's side...then what ?
>

In that case (see map - two lanes southbound) there would have been
room to dodge left without going into oncoming lanes, although it's
not much time to realize the truck turning across your lane means no
one (nothing much bigger than an invisible bicycle anyway) is coming
up behind you.

> on the other...the contact window is against the truck. no reason why truck should not see cyclist in that window...minus truck...mega
>
> butbutbut the cycle stops NOW...why did she not stop ?
>

http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

> RIGHT OF WAY has no value here....OR THERE
>
> i have a limited view of the GooImage but does it suggest a LSR by the cyclist
>
> no LSR's near PL's
>
> as for Dano....one could slow down with age....enlarge probs fpr survival

Yes, I can see that; in fact I see myself doing it (kind of at the age
of having to accept it - just recenctly eligible for AARP membership);
but still enough kick to resist.

[Dan O]

Yeah, I'm speculating a lot. It's the curb and maybe signposts and
light poles at the driveway and most of all even hopping the curb
would put you into the active part of Office Depot parking lot
entrance with no time to assess what was going on there.

The problem with evading left cross is whatever you do puts *you*
leaving where you were supposed to be and anything that goes wrong
suddenly looks like your fault (and maybe partially is by then -
there's just not a lot of time for analysis).

[Frank Krygowski]

I don't think it stated either way. That doesn't change what the best
defense is.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

Also, we've all been left crossed enough (right? I know I have) to
know that they *usually* do notice you and stop - often already in
your lane(s) but without the follow through (in the golf swing sense),
and you can go by at the far right and then gradually recover from
adrenaline surge. The only good bailout option is a clean bailout off
the road - "ditching it", so to speak. Don't like any option that
puts you into something that could be worse when the driver *should*
still and probably will notice and stop in time.

Speculating a lot though. I sure hope the rider is okay (I've been
flat on my back in extended recovery, though never as badly messed
up... physically). Life is so unfair, but at the same time, perfectly
so.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Nov 10, 12:11 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > The best defense against a left cross is to be very visible.  That usually means being out in the lane, where an oncoming driver is looking, not close to the gutter.  Bright clothing probably helps, and lights at night certainly help too.
>
> None of that applies to when it happens.

Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. But I think those measures tend
to prevent it from happening. I don't necessarily do the bright
colored clothing, though. I haven't found it necessary. Lane position
seems to do it for me.

>
> > Another benefit of being near lane center is that if a left cross commences, the cyclist has a chance at doing a quick turn to his right, and making the turn before the motorist.
>
> Not in this one.  (Did you look at the aerial pic?)

Well, nothing works in absolutely every case. You can always find
exceptions.

>
> >  The motorist has an added second or so to notice the cyclist, and may brake in time.
>
> (Still needing coffee, but... wow... even a turning car moves a long
> way in a couple of seconds.  I am having trouble conceptualizing an
> evasive maneuver that gains this.)
>
> > And even if the cyclist hits the car, it's more of a glancing blow, less of a head on.
>
> Whoop-de-fuckin-doooo!!

OK, I don't understand that at all. In my one incident, I came
closest to hitting the passenger door of the car, although that wasn't
really extremely close. Would you rather do a merging crash into the
side of a car, or a full head-on collision? I know what my choice
would be.

> > I avoided such a collision just once, by making that kind of snap turn.  That was before I knew the value of being more visible.  Since learning to stay out the gutter, I've never needed that evasive maneuver.  But I'm ready for it, just in case.
>

> I'm not sure this rider would not be offended, but that could just > me.

We both know you get offended at almost anything I post.

I'm not in any way saying this cyclist was at fault. I sincerely hope
this person recovers completely and enjoys thousands of miles of
riding again. I think motorists should never drive again if they
seriously hurt another road user. But I also think it's good to think
about how we might protect ourselves from their mistakes.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 10:11 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 12:11 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 2:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The best defense against a left cross is to be very visible. That usually means being out in the lane, where an oncoming driver is looking, not close to the gutter. Bright clothing probably helps, and lights at night certainly help too.
>
> > None of that applies to when it happens.
>
> Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. But I think those measures tend
> to prevent it from happening. I don't necessarily do the bright
> colored clothing, though. I haven't found it necessary. Lane position
> seems to do it for me.
>

When I approach any sort of intersection (driveway, etc.) where a car
is present or approaching that might do something stupid, I usually
drift *way* left - *past* lane center, even.

>
>
> > > Another benefit of being near lane center is that if a left cross commences, the cyclist has a chance at doing a quick turn to his right, and making the turn before the motorist.
>
> > Not in this one. (Did you look at the aerial pic?)
>
> Well, nothing works in absolutely every case. You can always find
> exceptions.
>

But your remarks were in the context of this case.

>
>
> > > The motorist has an added second or so to notice the cyclist, and may brake in time.
>
> > (Still needing coffee, but... wow... even a turning car moves a long
> > way in a couple of seconds. I am having trouble conceptualizing an
> > evasive maneuver that gains this.)
>
> > > And even if the cyclist hits the car, it's more of a glancing blow, less of a head on.
>
> > Whoop-de-fuckin-doooo!!
>
> OK, I don't understand that at all. In my one incident, I came
> closest to hitting the passenger door of the car, although that wasn't
> really extremely close. Would you rather do a merging crash into the
> side of a car, or a full head-on collision? I know what my choice
> would be.
>

Bad choice.

> > > I avoided such a collision just once, by making that kind of snap turn. That was before I knew the value of being more visible. Since learning to stay out the gutter, I've never needed that evasive maneuver. But I'm ready for it, just in case.
>
> > I'm not sure this rider would not be offended, but that could just > me.
>
> We both know you get offended at almost anything I post.
>

Seems that way. (Not just me, though - which tells us something.)
Why don't you send your comments (don't!) on a card with some flowers
to the hospital and see how the victim and family reacts.

> I'm not in any way saying this cyclist was at fault. I sincerely hope
> this person recovers completely and enjoys thousands of miles of
> riding again. I think motorists should never drive again if they
> seriously hurt another road user.

