Tip for Safe Training on US Roads
Gary Jacobson
of Medina I ran into a couple of cyclists touring from Wisconsin to New
Haven, Ct.
We had a bit to eat and got around to talking about road rage. They've
experienced a lot of it. We theorized why some motor vehicle drivers might
want to purposely hurt folks on bicycles or roller skis. From what they said
I concluded that the frequency of these incidents in the Mid-west are
greater than in New York State. These cyclists shared with me their tactic
to avoid harassment: They fly the USA flag from their rear rack. They
theorized that most of the motor vehicle users who might not think twice
about harassing them for riding, wouldn't dare desecrate the flag.
So, fly a flag on your left pole as you roller ski.
Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY
Mitch
Gary Jacobson wrote:
> They
> theorized that most of the motor vehicle users who might not think twice
> about harassing them for riding, wouldn't dare desecrate the flag.
Heh. Reminds me of the old story of the guy who found he got more
respect on the road from the locals after he painted his bike green
with the words "John Deere". Don't know if there was any truth to
it but it makes a good story. :-)
-Mitch
revy...@yahoo.com
John H
of the entire spectrum of politics and economics, not that I had enough
time to get to know them well enough to form any detailed viewpoints.
Pointing fingers at one group in these situations based on limited
knowledge of their economics, politics or other factors is short
sighted and probably off base, at best.
John
revy...@yahoo.com
Gene Goldenfeld
stupid or immature.
Gene
Gene Goldenfeld
clear. Upstate NY Thruway left-lane drivers are the craziest bunch I've
come across anywhere, but on backcountry roads it seems like the city
folk are less cautious.
Gene
Ken Roberts
while rollerskiing or skating or bicycling out on the public roads are two
different goals, with very different strategies and tricks.
My reading and experience is that harrassment is mostly about power and
status games (sometimes on both sides), while serious injury and death of
human-powered users of the roads is mostly about carelessness, and difficult
conditions, and impairments of judgment and perception (sometimes on both
sides). Far more bicyclists (and pedestrians, and other car drivers) die
because of alcohol than rage.
Other than working to reduce DWI, a good way to reduce the risk of injury or
death out on the roads is to practice strategies and tricks focused on
safety that have been worked out by some very smart bicyclists over several
decades in several countries: I suggest carefully digesting the ideas in
one or two of the books listed here:
http://roberts-1.com/bikehudson/s/m/resources/#books
Some of the strategies in those books are counter-intuitive. Some of the
safety tactics will not liked or understood by car drivers. It is a tragic
fact that some of the things that bicyclists and skaters and rollerskiers
instinctively do to try to be "nice" to car drivers also result in a certain
number of those nice people getting killed unnecessarily and
unintentionally.
Many times when out skating or bicycling I have to choose between (a) being
liked by the car drivers, and (b) reducing my risk. Two different goals.
Ken
delltodd
Please post a brief example or two of your book's intriguing
counter-intuitive proposals.
DT
Ken Roberts
"How close to edge of the road to rollerski, or skate, or ride?"
Sounds simple. But maybe it's complicated.
I'm not going to try to answer that question here, because the point is not
to get one right answer, but to discover a different way of thinking about
drivers and roads.
delltodd wrote
> Please post a brief example or two of your book's
> intriguing counter-intuitive proposals.
It's not my book -- I gave an annotated list of three books written by other
people:
http://roberts-1.com/bikehudson/s/m/resources/#books
Ken
John Forrest Tomlinson
Blatantly taking over a lane by moving left when it is not safe for an
overtaking car to squeeze by in the same lane. Fundamental to safe
cycling on roads with cars.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Marc
> On 20 Sep 2005 11:53:00 -0700, "delltodd" <dell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ken,
>>
>>Please post a brief example or two of your book's intriguing
>>counter-intuitive proposals.
>
>
> Blatantly taking over a lane by moving left when it is not safe for an
> overtaking car to squeeze by in the same lane. Fundamental to safe
> cycling on roads with cars.
>
> JT
I can guess some other examples (based on my experience and statistics
I've seen)
-that it's more dangerous biking on the sidewalk than the road
-that more cycling accidents happen on bike paths than on roads
-that the threat of getting mowed down from behind is a lot less of a
threat than what's coming at you from the side
-that the risk of fatality is higher in a car than on a bike (about 2x
based on hours of activity)
Marc
Mark
> I have had numerous close calls with drivers who seem be representative
> of the entire spectrum of politics and economics, not that I had enough
> time to get to know them well enough to form any detailed viewpoints.
> Pointing fingers
I normally point my middle finger...
