Re: Do bicycles and cars mix?

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

> One of the reasons why the death rate on US highways is so
>much lower than that of Europe is that we have had the courage to
>ban bicycles from major roads. The two modes of traffic never
>mix at all.

Sorry, I have to disagree on the point that bicycles should be banned from
major roads.

My UK experience is of cycling on major roads *as is my right over here* and
finding it a generally enjoyable experience and I've not had a run-in with a
vehicle. Yes, there are some idiots behind the wheels of motorised transport,
but on the whole, we mix well and safely - but we cyclists have to fight to
have it so. Many European countries have a wonderful culture of *respecting*
and *encouraging* cycling - more so than here in the UK. I'm off to Paris for
the last stage of Le Tour and then on to germany to cycle part of the Rhine
cycle route and I can't wait to get there! A friend of mine has cycled the part
of the Rhine I'm going to and tells me it's cycling heaven compared to the Uk
as cycling is an accepted and normal part of life.

I don't know what the USA experience is like as I've never driven or cycled
there, but I do know I would *loathe* being in a situation where the car was so
paramount that non-motorised methods of getting from A to B was discouraged or
banned the way it *appears* to be in the States. I can see the UK heading that
way and I will resist it all I can!

Cheers, helen s




~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>They are equally illegal on divided,
>limited access highways (autobahns, autoroutes, motorways, etc.) in every
>European country that I know of. Where's the difference between the US and
>Europe?

In the UK they are banned from motorways BUT are *not* from dual carriageways
and other A roads or major roads. To be banned from a normal major road over
here is *rare* - over here we cyclists have a *right* to be on the road and
drivers of motorised transport are there by *licence* - a fact a lot of
motorists and cyclists over here tend to forget :-)

Cheers, helen s






~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[mark]

"wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" wrote
>
> Sorry, I have to disagree on the point that bicycles should be banned from
> major roads.
>
> My UK experience is of cycling on major roads *as is my right over here*
and
> finding it a generally enjoyable experience and I've not had a run-in with
a
> vehicle. Yes, there are some idiots behind the wheels of motorised
transport,
> but on the whole, we mix well and safely - but we cyclists have to fight
to
> have it so. Many European countries have a wonderful culture of
*respecting*
> and *encouraging* cycling - more so than here in the UK. I'm off to Paris
for
> the last stage of Le Tour and then on to germany to cycle part of the
Rhine
> cycle route and I can't wait to get there! A friend of mine has cycled the
part
> of the Rhine I'm going to and tells me it's cycling heaven compared to the
Uk
> as cycling is an accepted and normal part of life.
>
> I don't know what the USA experience is like as I've never driven or
cycled
> there, but I do know I would *loathe* being in a situation where the car
was so
> paramount that non-motorised methods of getting from A to B was
discouraged or
> banned the way it *appears* to be in the States. I can see the UK heading
that
> way and I will resist it all I can!
>
> Cheers, helen s

I'm lucky enough to live in a corner of the US where cycling is an accepted
and normal part of life, and I don't plan on leaving anytime soon. I have
spent time in areas where, as you describe, the car is so paramount that
non-motorised transport is discouraged or appears to be banned. You are
correct, it is a truly loathsome state of affairs, unpleasant for motorists,
cyclists, and pedestrians alike.
--
mark

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>By divided, limited access highways, I meant what are called motorways in
>Great Britain, and Interstate highways, freeways, etc. here in the US.
>Bicycles are not banned from divided roads in the US unless the road is
>built like a motorway. Sorry if I wasn't completely clear.