The "again" is the problem; too little, too late - it's like Andre's
solution to motorist indifference: Sacrifice some bicyclists so that
legal prosecution may get the rest of the cagers' attention.

> But I also think it's good to think
> about how we might protect ourselves from their mistakes.
>

I'm sick sick SICK of victim blaming - and that's *exactly* what this
was.

My wife might say, "Don't get so emotional." Yeah, I'm messed up.
Reading Keith Moon biography - maybe that'll help; maybe exacerbate.
Still alive, though, for some reason (or maybe there's *not* really a
reason for everything... )

[Dan O]

On Nov 9, 7:41 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:

Haven't looked at street view yet...

<snip>

[Dan O]

I'll spare the constant apologizing for my... um... and leave it
implicit. All week I've been sucking down smokes ina hurry and my gut
keeps nagging me like I need to balance something in my diet. But my
diet and function is really okay. There's some sort of anxiety in
me. ("Let that boy boogie woogie. It's in him, and it's got to come
out")

I think health care needs to be a greater part of everybody's everyday
life - dropping by the wellness center to hang with the practitioners
(like hanging out in the back room of the bike shop) and what not; and
mental health needs to be integrated side-by-side and equal
importance.

Instead, we're mostly on our own - and floundering very badly (not
just me).

[Dan O]

Re; victim blaming: Hindsight is 20/20 and we always could have done
something differently and learning happens (even in what I wouldn't
call "mistakes") - but after-the-fact is never the same thing as in
the moment. A little understanding goes a long way.

[Dan O]

It occurs to me that - if there *is* a reason for everything - maybe
one reason I'm still alive is that I have good (not perfect) dynamic
instincts and learned and even *practiced* behaviors for when the SHIT
HITS THE FAN - and it does, because I have not yet surrendured to a
level of caution that I think of as fuddy-duddiness.

There's nothing *inherently* wrong with thinking "about how we might
protect ourselves from their mistakes", but it runs right up along the
fine, fuzzy line of victim blaming.

[Dan O]

It's crazy up here:

56 datak...@yahoo.com
56 danover...@gmail.com
36 ""twshermanremov...@thi$southslope.net"
27 johnbsloc...@gmail.com
25 frkry...@gmail.com
16 a...@yellowjersey.org
15 james.e.stew...@gmail.com
14 fiult...@yahoo.com
13 comandante.ban...@yahoo.com
11 thirty-...@live.co.uk

[Dan O]

Top posters
This month
57 danover...@gmail.com
56

<snip>

[datakoll]

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121109/NEWS01/121109511/Cyclist-improves-after-being-struck-by-truck---

yeah I have it in view with the second story.

only defense is eyeballs out for intersections, if the entry has traffic waiting, if a vehicle SIGNALS from the oncoming lane or if there is any traffic at all in the oncoming BUT NO TRAFFIC IN YOUR LANE then its slow down anticipating a turn...no LSR.

A busy industrial area is a heads up fersure.

bright clothing is an answer.

I avoided a MB landrover turning into me from 3 lanes over...THREE...no signal no brakes into a superduper entry....MB had NY plates.

Law's looking for a witness to signal or no signal, that nwould cook it.

[datakoll]

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

LET ME EXPAND HERE....

the truck's driver may not be thinking driving but what todo at the IP, what after the IP who knows what listening to C&W.

She's turned here before.

Her attention goes to turning maybe only briefly from the other mental activity...no prep.

As looking for a yellow lock washer...one pictures the washer and sez yellow washer...

The driver looks back...hahahha...to the entry which is the GOAL....itsnot the GOALs stupid, getting thru the turn is the GOAL...then ahead to the oncoming lane which is apparently clear ahhhh good the lane is clear NOPROBLEM WE CAN TURN..

there are no pedestrians....there's no sidewalk...there's no sidewalk ?

so there are no GIANT GROUND SLOTHS RIDING J&B TRICYCLES IN THE ONCOMING..

you see at that point the potential existence of an oncoming LSR bicyle in the oncoming lane' side area is deeply submerged under a huge amount of sensory data for a driver maybe not at the topof her form today.
WORSER !!! bad luck for the cyclist. As the driver's gaze...focused on vehicle size traffic coming down the center oncoming lane passes over the cyclists postion,

the cyclist has moved in front of a yellow sign.

cyclist is wearing a yellow jersey.

reasons to not LSR across parking lot entries.

[Dan O]

On Nov 10, 7:38 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:58:23 AM UTC-5, datakoll wrote:

> >http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121109/NEWS01/121109511/Cyclis...

This and that all makes sense to me now - thanks! The one difference
I might have (and it's all speculation so no better than anyone else)
is that you're trying to think what the driver could have been
thinking; and I honestly think this driver must have been the closest
thing to brain dead that still moves on the earth and was hardly
thinking if at all. I can be with the above Big Bang explanation
right up until the rider flops onto the hood; then what happens next
seems a complete failure to function at all - hence my diagnosis of
pre-existing braindeadness (which is a feasible alternate explanation
for the big bang, too). But I don't know ("Will you still need me,
will you still feed me, when... ")

[Dan O]

On Nov 10, 4:58 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121109/NEWS01/121109511/Cyclis...

>
> yeah I have it in view with the second story.
>

(Just clicked on second story... ) OMG, Betsy is my age.

> only defense is eyeballs out for intersections, if the entry has traffic waiting, if a vehicle SIGNALS from the oncoming lane or if there is any traffic at all in the oncoming BUT NO TRAFFIC IN YOUR LANE then its slow down anticipating a turn...no LSR.
>
> A busy industrial area is a heads up fersure.
>
> bright clothing is an answer.
>
> I avoided a MB landrover turning into me from 3 lanes over...THREE...no signal no brakes into a superduper entry....MB had NY plates.
>
> Law's looking for a witness to signal or no signal, that nwould cook it.

copasetic.

[Wes Groleau]

On 11-10-2012 02:52, Dan O wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:07 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 11:03 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 10:27 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:

Talking to yourself?

> There's nothing *inherently* wrong with thinking "about how we might
> protect ourselves from their mistakes", but it runs right up along the
> fine, fuzzy line of victim blaming.