David L. Webb
Marc <mgw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On 20 Sep 2005 11:53:00 -0700, "delltodd" <dell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ken,
> >>
> >>Please post a brief example or two of your book's intriguing
> >>counter-intuitive proposals.
> > Blatantly taking over a lane by moving left when it is not safe for an
> > overtaking car to squeeze by in the same lane. Fundamental to safe
> > cycling on roads with cars.
> >
> > JT
> I can guess some other examples (based on my experience and statistics
> I've seen)
Some of these examples seem counterintuitive; do you know of some
references?
> -that it's more dangerous biking on the sidewalk than the road
>
> -that more cycling accidents happen on bike paths than on roads
Might this be in part a selection effect, because the two populations
differ? There are many unfit people who ride obviously unsafe bikes
heedlessly (indeed, recklessly) on narrow bike paths and sidewalks with
very poor visibility -- often without a helmet -- under the mistaken
impression that because they are staying off the road, they are "safe";
perhaps (on average) riders who venture to ride on the streets are more
alert, less apt to be lulled into a false sense of security, and more
apt to take obvious precautions. Indeed, some of the behaviors I've
seen on bike paths (e.g., inattentive riders whizzing by just inches
away from pedestrians on four-foot-wide bike paths) are accidents
waiting to happen: all the pedestrian need do is step slightly to one
side unexpectedly in order to precipitate what could be an unpleasant
crash. However, *none* of the people I know who ride on the road
regularly are this clueless when they ride on bike paths. It may well
be that statistically it's more dangerous to bike on a bike path -- but
it might also be true that *for those who regularly ride on roads*, bike
paths are nonetheless safer than roads.
> -that the threat of getting mowed down from behind is a lot less of a
> threat than what's coming at you from the side
That makes sense.
> -that the risk of fatality is higher in a car than on a bike (about 2x
> based on hours of activity)
But might that be merely because there are more reckless morons who
drive cars than who bike, and because people often drive in conditions
in which they wouldn't think of cycling? If one considers as a sample
population those who drive AND bike, is it still true that *within that
group*, the risk of fatality in a car is twice as high as on a bike? I
would doubt it, but my doubt is pure uninformed speculation. I'd be
interested in more precise information about how these conclusions were
reached.
> Marc
delltodd
to squeeze by" is something I have adopted.
Recently I was out for a couple hours run, and within 4 miles of home I
was run off the road (to run on the shoulder or whatever was there on a
rural road), 3 times. (freedom fry stuffing, cel phone jabbering, CD
shuffling or is it abject carelessness) Convinved that it was one of
those evenings when traffic was going to misbehave (I have observed
patterns of collective behavior or misbehavior on any given day), I
began to take over the lane as I would run towards traffic. I would
intentionally drift well out into the lane, even nearly to the
centerline. This would actually force the car drivers in every single
case to nail the brakes well in advance as I would command their total
attention. It was great. Sometimes they would even toot their horn at
me, as if I didn't know they were there ! Just as the car would come
up, I would slide back over to the side, and give them a "thank you
wave" which seemed to dispel road rage in every case. Far safer.
One of the riskiest things to do is to move over WAY beforehand, which
lets drivers know that you are looking out for them, which means they
don't have to look out for you, and the end result is that they cram
you, and often times cram you needlessly when they had all the room of
two lanes, as they brush your shoulder with their elephant mirrors at
65 mph. Compounding that is when the car behind is drafting, & has NO
IDEA that he about to drive by a human body within inches of murdering
it. This militant-athlete technique helps with all that.
You know what happens when someone gets hit ? In nearly every case that
I recall, it is a simple case of "I didn't see him." There seems to
rarely be any penalty for vehicular homicide. Or you have your hit &
runs, as evidenced here on RSN. That was fresh in my mind on recent
runs. I have kids who need me at home, and a wife too. Safety is
serious.
And THEN there are bike paths (frowny sign) ! Deadly bits of creation,
those things.
Mark
let alone roller skiers...
Gene Goldenfeld
riksy for themselves and me by not calling out ahead. If as a cyclist I
were coming up on someone with long poles or stopped to sweep dirt and
rocks off the trail, I'd slow down and want them to know of my
presence. On the paved trails I rollerski on, that seems to be the
practice of a small minority. Those most likely to call out where I am
are the recreational riders, the ones with bigger tire bikes.
Gene
WasGitchi
people as it does with dogs. The dogs will usually go after your poles
rather than your leg. Usually, I try to bounce the tips in a rhythm
when I am around people. For dogs, keeping the poles on the ground and
drag them in a circular motion.
A death glare and a long pole tip drag can be an effective way of
expressing disapproval of an offending party.