Okay :-)

But, I don't know if you are aware (so apologies if this sounds like teaching
my granny to suck eggs!) but we have A roads which are motorways in all but
name & designation - dual carriageways - with the same speed limit as a
motorway and cyclists are not banned from these. Dual width road each side of a
central reservation area dividing the opposing flows of traffic. They can be
great for time trials :-)

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[Bernie]

wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX wrote:

> >They are equally illegal on divided,
> >limited access highways (autobahns, autoroutes, motorways, etc.) in every
> >European country that I know of. Where's the difference between the US and
> >Europe?
>
> In the UK they are banned from motorways BUT are *not* from dual carriageways
> and other A roads or major roads. To be banned from a normal major road over
> here is *rare* - over here we cyclists have a *right* to be on the road and
> drivers of motorised transport are there by *licence* - a fact a lot of
> motorists and cyclists over here tend to forget :-)
>
> Cheers, helen s
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> This is sent from a redundant email
> Mail sent to it is dumped
> My correct one can be gleaned from
> h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
> by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
> ~~~~~~~~~~

It is the same deal in Canada. We cyclists have such an inherent right to the
road that we need no licence. We have the right to be there. Motorists must
earn thru education and buy with money the licence to bring their motor vehicles
onto the common road.
Try to explain that one. Eyeballs roll up to watch the mind movie ... Only
fellow cyclists can just possibly follow that line of "heresy".
Some time ago I was given a travel book of India. One of the images in it was
the Grand Trunk Road, built by the British Raj in the early 19th century. A very
wide roadway that runs N/S in India. The picture, BTW was 20th century
contemporary, not 100 years ago. It showed pedestrians, loaded camels, mule
trains, horse and camel drawn wagons, trucks piled hugely high with goods, and of
course bicycles, all travelling slowly, north and south. The perspective was
good, as it took in a fairly long view. There did not seem to be any clear rules
of "keep to the left" (or right). Everyone seemed to be loosely spread out.
The point is, all these road users had a right to be there. The trucks were
capable of high speeds, but not without trashing the many low speed road users.
I quite enjoyed the picture, and the message it delivered.
Bernie

[Randal Lovelace]