Should I read this as "Never give advice to anyone, because it might
offend someone who already didn't follow it."

??

--
Wes Groleau

I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with
the release of MS-DOS.
— Larry DeLuca

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per datakoll:

>you see at that point the potential existence of an oncoming LSR bicyle in the oncoming lane' side area is deeply submerged under a huge amount of sensory data for a driver maybe not at the topof her form today.

I had a guy coming out of a school parking lot drive *right*
through the spot I was in before I zinged... but he didn't sag.

No traffic, just me and him.

He flagged me down a couple blocks later and just kept on
apologizing profusely to the effect that he just did not see me.

I believed him bc some days before, about a block away, two kids
in a car that looked they were on something blew a stop sign at a
little over walking speed and I came close enough that my front
wheel hit the rear fender well.

In both cases I was wearing dark green cargo pants and a dark
gray shirt instead of my usual red shirt or windbreaker.

The two kids, I would have cheerfully pushed off the nearest
cliff... but the guy coming out of the parking lot was so genuine
that I had to think that anybody could have had a similar lapse.

In fact, I then realized that I had actually had one of my very
own on the way to work one day a looooong time ago. I came to a
full stop, looked right, looked left, and then proceeded to drive
right at a speed of about 1.5 mph into the side of the car that
had just pulled in front of me.

Another time, at a major intersection, the light turned green
and, as I eased out, a tractor-trailer that had blown the red
light flew past the hood of my car at what seemed like highway
speed. 18 inches more and I would have been a goner.... Can't
recall if I looked left before pulling out.... hopefully I did
not bc otherwise I would have to have looked right at that rig
before trying to pull into it's path.

So, bottom line for me, stuff happens.... and the person at fault
doesn't have to be all that egregiously negligent.... But that
doesn't cut down on the death/injury rates...
--
Pete Cresswell

[Dan O]

On Nov 10, 10:40 am, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-10-2012 02:52, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 11:07 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 11:03 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 9, 10:27 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Talking to yourself?
>
> > There's nothing *inherently* wrong with thinking "about how we might
> > protect ourselves from their mistakes", but it runs right up along the
> > fine, fuzzy line of victim blaming.
>
> Should I read this as "Never give advice to anyone, because it might
> offend someone who already didn't follow it."
>
> ??
>

Depends on the context, and the advice.

[datakoll]

2 more snotty cyclists


uh Holewon....how many thees week ?


37829 !

[datakoll]

HERE'S A VICTIM FROM sOUTH bEACH

http://th02.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2011/314/8/9/covering_by_souljah01-d4fp48r.jpg

[datakoll]

Pete cresswell...what have you learned from these experiences to avoid another tomorrow ?

[datakoll]

the scenario I wrote is more or less what happens....esp the cyclist lost in background riding in a space SPECIFICALLY NOT DEFINED AS PEDESTRIAN....see bike lanes....

SHARE THE ROAD.....if they're not looking for GIANT FLYING BATS who would see them ? BIRDWATCHERS !

PLEAse ADAPT scenario to your riding analysis...

yawl have a riding analysis no ?

[Sir Ridesalot]

No matter how defensively you ride, if you're struck by a motor vehicle and seriously injured or killed you've become a statistic no matter how many or how few miles/kilometres you've ridden in your lifetime. For any bicyclist run over by a motor vehicle, bicycling for them was dangerous statistics be damned.

Bicycling can be relatively safe when compared to other activities but that is small comfort to a victim who is run down by a motor vehicle and is seriously injured. They or their familiy don`t give a rat's ass about how safe statistics claim bicycling is.

[Peter Van Buren]

On Nov 9, 5:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:04:10 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 10:50 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The head on left cross is one of the hardest things to anticipate.
>
> > > Expecting it would basically make any reasonable forward progress
>
> > > prohibitively stressful in town.
>
> > There's no evading it, either.  Either you just come to a complete
>
> > stop for every oncoming car that *might* turn left into every
>
> > driveway, and trackstand there looking at the driver to make *sure*
>
> > they're not going for it (they like to keep creeping even when they do
>
> > intend to let you by first, and of course now that *you're* stopped
>
> > they may think they have the right-of-way...), or you... well... there
>
> > aren't really any other good ways around it.
>
> People who have studied this, constructed bicycling training courses, certified instructors for those courses, gotten feedback from those instructors and their students, generally say this:
>
> The best defense against a left cross is to be very visible.  That usually means being out in the lane, where an oncoming driver is looking, not close to the gutter.  Bright clothing probably helps, and lights at night certainly help too.
>
> Another benefit of being near lane center is that if a left cross commences, the cyclist has a chance at doing a quick turn to his right, and making the turn before the motorist.  The motorist has an added second or so to notice the cyclist, and may brake in time.  And even if the cyclist hits the car, it's more of a glancing blow, less of a head on.
>
> I avoided such a collision just once, by making that kind of snap turn.  That was before I knew the value of being more visible.  Since learning to stay out the gutter, I've never needed that evasive maneuver.  But I'm ready for it, just in case.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

When I ride on that type of road and I pass a right hand entrance, I'm
always expecting any oncoming cars to just turn left right in front of
or right into me. Especially if the car appears to be slowing down or
has a turn signal on.
I try to be hyper aware in those situations. I say to my self "he's
going to turn, he's going to turn...." and more than a few times a car
has turned when I had the right of way. I just feel it helps to expect
trouble in that situation. Of course, the injured rider might have
been doing the same. I did get hit by a truck in one such situation. I
received a pretty decent concussion and was knocked out for about 10
minutes, so I don't know remember if I saw the truck coming or if I
expected it.
If I did I was probably thinking "he's going to turn, he's going to
turn..Shit! He actually tur...(fade to black)....".

[DirtRoadie]

+1
I have yet to understand how Krygowski can simultaneously claim that
(1) HE knows how to avoid the dangers of cycling, yet (2) he believes
that cycling is without danger.
Fucking idiot, he is. Or religious zealot - same degree of blindness.