Dropping down into the X-wing star fighter position also is a good way
to get people to move.
Now terrorizing animals as well as people
- Mark B
revy...@yahoo.com
> >
> Bike paths are dangerous enough for cyclists (when at a decent speed),
> let alone roller skiers...
I agree. I prefer dealing with cars rathen than with kids running in
unpredictable directions.
revy...@yahoo.com
path, compared to getting flattenned by a car driver, much higher.
Plus, both cases are very likely to leave all players alive. The
difference is thta I will be treated as "that a*hole with skates and
poles" in the first case.
nordvind
gunned his engine and started to turn into me as I crossed the road. I
don't think half the people I see driving with glazed got-to-get-there
expressions ever even see a rollerskier as an obstacle to avoid, they
do expect us to get out of the way. Oh yeah, I do yell at cyclists (in
a polite way) who whiz by unannounced that they need to call out their
position. Need to educate the people!
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
> Oh yeah, I do yell at cyclists (in
>a polite way) who whiz by unannounced that they need to call out their
>position. Need to educate the people!
This makes no sense. If the cyclists are so close to you that it's a
problem, then that closeness is the real problem and they shoudl be
more respectful and not pass so close. And if they're giving you an
appropriate width in passing, then there is no point to "warning you."
It;s like cars honking at rollerskiers or cyclists as they pass (do
you like that?), or skiers yelling at other skiers that they overtake
on the trail. A waste at best..
JFT
Gene Goldenfeld
> This makes no sense. If the cyclists are so close to you that it's a
> problem, then that closeness is the real problem and they shoudl be
> more respectful and not pass so close. And if they're giving you an
> appropriate width in passing, then there is no point to "warning you."
Your attitude is one we're identifying as a problem. Most paved trails
are narrow most of the time. Someone coming up from behind unannounced
at much faster speed does not know or appreciate what smaller pavement
obstacles the rollerskier is facing, if they might break into another
technique, momentarily lose balance enough that a pole swings out, reach
for a water bottle and accidentally let the pole swing out, make a strap
adjustment on the fly, or not hear them coming up until the last second
and have a fright response that intersects their line of travel. One
would think that self-preservation around someone with long poles, let
alone consideration of other users, would lead cyclists to call out in
good time. To give an example of the how important this can be,
yesterday two easy-going recreational cyclists (bigger bikes/wheels)
called out to pass as I started down a very short mildly winding hill
that has buckled pavement to be avoided on one side. I replied
directly, "No you aren't, wait until the bottom," which they did. Once
there, I thanked them and said to go ahead. No call and we likely
collide, or I stay put and go flying.
Anyone who has read the cycling newsgroups -- or seen leaks of it into
rsn -- knows how roughly they treat each other over there. While they
whine and yell about cars and drivers, when it comes to shared trail use
I find most of the relatively faster cyclists -- the ones with cycling
clothes, out on their own -- show little awareness in practice. In
fact, the idea of cyclists flying by at high speeds weekend mornings on
heavily used multipurpose trails, such as the Gateway in the Twin
Cities, when there are great roads with wide shoulders immediately
available, was a point of discussion among our rollerskiing group Sunday
morning.
Gene
>
> On 10 Oct 2005 22:36:06 -0700, "nordvind" <rose...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Oh yeah, I do yell at cyclists (in
> >a polite way) who whiz by unannounced that they need to call out their
> >position. Need to educate the people!
>
>
Matt
I wear my cycling mirror when I roller ski. It's a big help especially at
times like this.
FWIW,
Matt
"Gene Goldenfeld" <gene...@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:434C0A4C...@highstream.net...
John Forrest Tomlinson
<gene...@highstream.net> wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> This makes no sense. If the cyclists are so close to you that it's a
>> problem, then that closeness is the real problem and they shoudl be
>> more respectful and not pass so close. And if they're giving you an
>> appropriate width in passing, then there is no point to "warning you."
>
>
>Your attitude is one we're identifying as a problem. Most paved trails
>are narrow most of the time.
When they are that narrow I don't tell someone I'm passing. I ask.
Not the same thing.
If it's not safe enough to pass just warning someone doesn't make it
right.
Matt
Very well said. I personally presume that the person I'm about to overtake
is going to do something unexpected. If there isn't enough room to
accomodate that then I make sure they know I'm there & that I'm passing.
Once all the handshaking is done then I go by. Otherwise I wait. It's
really quite painless in the grand scheme of things. Of course in a race
there is a different presumption of right of way.