Don Quijote wrote:
> Well, it seems the combination of undertrained, careless drivers and
> bicycles don't mix. Some--probably sponsored by GM--claim they do, but
> the following articles illustrates that roads remain a dangerous
> jungle--for the little animals...
> Car slams into 20 cyclists Three of the 13 hospitalized are reported in
> serious condition. No charges have been filed. By CHRIS TISCH, Times
> Staff Writer © St. Petersburg Times published July 7, 2003
> ST. PETERSBURG - It was a beautiful Sunday morning, and several dozen
> bicyclists moved two abreast like a caterpillar through the residential
> streets of St. Petersburg.
> Kip Vosburgh was near the back of the pack when he heard screams, looked
> up and saw a Lincoln Continental mowing down the cyclists, spraying them
> over the hood, onto the street and into the gutter.
> "It was almost like Moses and the Red Sea was parting," Vosburgh said.
> "Then I was looking right at the grille of the car."
> Vosburgh was flipped over the hood and into the gutter, his leg and
> arm broken.
> He was one of about 20 cyclists hit, 13 of of whom were hospitalized.
> Three were in serious condition Sunday night. The others were in fair
> condition or were treated and released.
> The driver, Joseph D. Pastore, 60, of Pinellas Park, told police he was
> trying to pass another car when he plowed into the line of bikes. Police
> are investigating whether Pastore, who carried a cane and has disability
> license plates, was impaired or suffered from a medical condition.
> Pastore, who was released from Ed White Hospital after the crash,
> declined to speak to reporters. No charges were filed, though an
> investigation continues.
> Two of Pastore's neighbors said he passed out in his car Friday.
> Neighbor Stephenie Payne said she was pulling out of her driveway
> and saw him.
> "I backed up to see if he was okay," she said. "Then he woke up."
> The crash occurred about 8:40 a.m. on 30th Avenue N just west of 53rd
> Street, a thin ribbon of residential street.
> The 30 to 40 cyclists, many with the St. Petersburg Bike Club or the St.
> Pete Mad Dog Triathlon Club, were pedaling west. They had met at the
> main library about 10 minutes earlier and were on a trip that takes them
> to Clearwater Beach and back through the island cities. Most were going
> less than 20 mph.
> "Everybody was just chatting," said Debra Ryder, out for her first ride
> with the group.
> The cyclists have taken the route every Sunday for many years. They have
> close calls with motorists from time to time, but nothing similar to
> what happened Sunday.
> Witnesses said the eastbound Continental veered toward the cyclists,
> cutting into the group head-on about halfway through their ranks, then
> dispatching the cyclists like dominoes.
> "There's no way he could not have seen us," Ryder said. "He went to
> pass, he accelerated and he never slowed down."
> While cyclists were tumbled and tossed, the car sheared through their
> bikes, swallowing them underneath and snapping them in pieces.
> Most of the injured were in the inside line near the curb. Cyclist Sam
> Miller was in the outside line pedaling next to a woman taking the
> Sunday ride for the first time. When Miller saw the car chucking
> cyclists, he wrenched his bike left. The car whipped past him, missing
> by inches. But it struck the woman.
> "There was nowhere to go. She went right into it. You didn't have much
> time to think," Miller, 43, said.
> Cyclists slammed into the car's windshield, cracking it into a spider
> web of glass. Bike wheels and handlebars went spinning. Some riders
> were thrown so forcefully off their cycles that their shoes remained in
> the pedals.
> "Men and women were screaming, bodies were flying," Ryder said. "A wheel
> went flying right in front of me. It was like an explosion. There were
> bicycle parts everywhere, blood everywhere."
> Miller estimated the car was going 30 mph. The car left no skid marks.
> The car ran over a curb, the bikes underneath it scraping against the
> sidewalk, eventually stopping
> it. One neighbor inside his house thought a car had knocked over garbage
> cans. Another said it sounded like a car thumping fence posts.
> Neighbors reported hearing Pastore say a variety of things.
> "He said, "I must have hit something,' " said Roy Luers, whose yard was
> the car's final resting place. "He was out of it. He didn't know."
> Another said Pastore told her something had flown into his eye. Another
> saw a diabetic necklace dangling from his neck.
> Pastore told police he tried to pass another car, even though he was
> traveling in a no-pass zone. Police want to find the other motorist, who
> was driving an older-model, light-colored, foreign-made car. That
> motorist is not facing charges, police said.
> Neighbors and cyclists with cell phones dialed 911 while tending to the
> wounded. Ten ambulances were dispatched. Ryder tended to a man with
> serious leg and pelvis injuries. His helmet was split down the back.
> Two cyclists were taken by helicopter to Bayfront Medical Center. Others
> were taken by ambulance to Bayfront, Northside Hospital and St.
> Anthony's Hospital.
> The three in serious condition at Bayfront were David Arnold, Maria
> Riquet and Ronald Diner, a hospital spokesman said. Their ages and
> addresses were not available.
> Police said the cyclists were wearing helmets. According to state law,
> bicycling two abreast is legal; three abreast is not.
> Vosburgh, 56, who began seriously cycling a few years ago, said he
> planned a bike trip with his wife, Carol Jean, in Nova Scotia in August.
> When she arrived at the hospital, he immediately asked about his bike, a
> red titanium Serrota costing $6,000. She said it was in pieces.
> The cyclists said their group is tight-knit. The St. Petersburg Bike
> Club has about 260 members, while the Mad Dog group has about 800
> local members.
> "That's why we travel in groups. There's safety in numbers," Carol Jean
> Vosburgh said.
> Despite the accident, the cyclists said they would continue to ride.
> "I have no intention of not going back," Vosburgh said from his hospital
> bed. "In life, I'd rather wear out than rust out."
> http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeacehttp://webspawner.com/users/bi-
> keforpeace

It is my opinion -

That dangerous drivers are dangerous to all...not just cyclist.

That the group of riders would not have had time to react....(they
traveling at just under 20mph, and the car from opposing direction
traveling at 30mph (and accelerating) -0- this makes for a 50mph
impact........how quickly could you have reacted?

That roadways - excepting the ones that actually have properly marked
bike lanes - are incredibly dangerous for cyclist.

That Bikeways are designed in such a way as not to be useful for daily
transportation (ie, it doesn't start or end anywhere near where it would
be useful) I tend to see them as a place of recreation riding.