FYI, Betsy (a person - more than a statistic), the victim in THIS
situation is doing well, improving and will be undergoing an
anticipated 6 hours of surgery tomorrow, followed by more next week.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

And therein lies far more truth than some can grasp.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Nov 10, 8:38 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:58:23 AM UTC-5, datakoll wrote:

> >http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121109/NEWS01/121109511/Cyclis...

And in simpler terms, there are issues that come into play that can
affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
idiot would view such riding as being any sort of panacea.

DR

[Sir Ridesalot]

I know that Betsy is a PERSON. I am glad she is doing well and I hope and pray that she makess full recovery.

Cheers

[Wes Groleau]

On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:
> affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
> hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
> I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an

Illegal where? Not in Indiana.

--
Wes Groleau

It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
— G. K. Chesterton

[Frank Krygowski]

On Nov 10, 8:11 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> No matter how defensively you ride, if you're struck by a motor vehicle and seriously injured or killed you've become a statistic no matter how many or how few miles/kilometres you've ridden in your lifetime. For any bicyclist run over by a motor vehicle, bicycling for them was dangerous statistics be damned.
>
> Bicycling can be relatively safe when compared to other activities but that is small comfort to a victim who is run down by a motor vehicle and is seriously injured. They or their familiy don`t give a rat's ass about how safe statistics claim bicycling is.

What you say above is true. But what you say is true for every
activity in the world, not just bicycling. So if a person said that
and stopped thinking any further, I suppose that person could claim
one of two things: that all activities are equally dangerous, or that
we cannot possibly judge the relative danger or safety of any
activities.

In real life, there are lots of people interested in relative safety
or relative danger. Entire books have been written on the topic.
I've cited several, and can cite them again, if you're interested in
reading. Also, most governments of "developed" countries seem put out
at least some information on relative dangers.

So it's not a situation where there's nothing to be learned. By just
a bit of study, one can learn that cycling is quite safe compared to
other common activities; that its benefits far outweigh its risks; and
that it's easy to learn to be far safer than the average cyclist.

Don't resist learning. If cycling's important to you, read.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Nov 10, 9:22 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I have yet to understand...

You should have stopped there. The rest was your usual redundant
blather, plus a healthy dose of straw man argument.

>... how Krygowski can simultaneously claim that

> (1) HE knows how to avoid the dangers of cycling, yet (2) he believes
> that cycling is without danger.

I have NEVER said that. If you claim I have, post a direct quote of
my words, with a link to the post that contained them.

Of course, you can't.

> Fucking idiot

DR, you've shown countless times that you're a foul mouthed, abusive,
inarticulate stalking troll. If you don't want bike crashes
discussed, don't post about them on a discussion group.

I still hope your friend recovers easily and well. If she tolerates
your company, she must be a special person indeed.

- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

That was not specifically directed at you, mostly just a general
comment since I started this OT thread. But, yes, we hope for the
best.

DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Nov 10, 10:06 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
> > hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
> > I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
>
> Illegal where?  Not in Indiana.
>
> --
> Wes Groleau
>

Well certainly here in Colorado, the site of the originally described
incident.
See (2)
http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=a0e8f0c3d4dfa9f959a437a1dc7e47e8&docnum=2&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAb&_md5=e20c3b6b470c27fcbd95c67c7c69d88b

DR

[Frank Krygowski]

On Nov 10, 9:02 pm, Peter Van Buren <ibmis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> When I ride on that type of road and I pass a right hand entrance, I'm
> always expecting any oncoming cars to just turn left right in front of
> or right into me. Especially if the car appears to be slowing down or
> has a turn signal on.
> I try to be hyper aware in those situations. I say to my self "he's
> going to turn, he's going to turn...." and more than a few times a car
> has turned when I had the right of way. I just feel it helps to expect
> trouble in that situation. Of course, the injured rider might have
> been doing the same. I did get hit by a truck in one such situation. I
> received a pretty decent concussion and was knocked out for about 10
> minutes, so I don't know remember if I saw the truck coming or if I
> expected it.
> If I did I was probably thinking "he's going to turn, he's going to
> turn..Shit! He actually tur...(fade to black)....".

I'm sorry about that crash. But I have to agree with you. For all
the distortion my posts receive here - that is, claims that I say
there is zero danger in cycling, and/or that I must ride meekly and
slowly - I really think the key to my lack of crashes is hyper-
awareness, and thinking about the bad possibilities. In articles I've
written and cycling classes I've taught, I've compared it to a game of
chess. You don't win by reacting to the move that just happened; you
win by playing several moves ahead, working out "what if he does
this..."

The ride two days ago, I was well over 30 mph on many downhills. But
I was watching the road surface like a hawk, and when a car approached
from the opposite direction, I got off the aero bars and got my hands
back on the hoods, because that's where I've got best control. When a
car approaches a right side stop sign, I instinctively move left, for
more clearance. When a car passes from behind, I take measures to
reduce the possibility of a right hook, etc.

There are _many_ things cyclists can do to greatly reduce the chances
of a crash. Talking about them shouldn't be treated as victim
blaming. The military and the airlines examine every crash in great
detail, not to shame those involved; instead, to prevent the next
crash.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Nov 11, 12:06 am, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
> > hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
> > I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
>
> Illegal where?  Not in Indiana.

Not in Ohio either. Nor in Pennsylvania.

I spent three hours in a meeting today working on improving bicycle
legislation. If your state makes it illegal to ride in the middle of
a lane (which is very doubtful, BTW) you probably ought to be
improving your laws too.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

Right. And it can be still safer (note that I don't say better) to
never get on the bike. It's a matter of balancing risk/reward. One
person decides that a certain level and type of reward is satisfactory
- one that can be attained with a relatively low risk. And if that
person is particularly narrow-minded and judgmental, they believe
anyone seeking higher or different rewards that come with elevated
risk is not doing it "properly". But this proper cyclist can still
wind up hurt (and worse), and there are people who would say they
brought it on themselves by taking the bike out of the garage at all.
It's just a matter of tiers.

[DirtRoadie]

On Nov 10, 11:06 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 12:06 am, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> > On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > > affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
> > > hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
> > > I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
>
> > Illegal where?  Not in Indiana.
>
> Not in Ohio either.