I personally find for some reason that the more skilled a person is the more
inconsiderate they tend to be. The really fast skiers (DH & XC) frequently
yield no space on the trails to the novices and rarely give warnings when
overtaking. Same with bikers. I'm not sure why. I think they believe that
it's not cool to be considerate! :( Whatever! I find it very irritating.
MOO,
Matt
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:sirok1pjn347jrpj6...@4ax.com...
nordvind
> Not the same thing.
>
> If it's not safe enough to pass just warning someone doesn't make it
> right.
>
> JFT
Being an active participant on paved pedestrian paths and practicing
passive safety awareness just isn't socially responsible. How do you
define a "safe" margin for passing a slower human being? Alerting
slower cyclists, walkers, joggers, children on tricycles, etc. within a
prudent distance to allow them to make note of your presence takes a
few kilo-joules of extra energy expended in return for increased safety
for all concerned. The reaction to your warning might be variable, but
at the very least everyone shares awareness of the proximity of the
other. You cannot assume a mindset that those you meet or pass are
thinking like you. So far I have not had any collisions or close calls
with pedestrians or cyclists on these paths, and I don't want any...I
have too much self inflicted "battle damage" from falls caused by stray
rocks and wet leaves.
I've noticed something interesting, on those paths frequented heavily
by all kinds of recreational users like the WOD trail in Washington,
pedestrians are more likely to stay on the right trail margin and look
around when they hear any sound because the majority of cyclists who
are the dominant passers call out before passing. It does seem that a
majority of the spandex crowd with the posseur jerseys abuse
commonsense and shoot by with never a sound....Think safety, not
vanity.
klh
It does seem that a majority of the spandex crowd with the posseur jerseys abuse commonsense and shoot by with never a sound.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>Being an active participant on paved pedestrian paths and practicing
>passive safety awareness just isn't socially responsible. How do you
>define a "safe" margin for passing a slower human being?
How do you define anything? Use your judgement. Put yourselves in
their shoes. Picture a friend/kid/loved one being passed. It's not
rocket science.
>Alerting
>slower cyclists, walkers, joggers, children on tricycles, etc. within a
>prudent distance to allow them to make note of your presence takes a
>few kilo-joules of extra energy expended in return for increased safety
>for all concerned.
I don't not do it because I'm trying to save energy. I don't do it
because it's annoying when it's done to me. If someone wants to pass,
it's there responsiblity to do it safely. And if it can't be done to
safely, that's their problem. They can ask me (with an "excuse me" or
something) and I'll move over if it's safe. But telling ("On your
right" meaning I'm coming by so you stay straight) or whatever is not
right.
> The reaction to your warning might be variable
I don't want a reaction. If I;m passing someone at a reasonable
distance, no reaction is needed at all.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<v70xc_1998...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Here in northern va on the george washington bike trail, I rarely hear a
>warning that someone is about to zoom pass me, often dangerously close
>to me.
This seems irrelevant whether or not giving a friendly warning is
appropriate. If someone is zooming by dangerously close, a warning
doens't make what they are doing appropriate.
JT
Gene Goldenfeld
Nathan's Thanksgiving offer because it would interfere with rollerblade
season.
Gene
John Forrest Tomlinson
<gene...@highstream.net> wrote:
>LOL. That's a great one -- saving energy.
Gene, sorry if my sentence structure was too awkward for you to
understand. I wrote "I don't not do it because I'm trying to save
energy" which means "Saving energy is not the point." I hope you can
understand the sentence now.
Thanks,
Gene Goldenfeld
have to shake my head. The fact that you are annoyed by others'
reasonable trail consideration -- they are traveling much faster than
you and can't see your thoughts or from your eyes -- is strange.
Gene
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:21:53 -0500, Gene Goldenfeld
> <gene...@highstream.net> wrote:
>
> >LOL. That's a great one -- saving energy.
>
> Gene, sorry if my sentence structure was too awkward for you to
> understand. I wrote "I don't not do it because I'm trying to save
> energy" which means "Saving energy is not the point." I hope you can
> understand the sentence now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> JFT
JFT wrote:
I don't not do it because I'm trying to save energy. I don't do it
because it's annoying when it's done to me. If someone wants to pass,
it's there responsiblity to do it safely. And if it can't be done to
safely, that's their problem. They can ask me (with an "excuse me" or
something) and I'll move over if it's safe. But telling ("On your
right" meaning I'm coming by so you stay straight) or whatever is not
right.
>
jgs
money to my favorite charities I am going to buy golf course and shut
it down. The widened cart paths will make great dedicated roller skiing
paths, the overgrown fairways will host wonderful single track for
running and the defunct club house will make a great dormitory for
visiting teams.