I believe if the advocates for cycling safety could come together that
they would actually be able to force legislation refering to all new
construction of roadway (exclusive of interstates) to include either a
marked bike lane and or considerably wide shoulder for riding.

Enough ranting...(still bothered about the St. Pete driver mowing down a
group of riders -=- I hope them all a speedy recovery.




--
Randal Lovelace



>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[R15757]

<< You should be high left in the lane with a clear sight line to the truck's
left mirror. The car behind you will not attempt a pass as you are
dominating the centerline. You should close up rapidly along the
centerline and wait to cut your right turn behind the truck when you
are sure of its intentions.

The car driver saw an opportunity to pass you because you gave him
too much space.>>

Lot of assumptions in this post. Maybe the guy didnt see him at all. You could
also get your ass run over while "dominating the center line." Never assume.
This sounds like a road with a lot of space on the right. It is better to ride
a consistent line to the right, where it doesnt matter if you're seen or not,
than to ride left and cut right.

It is better to ride like you're not seen than to ride to be seen. Most of the
time, you can't do both.

Robert

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(R15757) writes:
>
> Lot of assumptions in this post. Maybe the guy didnt see him at all. You could
> also get your ass run over while "dominating the center line." Never assume.
> This sounds like a road with a lot of space on the right.

I know this stretch, and have ridden it myself. Narrow lane, and
the only thing on the right is sidewalk, and then concrete barrier.
No shoulder, no verge. This is definitely entire-lane-taking
territory. Riding on there is truly "threading the needle". And
Bernie forgot to mention the killer diagonal RR tracks.

> It is better to ride
> a consistent line to the right, where it doesnt matter if you're seen or not,
> than to ride left and cut right.

With any line to the right of the centre of the lane there, one
just gets passed too closely, or disappears from drivers' views
(which are dominated by large trucks).

> It is better to ride like you're not seen than to ride to be seen. Most of the
> time, you can't do both.

In this particular stretch, I opt for the latter. Actually,
there's not even an option. On Front St, ya bloody well *gotta*
make sure you're seen.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>Despite various experiments, no one has successfully mixed bicycles and
>cars. The amperage on most blender motors is not sufficient.

As a cyclist, I successfully mix with cars on a daily basis when riding on the
road.

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>>Despite various experiments, no one has successfully mixed bicycles and
>>cars. The amperage on most blender motors is not sufficient.
>
>As a cyclist, I successfully mix with cars on a daily basis when riding on
>the
>road.

However, this does not stop me from being less than awake when reading a post
;-)

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[Robin Hubert]

"Timothy J. Lee" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Golightly F. > wrote:
> >Three times in the past six months or so... I've had car drivers look me
> >right in the eye as I approach an intersection (25 mph or more) and they
> >have pulled out right in front of me each time... even though they have
> >looked right at me. I don't have room to stop so I have to pass them on
> >either the right or left... depending on a "split second" decision to
avoid
> >a crash.
> >
> >This behavior *can't* be explained.
>
> It is explainable (but not excusable) by the likelihood that the
> motorist has become conditioned to 5mph child bicyclists and the
> like, rather than 25mph bicyclists. I've even had a bicyclist
> do that in front of me while I was on a bicycle (but that bicyclist
> was obviously unskilled in terms of rules of the road, since he was
> also on the wrong side of the road he was coming from).
>
> Some other motorist errors may also be due to absent-mindedly
> thinking that a bicyclist is going much slower than s/he actually
> is going (e.g. passing on the left of and then turning right in
> front of a bicyclist).

Don't forget to include the fact that some motorists think they have the
right of way over a bicyclist, regardless of the road situation.