4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
...
(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.

Be sure to let us know when you get (A) changed or when section (C)
includes "when oncoming traffic MAY be turning left and the cyclist
believes he/she is in danger of not being seen."

Isn't it amazing how much danger there is in cycling?

DR

[thirty-six]

That is a reasonable excuse.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per datakoll:

>Pete cresswell...what have you learned from these experiences to avoid another tomorrow ?

1) Wear a bright-colored shirt or windbreaker

2) Try to avoid riding where there is fast-moving traffic

I know plenty people will take exception to this,
but I am fortunate enough that I can get where I
want to go without, for the most part, sharing
space with motor traffic other than residential
streets.

3) Ride fatter tires..... like 38mm... This greatly
expands the options for complying with #2. I'd add
2 mph to my cruising speed, but riding options would
diminish greatly if I rode 23's.




--
Pete Cresswell

[DirtRoadie]

On Nov 10, 10:06 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
> > hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
> > I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
>
> Illegal where?  Not in Indiana.
>

Oh?
IC 9-21-8-2
Roadways; use of right half; exceptions; traveling at reduced speeds
Sec. 2. ...
(b) Upon all roadways, a vehicle proceeding at less than the
normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions
then existing shall be driven:
(1) in the right-hand lane then available for traffic; or
(2) as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge
of the roadway;
except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the
same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or
into a private road or driveway.

DR

[frkr...@gmail.com]

We discussed that very specifically yesterday. The committee consensus was that so far, there seems to have been no problem not adequately addressed by the very broad phrase "otherwise unsafe or impractical." (And BTW, we have two very competent lawyers on that committee.) Still, we're working on a proposed minor improvement, even though it's not a high priority.

Now what exactly are YOU doing in your state?

> Isn't it amazing how much danger there is in cycling?

DR, you're beginning to sound like a pussy. "Danger, danger!" and "Oh, our laws are bad" but doing nothing about it. Man up, would you?

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

:-) And now DirtRoadie is mounting gutter bunny arguments?

Your thinking is SO far behind that of the lawyers I work with, and the nationally known cycling advocates on other discussion lists devoted to such issues. You'd be out of your league in their company.

Pick up a copy of Mionske's _Bicycling & The Law_. Read up on the discussion of "practicable" in the context of the UVC and that law. Note that (at least) the portion of Indiana law you quoted puts a slow cyclist in the right lane OR as close as practicable to the edge. That's not AND, and it's not AT the edge; so a strict reading of that portion you quoted would be satisfied if the cyclist were anywhere in the right lane. And of course, that applies only if the cyclist is slower than the normal traffic there at that time.

Now why on earth would a cyclist be trying to argue _against_ tactics that cyclists use as defense against left crosses? Especially after a friend of theirs has been badly hurt by a left cross?

- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

Thank you for acknowledging your error about Ohio law. It's a shame
that you chose to misstate it in the first place.
Surprising if you were indeed discussing that provision yesterday.
I am glad to hear that you are working with lawyers. Perhaps they are
able to help you overcome your monochromatic thinking and weak
analytical ability.
All the better if they also have cycling experience rather than your
limited "book" learning.

Note that your invoking the "otherwise unsafe or impractical"
exception to the "ride right" law means that you would justify your
ritual of riding to the left (i.e, CLOSER to oncoming turning traffic)
by claiming existence of an "unsafe," i.e. dangerous, condition. YOUR
claim of danger, not mine.

Please articulate the "improvement" you are proposing for the law as
it exists.

As usual, your desperation is hilarious, as is your name calling.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

I directly quote a law without comment and that is somehow a "gutter
bunny argument?"
What is so offensive is (1) your self righteous preaching of your
personal religion and your regular misinterpretation of anything
written/stated by others.
And here you have done it again.

The Indiana law (and other similar laws) mandates riding to the right
OR allows riding "in the right-hand lane then available for traffic."
The latter requires that there be a "right-hand lane" of traffic. In
other words it applies only when there is more than one lane available
for traffic in one direction. Your interpretation would render the "as
far right as practicable" portion completely irrelevant. But you must
have discussed this with your lawyer buddies right? If you don't
understand, ask them. You need the help. Don't bother to tell us what
they say, you wouldn't get it right. But feel free to have them post
here.

Your argument about "defenses" is consistent with your usual
fallacious methods of argument but is well below even your usual fifth
grade level.

DR









You have contributed nothing

[Dan O]

On Nov 11, 5:28 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:06 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 12:06 am, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> > > On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > > > affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
> > > > hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
> > > > I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
>
> > > Illegal where? Not in Indiana.
>
> > Not in Ohio either.
>
> 4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.
>
> (A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
> to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
> rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
> standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
> ...
> (C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
> at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
> Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
> include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
> moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
> impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
> bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
> the lane.
>

Okay, what is "reasonable"? It might be reasonable to ride lane
center for conspicuity when approaching an intersection or driveway
and an oncoming vehicle might turn left across your path - especially
but not exclusively if they're signalling the turn. However, why are
we required to ride as far right as practicable in the first place -
so as not to impede overtaking traffic. If there *is* overtaking
traffic, they will substantially negate our need for conspicuity to
the oncoming traffic. So the decision of whether it's reasonable to
ride lane center hinges somewhat on whether there is overtaking
traffic in the lane. Makes it kind of a pain having to check *behind*
you on the off chance that some oncoming dickhead *might* be brain
dead. Still, that's what I do if it *looks* like they intend to turn
left and I'm not sure they won't.

[Dan O]

On Nov 11, 8:58 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:01:41 AM UTC-5, DirtRoadie wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 10:06 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> > > On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > > > affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
>
> > > > hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
>
> > > > I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
>
> > > Illegal where? Not in Indiana.
>
> > Oh?
>
> > IC 9-21-8-2
>
> > Roadways; use of right half; exceptions; traveling at reduced speeds
>
> > Sec. 2. ...
>
> > (b) Upon all roadways, a vehicle proceeding at less than the
>
> > normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions
>
> > then existing shall be driven:
>
> > (1) in the right-hand lane then available for traffic; or
>
> > (2) as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge
>
> > of the roadway;
>
> > except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the
>
> > same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or
>
> > into a private road or driveway.
>
> :-) And now DirtRoadie is mounting gutter bunny arguments?
>
> Your thinking is SO far behind that of the lawyers I work with, and the nationally known cycling advocates on other discussion lists devoted to such issues. You'd be out of your league in their company.
>

Sheerly supercilious.