Here in southern NH roller-skiers are not welcome, nor are roller
skaters. Cars just hate them (maybe along the beach is ok). Every now
and then I see a guy out giving it a try and I think, "ok Pal, I give
you 1-2 weeks tops before you get to scared to leave the house". It
never fails. Even on a deserted road at midnight, the one car you meet
will treat you as a hostile. Up in the Hanover area it is a different
story, they are more a part of the landscape and are tolerated. We
don't have bike paths but it seems to me that if you are going to
hammer on a bike, go out on the road. It sounds like these bike paths
were not meant for speed work or roller demons.
The movie "Spanglish" has the most instructive, obnoxious "On
your RIGHT!" you will ever see. The movie may or may not be to your
liking but watching Tea Leoni call out "ON YOUR RIGHT!!" is enough
to make you say, "God, I hope that isn't me". On the XC tracks I
have found that sometimes the people we overtake are in such a zone
that no matter what you say or how you say it, they jump out of their
skin and are pissed. Hey, they just don't wake up well, at least we
try.
When I open the XC park, provided the golfers have not murdered me,
I'll send an invite.
My life goal - take at least one golf course off line before I go to
the other side of the grass.
Now if we all closed one apiece.......
/john
FITZGERALD
no problems with cars.Let me know when you win the lottery....
Fitzgerald
Derry,NH
"jgs" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129289448.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
jgs
Will do! Shut 'em down.
More specifically, we live in the Seacoast - Exeter area. Roller skiing
is not an option.
Do you ski on development roads or on the state/town roads?
/john
nordvind
jgs wrote:
> I have a dream to someday win the big lottery. After giving plenty of
> money to my favorite charities I am going to buy golf course and shut
> it down. The widened cart paths will make great dedicated roller skiing
> paths, the overgrown fairways will host wonderful single track for
> running and the defunct club house will make a great dormitory for
> visiting teams.
I, too, have a dream. The american people will form a majority that
elect officials, both local and national, to the Commensense Party.
These enlightened legislators will build a system of paved 20 ft. wide
paths throughout the US for the use of all recreational traffic except
motorized vehicles. This initiative will be called the "Pedestrian
Users Paved Pathway" or PUPPY. The pathways will have surface markings
designating left and right as well as safety zones and warnings for
stops ahead. A water station with toilets and emergency phones will be
erected every 10 miles in rural areas, and more closely spaced in
cities.
To fund this great adventure, the american people will draw on their
vast untapped money reserves. School children will bring grocery
receipts to convert to cash, local bond referendums featuring PUPPY's
mascot (a cute puppy in a red bandana) will inspire housewives to
donate their husband's cigarette and beer money in the name of healthy
lifestyles. Foreign governments will be invited to fund the PUPPY.
Canadians, still smarting from their portrayal as slit mouthed invaders
in "Southpark" will contribute handsomely when informed that all PUPPY
toilets will be decorated in the distinctive maple leaf motif. France
and Germany will join hands and open their coffers when the outgoing
Bush administration invites each head of state to monthly cyclocross
matches with him, held on the PUPPY Washington, DC (the winner of the
series to be awarded the title of "I was right and you weren't")
Norway, because of its traditionally outdoorsy citizens, will be the
PUPPY's largest foreign benefactor. In the private sector the
neo-conservationist rock group "Fuck for Forest" will donate half of
the proceeds of every live on stage sex act concert to the PUPPY. Jens
Stoltenberg, happy as a bedbug that the Norwegian people have again
elected him to show them how to be more swaddled in mother's apron
strings, will divert most of the oil revenue earmarked for national
road repair to the PUPPY. When asked by the national magazine
Dagbladet why he has decided to such a magnanimous gift to the American
people while shortchanging his own, Jens replied- "folk vet jo ikke va
de går glipp av likevel." (People don't know what they are missing
anyway.)
In an effort to make use of a great untapped resource, illegal aliens
will be given the opportunity to apply as caretakers for the PUPPY.
They will manicure acres of grass with brand new John Deere tractors,
which will be converted to track setting for Nordic skiers during
periods of snow.
Do I think this grand dream is possible during my lifetime? Perhaps,
remember= "the oxen are slow, but the earth is patient".:)
FITZGERALD
through residential areas and I have been there so many times over the past
6 years everyone is used to me and most people wave and give me a wide
berth. Just lucky I guess.
Windy as a mother in
Derry,NH
Fitzgeraldnews:1129473537.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jgs
Yeah, windy here too. It is drying things out a bit.
The rivers are still rising though.
I saw the sun today, that was kind of novel.
I'll be hitting the single track in an hour so and am hoping to not get
impaled by a blow-down.
/john