--
Robin Hubert >

[Luigi de Guzman]

"mark" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >By divided, limited access highways, I meant what are called motorways
in
> > >Great Britain, and Interstate highways, freeways, etc. here in the US.
> > >Bicycles are not banned from divided roads in the US unless the road is
> > >built like a motorway. Sorry if I wasn't completely clear.
> >
> > Okay :-)
> >
> > But, I don't know if you are aware (so apologies if this sounds like
> teaching
> > my granny to suck eggs!) but we have A roads which are motorways in all
> but
> > name & designation - dual carriageways - with the same speed limit as a
> > motorway and cyclists are not banned from these. Dual width road each
side
> of a
> > central reservation area dividing the opposing flows of traffic. They
can
> be
> > great for time trials :-)
> >
> > Cheers, helen s
>
> I wasn't aware of this. AFAIK, roads like this in the US are usually off
> limits to cyclists, unless there are some cross roads intersecting.

Err, I've ridden on divided highways/dual carriageways. they aren't
expressly forbidden to cyclists the way Interstate Highways/motorways are.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article >,
> (R15757) writes:

> I know this stretch, and have ridden it myself. Narrow lane, and
> the only thing on the right is sidewalk, and then concrete barrier.
> No shoulder, no verge. This is definitely entire-lane-taking
> territory. Riding on there is truly "threading the needle". And
> Bernie forgot to mention the killer diagonal RR tracks.
>
> > It is better to ride like you're not seen than to ride to be seen. Most of
> > the
> > time, you can't do both.
>
> In this particular stretch, I opt for the latter. Actually,
> there's not even an option. On Front St, ya bloody well *gotta*
> make sure you're seen.

Front Street in New West? Why even bother? When that route was on my
commute, I happily took Columbia Street instead, which parallels Front
for its entirety.

Columbia is a far saner road, even on that harrowing climb towards the
traffic light at McBride (or whatever that little stub street that
connects Columbia to Royal and McBride is called).

I agree that if you're going to ride Front, ride down the bloody middle
of the street and just **** off the trucks, because that's the only way
you'll be safe (too narrow, no verge, bad sight lines due to the
concrete pillars), but I won't drive down Front in my car if I have a
choice. Why would you choose to ride a bike down Front?

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[mark]

"Luigi de Guzman" wrote
> Err, I've ridden on divided highways/dual carriageways. they aren't
> expressly forbidden to cyclists the way Interstate Highways/motorways are.

Oops.
--
mark

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Ryan Cousineau > writes:
>
> I agree that if you're going to ride Front, ride down the bloody middle
> of the street and just **** off the trucks, because that's the only way
> you'll be safe (too narrow, no verge, bad sight lines due to the
> concrete pillars), but I won't drive down Front in my car if I have a
> choice. Why would you choose to ride a bike down Front?

Looking on Front from around the Quay toward the northeast,
sometimes there's /such/ an enticing break in the traffic
between sets of traffic lights. One thinks: "I can make
use of that break, if I just step on it and stay ahead of
the traffic as much as possible."

As Bernie mentioned, it's just a short run before dodging
right to get to the refuge of the RR track ROW.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[R15757]

Tom wrote:

<< > It is better to ride like you're not seen than to ride to be seen. Most of
the
> time, you can't do both.

In this particular stretch, I opt for the latter. Actually,
there's not even an option. On Front St, ya bloody well *gotta*
make sure you're seen.
>>

Good luck with that. Deck yourself out in neon lycra. Put a big orange flag on
your bike. Strap 14 flashing reflector lights to your backside. Dominate the
lane.

No matter what you do, there is no way to make sure you're seen.

Robert

[R15757]

Eric S. Sande wrote:

<< I can manage my position in traffic to maximize visibility and
opportunity.

Look at it this way. He's in the truck's blind spot and he wants to
turn right, but he hasn't got the lane.

The first thing to do is to make sure the truck knows he's back there.

That's a simple left drift to pick up the truck's mirror.

A basic maneuver.

The car behind shouldn't have an incentive to pass then.

The car may drop under him to the right. He brakes, falls back,
and merges behind the car to get the right turn.

If the car doesn't drop under him he can merge right and get the
turn behind the truck and ahead of the car.

Easy as pie.
>>

This is ridiculous Eric. Drifting to the left to let the truck driver know
you're there does the rider no good whatsoever. The truck driver and the car
driver both will then of course figure the cyclist is turning left. And then
the rider will disappear from truck guy's view, confusing the hell out of
him--where'd that guy go?? If you're going to be using so-called vehicular
cycling, at least ride in a predictable fashion.