> Pick up a copy of Mionske's _Bicycling & The Law_. Read up on the discussion of "practicable" in the context of the UVC and that law. Note that (at least) the portion of Indiana law you quoted puts a slow cyclist in the right lane OR as close as practicable to the edge. That's not AND, and it's not AT the edge; so a strict reading of that portion you quoted would be satisfied if the cyclist were anywhere in the right lane. And of course, that applies only if the cyclist is slower than the normal traffic there at that time.
>

I personally would question that interpretation if there is overtaking
traffic in the right lane and traffic in the left lane that prevents
them changing lanes to pass you.

> Now why on earth would a cyclist be trying to argue _against_ tactics that cyclists use as defense against left crosses?
>

f anything I think he was only arguing against their legal availbility
(a handlebar mounted bazooka might be another effective tactic against
left cross).

> Especially after a friend of theirs has been badly hurt by a left cross?
>

Your intentonally hurtful, inflammatory argument tactics are utterly
nasty and vile.

[datakoll]

PC.

dayglo ! an overshirt from Home depot or T's from Campmor. Follow Campmor, eventually Cmor will syrface with a remaindered batch of dayglo's in polyester at a reasonable price. Buy 6 ! Cmor sponsors bike racing around NJ.

The tire deal is interesting. If you ride over to the lBs, ask and look yawl see stock tires are fairly stable.

When I mounted Conti TT over Kenda....safety plus. Control over all kinds of slipperiness where Kenda was a slow down or wipeout

The Durango accident was clearly mutual brain deadness.

Several weeks ago I was ruminating to a poster abt women riders of a certain age...ofnot Morduck off course...experience noit sexuality per ...wgere a close examination of accidents with women could show a higher degree of risk due to riding zone than found amung all riders.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dan O:

> However, why are
>we required to ride as far right as practicable in the first place -
>so as not to impede overtaking traffic. If there *is* overtaking
>traffic, they will substantially negate our need for conspicuity to

>the oncoming traffic. So the decision of whether it's reasonable...

That seems to beg a question: what about roads with a solid (i.e.
"No Passing") line? Or areas where signs explicitly say "No
Passing".

Is every motor vehicle that passes the biker in violation?
--
Pete Cresswell

[Nate Nagel]

If they cross the yellow line, technically, yes, unless the state MV
code specifically allows crossing that line to pass cyclists.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:17:01 PM UTC-5, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 07:58 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
> > Per Dan O:
>
> >> However, why are
>
> >> we required to ride as far right as practicable in the first place -
>
> >> so as not to impede overtaking traffic. If there *is* overtaking
>
> >> traffic, they will substantially negate our need for conspicuity to
>
> >> the oncoming traffic. So the decision of whether it's reasonable...
>
> >
>
> > That seems to beg a question: what about roads with a solid (i.e.
>
> > "No Passing") line? Or areas where signs explicitly say "No
>
> > Passing".
>
> >
>
> > Is every motor vehicle that passes the biker in violation?
>
> >
>
>
>
> If they cross the yellow line, technically, yes, unless the state MV
>
> code specifically allows crossing that line to pass cyclists.

In my state, some of the people I work with are the ones who got a similar provision written into law. It actually applies to anyone safely passing a vehicle traveling less than half the speed limit, so it's useful for those passing most cyclists, most farm tractors, Amish buggies, some heavy trucks, some delivery trucks, etc.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

Not in my state. There is apparently somewhere explicit exception of
going around an "obstacle".

In fact, a state cop passed me thus going up a hill recently. I was
staying right on the fog line at road edge, such that he could have
stayed in the lane, but went well over the double solid center line to
do it more safely.

[Wes Groleau]

On 11-11-2012 11:01, DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Nov 10, 10:06 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:
>>> affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
>>> hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
>>> I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
>>
>> Illegal where? Not in Indiana.
>>
> Oh?
> IC 9-21-8-2
> Roadways; use of right half; exceptions; traveling at reduced speeds
> Sec. 2. ...
> (b) Upon all roadways, a vehicle proceeding at less than the
> normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions
> then existing shall be driven:

> (1) in the right-hand lane then available for traffic; OR

> (2) as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge
> of the roadway;
> except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the
> same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or
> into a private road or driveway.

Surely you saw "or" and not "and" there. Not to mention the undefined
"practicable"

But I doubt you saw the brochures about these provisions that come
pretty close to agreeing with Frank.


--
Wes Groleau

“Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change;
the courage to change the one I can;
and the wisdom to know it's me.”
— unknown

[Dan O]

In terms of legal compliance, it's going to boil down to
"reasonableness"; and I doubt it reasonable to ride lane center if
this would unduly impede legally overtaking traffic constrained to the
right lane.

[Dan O]

On Nov 11, 9:57 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com considered Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:55:32 -0800 (PST)

> That makes more sense than our (UK) blanket limit of 10mph.
> The problem is that if you ask a typical motorist how fast a cyclist
> is going, they'll either say they are all under 10mph or that none of
> them are - and they sure as heck ain't gonna slow down to the speed of
> the cyclist to look at that little instrument that they have fitted to
> their vehicle for the purpose!

Concerning relative speed: I'd rather overtaking cars and trucks pass
me slowly and carefully in the lane with a few feet of clearance than
"Vroom!" hard as they swing wide.

[DirtRoadie]

Can you respond in English?

DR

[Dan O]

On Nov 11, 5:17 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 07:58 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
> > Per Dan O:
> >> However, why are
> >> we required to ride as far right as practicable in the first place -
> >> so as not to impede overtaking traffic. If there *is* overtaking
> >> traffic, they will substantially negate our need for conspicuity to
> >> the oncoming traffic. So the decision of whether it's reasonable...
>
> > That seems to beg a question: what about roads with a solid (i.e.
> > "No Passing") line? Or areas where signs explicitly say "No
> > Passing".
>
> > Is every motor vehicle that passes the biker in violation?
>
> If they cross the yellow line, technically, yes, unless the state MV
> code specifically allows crossing that line to pass cyclists.
>

Not so (the "specifically"). A general provision would (and does)
suffice.

[gpsman]

On Nov 9, 9:39 am, Duane Hébert <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>
> It's hard to see how the driver didn't see her.  We're talking about
> turning into a mall in broad daylight.

This should make it easier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness

People maintain fundamental misunderstanding of visual perception.
We've all failed to see something we were specifically looking for
that was right in front of our face the whole time, but that's rarely
if ever considered any sort of thing that can happen while motoring.

One reason I feel that if you're cycling in traffic you either haven't
sufficiently estimated the risks, or you're just completely out of
your mind.
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

On Nov 9, 10:47 am, Duane Hébert <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>
> We have 450 members but usually don't see this many auto accidents.

Crashes aren't "accidents", and the terms are not synonyms. You can
look it up.

For a crash to qualify as an accident the operator must at minimum be
in compliance with traffic code, which a typical motorist can't even
accomplish by bringing their vehicle to a stop behind a stop bar.
-----

- gpsman

[datakoll]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

gpsman, run a few examples past us ?

[DirtRoadie]

What he said was clear and accurate within normal usage of the
language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident
Substitute "incident" if that helps satisfy your pedantry.
DR

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/10/2012 09:02 PM, Peter Van Buren wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:04:10 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 10:50 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The head on left cross is one of the hardest things to anticipate.
>>
>>>> Expecting it would basically make any reasonable forward progress
>>
>>>> prohibitively stressful in town.
>>
>>> There's no evading it, either. Either you just come to a complete
>>
>>> stop for every oncoming car that *might* turn left into every
>>
>>> driveway, and trackstand there looking at the driver to make *sure*
>>
>>> they're not going for it (they like to keep creeping even when they do
>>
>>> intend to let you by first, and of course now that *you're* stopped
>>
>>> they may think they have the right-of-way...), or you... well... there
>>
>>> aren't really any other good ways around it.
>>
>> People who have studied this, constructed bicycling training courses, certified instructors for those courses, gotten feedback from those instructors and their students, generally say this:
>>
>> The best defense against a left cross is to be very visible. That usually means being out in the lane, where an oncoming driver is looking, not close to the gutter. Bright clothing probably helps, and lights at night certainly help too.
>>
>> Another benefit of being near lane center is that if a left cross commences, the cyclist has a chance at doing a quick turn to his right, and making the turn before the motorist. The motorist has an added second or so to notice the cyclist, and may brake in time. And even if the cyclist hits the car, it's more of a glancing blow, less of a head on.
>>
>> I avoided such a collision just once, by making that kind of snap turn. That was before I knew the value of being more visible. Since learning to stay out the gutter, I've never needed that evasive maneuver. But I'm ready for it, just in case.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> When I ride on that type of road and I pass a right hand entrance, I'm
> always expecting any oncoming cars to just turn left right in front of
> or right into me. Especially if the car appears to be slowing down or
> has a turn signal on.
> I try to be hyper aware in those situations. I say to my self "he's
> going to turn, he's going to turn...." and more than a few times a car
> has turned when I had the right of way. I just feel it helps to expect
> trouble in that situation. Of course, the injured rider might have
> been doing the same. I did get hit by a truck in one such situation. I
> received a pretty decent concussion and was knocked out for about 10
> minutes, so I don't know remember if I saw the truck coming or if I
> expected it.
> If I did I was probably thinking "he's going to turn, he's going to
> turn..Shit! He actually tur...(fade to black)....".
>

Yep.

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/10/2012 09:22 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:11 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:52:00 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 5:51 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>>
>>>> On Friday, November 9, 2012 5:36:02 PM UTC-5, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:04:10 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 10:50 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The head on left cross is one of the hardest things to anticipate.
>>
>>>>>>> Expecting it would basically make any reasonable forward progress
>>
>>>>>>> prohibitively stressful in town.
>>
>>>>>> There's no evading it, either. Either you just come to a complete
>>
>>>>>> stop for every oncoming car that *might* turn left into every
>>
>>>>>> driveway, and trackstand there looking at the driver to make *sure*
>>
>>>>>> they're not going for it (they like to keep creeping even when they do
>>
>>>>>> intend to let you by first, and of course now that *you're* stopped
>>
>>>>>> they may think they have the right-of-way...), or you... well... there
>>
>>>>>> aren't really any other good ways around it.
>>
>>>>> People who have studied this, constructed bicycling training courses, certified instructors for those courses, gotten feedback from those instructors and their students, generally say this:
>>
>>>>> The best defense against a left cross is to be very visible. That usually means being out in the lane, where an oncoming driver is looking, not close to the gutter. Bright clothing probably helps, and lights at night certainly help too.
>>
>>>>> Another benefit of being near lane center is that if a left cross commences, the cyclist has a chance at doing a quick turn to his right, and making the turn before the motorist. The motorist has an added second or so to notice the cyclist, and may brake in time. And even if the cyclist hits the car, it's more of a glancing blow, less of a head on.
>>
>>>>> I avoided such a collision just once, by making that kind of snap turn. That was before I knew the value of being more visible. Since learning to stay out the gutter, I've never needed that evasive maneuver. But I'm ready for it, just in case.
>>
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>

>>>> Where in the article does it state that this bicyclist ws NOT in the centre of the lane?
>>
>>>> Cheers
>>
>>> I don't think it stated either way. That doesn't change what the best
>>
>>> defense is.
>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> No matter how defensively you ride, if you're struck by a motor vehicle and seriously injured or killed you've become a statistic no matter how many or how few miles/kilometres you've ridden in your lifetime. For any bicyclist run over by a motor vehicle, bicycling for them was dangerous statistics be damned.
>>
>> Bicycling can be relatively safe when compared to other activities but that is small comfort to a victim who is run down by a motor vehicle and is seriously injured. They or their familiy don`t give a rat's ass about how safe statistics claim bicycling is.
>
> +1
> I have yet to understand how Krygowski can simultaneously claim that
> (1) HE knows how to avoid the dangers of cycling, yet (2) he believes
> that cycling is without danger.
> Fucking idiot, he is. Or religious zealot - same degree of blindness.