The rider should stay behind the truck, yes in the blind spot, and observe.
Makes no difference if the truck driver sees him or not. Probably better if he
doesn't. Never attempt to squeeze past any vehicle on the right if that vehicle
may be turning right, especially a big truck.

Riding to be seen is a fool's game. It will work 99 out of 100 times, then that
100th time it won't work, you won't be seen, and you'll be in exactly the worst
place on the road. Take responsibility for your own safety instead of pawning
it off on other drivers.

Robert

[Eric S. Sande]

>If you're going to be using so-called vehicular cycling, at least ride
>in a predictable fashion.

I've got enough time here so I'll answer your post in detail.

You'll have to forgive me if I cut and paste to redefine some points.

First of all, vehicular cycling is all about safety and predictability
in operation. Every road user has an obligation to ensure this.

I know what the Uniform Vehicle Code says about bicycle operation,
and I understand that it places responsibility on all road users.

The UVC is the model code for most US states, and even though the road
in question is in Canada, I understand that the rules are pretty
similar there too.

Second, the general phraseology of most bicycle regulations allows for
exceptional circumstances. You seem to favor a rigid interpretation
of "ride to the right" without exception. I quote:

>>This sounds like a road with a lot of space on the right. It is better
>>to ride a consistent line to the right, where it doesnt matter if you're
>>seen or not, than to ride left and cut right.

In fact it wasn't a road with a lot of space to the right, as Bernie's
original post and Tom's comment showed. It was a narrow road with
plenty of truck traffic.

Tom later pointed out that it included other hazards (the diagonal tracks),
and that will become important later on.

Third, Bernie's original post stated that he didn't punish the car for a
close pass. I thought he could have been riding further out given the
stated conditions, and in my opinion the close pass would not have
happened had he done so.

I should say that my opinion of the situation was totally based on
Bernie's report (which was clear and concise) and my own traffic
experience.

Based on that experience I feel it is far better to control the road
situation in one's own favor than to rely on the kindness of strangers.

Now let's get down to cases.

>This is ridiculous Eric. Drifting to the left to let the truck driver
>know you're there does the rider no good whatsoever.

It does no good? Nah. It gives the cyclist maneuver room, it prevents
the car from executing the unsafe pass that Bernie objected to, and it
lets the truck driver know the cyclist is back there.

That's three good things. Since we didn't know about the railroad
tracks until later, we can't count the maneuver advantage as more
than a "half" a good thing.

I could point out that if you were hard right on that road the tracks
would have been a surprise.

>The rider should stay behind the truck, yes in the blind spot, and
>observe.

Observe what? What can you see with a freaking truck in front of you?

>Makes no difference if the truck driver sees him or not. Probably
>better if he doesn't.

You appear to be afflicted with the belief that cyclists aren't part
of traffic.

>Riding to be seen is a fool's game. It will work 99 out of 100 times,
>then that 100th time it won't work, you won't be seen, and you'll be
>in exactly the worst place on the road.

Some of your ideas are actually dangerous and shouldn't be posted
with such conviction. All I can hope for is that you actually have
the real world experience to back your reckless suggestions.

>Take responsibility for your own safety instead of pawning it off on
>other drivers.

Get out of the gutter and learn how to ride safely and responsibly.


--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[R15757]

<< >The rider should stay behind the truck, yes in the blind spot, and
>observe.

Observe what? What can you see with a freaking truck in front of you?
>>


Observe whether this truck is going to turn or not. Don't want to find this out
when you're on the truck's right.

<< Some of your ideas are actually dangerous and shouldn't be posted
with such conviction. All I can hope for is that you actually have
the real world experience to back your reckless suggestions.
>>


I feel that way about your suggestions and any suggestion that a cyclist can
always "control" the flow of traffic by riding a certain way. The problem with
so-called "vehicular cyclists" ("so-called" because they disregard traffic laws
whenever it suits them, for instance, to filter between cars at lights and in
traffic jams) is they put their safety into the hands of drivers, even though
they claim they are doing the opposite. They assume they are seen. They assume
they will not be "passed close", as if this were the worst thing that could
happen to them, just by riding out in the lane. They may eliminate their own
mistakes but will be vulnerable to the mistakes of others.