He can claim whatever he wants and support it with whatever bullshit
stats that he can misinterpret. I feel sorry for anyone that actually
buys into it.


> FYI, Betsy (a person - more than a statistic), the victim in THIS
> situation is doing well, improving and will be undergoing an
> anticipated 6 hours of surgery tomorrow, followed by more next week.

All the best to her.

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/10/2012 09:57 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:38 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:58:23 AM UTC-5, datakoll wrote:
>>> http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121109/NEWS01/121109511/Cyclis...
>>
>>> yeah I have it in view with the second story.
>>
>>> only defense is eyeballs out for intersections, if the entry has traffic waiting, if a vehicle SIGNALS from the oncoming lane or if there is any traffic at all in the oncoming BUT NO TRAFFIC IN YOUR LANE then its slow down anticipating a turn...no LSR.
>>
>>> A busy industrial area is a heads up fersure.
>>
>>> bright clothing is an answer.
>>
>>> I avoided a MB landrover turning into me from 3 lanes over...THREE...no signal no brakes into a superduper entry....MB had NY plates.
>>
>>> Law's looking for a witness to signal or no signal, that nwould cook it.
>>
>> XXXXXXXXXXXXX
>>
>> LET ME EXPAND HERE....
>>
>> the truck's driver may not be thinking driving but what todo at the IP, what after the IP who knows what listening to C&W.
>>
>> She's turned here before.
>>
>> Her attention goes to turning maybe only briefly from the other mental activity...no prep.
>>
>> As looking for a yellow lock washer...one pictures the washer and sez yellow washer...
>>
>> The driver looks back...hahahha...to the entry which is the GOAL....itsnot the GOALs stupid, getting thru the turn is the GOAL...then ahead to the oncoming lane which is apparently clear ahhhh good the lane is clear NOPROBLEM WE CAN TURN..
>>
>> there are no pedestrians....there's no sidewalk...there's no sidewalk ?
>>
>> so there are no GIANT GROUND SLOTHS RIDING J&B TRICYCLES IN THE ONCOMING..
>>
>> you see at that point the potential existence of an oncoming LSR bicyle in the oncoming lane' side area is deeply submerged under a huge amount of sensory data for a driver maybe not at the topof her form today.
>> WORSER !!! bad luck for the cyclist. As the driver's gaze...focused on vehicle size traffic coming down the center oncoming lane passes over the cyclists postion,
>>
>> the cyclist has moved in front of a yellow sign.
>>
>> cyclist is wearing a yellow jersey.
>>
>> reasons to not LSR across parking lot entries.
>
> And in simpler terms, there are issues that come into play that can

> affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
> hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
> I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an

> idiot would view such riding as being any sort of panacea.


The part that cracks me up is when you look at how many times drivers
rear end other drivers. Thinking that a bike is going to fair better is
sort of dumb. Guy hit me at a stop sign a couple of weeks ago. He was
texting. Actually got out of the car with his fucking phone still in
his hand, trying to read it while he was walking up to me. Good thing I
was in a steel cage at the time. Same corner the day before, I would
have been on my bike.

Taking a lane can be the right thing to do in some cases but it's
certainly not a panacea, nor is it always even legal.

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/11/2012 12:06 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:

>> affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
>> hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
>> I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
>

> Illegal where? Not in Indiana.

Quebec.

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/11/2012 11:01 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:

> On Nov 10, 10:06 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 11-10-2012 21:57, DirtRoadie wrote:
>>
>>> affect a driver's field of view. A windshield pillar can pretty well
>>> hide a cyclist even if that cyclist is arbitrarily riding (illegally,
>>> I might add) in the center of some arbitrarily defined lane. Only an
>>
>> Illegal where? Not in Indiana.
>>

> Oh?
> IC 9-21-8-2
> Roadways; use of right half; exceptions; traveling at reduced speeds
> Sec. 2. ...
> (b) Upon all roadways, a vehicle proceeding at less than the
> normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions
> then existing shall be driven:

> (1) in the right-hand lane then available for traffic; or

> (2) as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge
> of the roadway;
> except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the
> same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or
> into a private road or driveway.

Quebec highway code reads about the same. I won't bother posting it
again as I've already received condolences from the converted.

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/11/2012 07:58 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

In Quebec, there is an exception to the solid line that allows crossing
the line when passing a bicycle, as long as it is safe to do so.

[gpsman]

On Nov 12, 7:25 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 4:58:15 AM UTC-5, gpsman wrote:
>
> > For a crash to qualify as an accident the operator must at minimum be
> > in compliance with traffic code, which a typical motorist can't even
> > accomplish by bringing their vehicle to a stop behind a stop bar.
>

> xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> gpsman, run a few examples past us ?

If I can. Examples of what, typical traffic code violations that
contribute to crashes?

That would include all that involve maneuvering, take your pick.
-----

- gpsman

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/12/2012 04:42 AM, gpsman wrote:

lol. Can't wait to see the response to this post.

[gpsman]

On Nov 12, 8:40 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2:58 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 10:47 am, Duane Hébert <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>
> > > We have 450 members but usually don't see this many auto accidents.
>
> > Crashes aren't "accidents", and the terms are not synonyms.  You can
> > look it up.
>

> What he said was clear and accurate within normal usage of the

> language.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

> Substitute "incident" if that helps satisfy your pedantry.

Thanks!

"Incident" is OK, anything but "accident".

Thanks again!
-----

- gpsman

[Duane Hébert]

On 11/12/2012 04:58 AM, gpsman wrote:

Maybe you're right. But apparently the law doesn't see it that way. As
long as there's no clear intent to do bodily harm, the drivers that hits
the cyclist usually gets off with, at worse, a ticket.