I am not suggesting that cyclists should always ride to the right. They should
ride using the entire available road surface to maximize their own personal
safety. Sometimes they should consider riding in the gutter. Sometimes they
should ride right down the middle of the ****in street. About the only
principle that cyclists should live by is one of total flexibility.

My suggestions are not reckless. They are based on experience. Lots of
experience. 10+ years bicycle messenger, different cities. That's about 6 hours
per day 250 days per year 10 years on the bike in heavy traffic. 15,000 hours
and about 150,000 miles in heavy traffic. How much experience do you have?

But don't take my word for it. Find out for yourself. A few trips to the MRI
room should be enough to make you adopt a more careful and less trusting style.

Robert

[R15757]

<< You sound like a fool with that talk. I agree with Eric 110%.



--
Robin Hubert >
>>


Good for you, Robin! I disagree with him 120%

Robert

[Pbwalther]

>Well, it seems the combination of undertrained, careless drivers and
>bicycles don't mix.

The odd thing is that according to estimates I have read, motorists rates of
fatal injury per hour is twice as high as cyclist.

Interestingly enough, the data distorts the danger of cycling. I read through
the data. Almost half of the cyclists killed in the USA were killed cycling at
night and I will bet you that nearly all of them did not have active lighting
systems. So if you don't ride at night (or use a lighting system if you do)
your risk of fatality is one quarter of a motorist! And if you cull out the
cyclists who get killed by wrong way cycling and so on the risk falls to about
1/8th of motorists.

So why do cyclists have such low fatality rates? Well most motorists are
killed by one of the following: driving while intoxicated, going to sleep at
the wheel, or driving way too fast for conditions. Cyclist do not usually do
these things. It is flat hard to ride a bike whilst intoxicated. Few people
ride bikes when they are almost asleep. And it is mighty hard to get a bike
going fast enough to make excessive speed a meaningful hazard.

Sure I feel safer in an automobile then I do on my bike but the data says I am
not.

[Robert J. Matter]

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> You're right. Motorists don't remember the courteous cyclists they
> pass, they don't remember the ones that stop properly and obey traffic
> laws. They remember the ones that blast through intersections without
> looking or veer around erratically through slow moving traffic.
>
> Once they've associated cyclists with dangerous behaviour, they
> determine that they should all be off the road.

I got news for you. You can be a law abiding cyclist and when you take a lane and delay cagers nothing raises their ire and desire to get you off the road more.

-Bob Matter
-----------
"It is said that the only time a person feels more
important than the whole of his community is when
he is insane -- or when he is driving. This is the
basis of car culture, the idea that the world and
all of the world's people are merely in its way."
--Travis Hugh Culley, _The Immortal Class_

[Pete]

"(null)" > wrote

>
> Cars pay for new roads and get a subsidy of about .04 cents
> per mile. Bicycles pay for nothing.\

This one was not even a good troll.
Again, factually incorrect.

Cars pay for nothing. Bicycles pay for nothing. People pay for everything.
Almost every adult cyclist is also a car owner, and an ever greater
percentage are income and sales tax payer.
As such, they contribute to the public road costs just like everyone else.

Pete

[Bernie]

"Eric S. Sande" wrote:

> >Lot of assumptions in this post. Maybe the guy didnt see him at all.
>
> Wrong. He did see him, he swerved around the rider.
>
> >You could also get your ass run over while "dominating the center line."
>
> You could die in bed.
>
> >Never assume.
>
> I went with the facts.
>
> >This sounds like a road with a lot of space on the right.
>
> He's in a one lane road 40% out behind a truck.
>
> He has a truck in front of him whose intentions are unknown.
>
> >It is better to ride a consistent line to the right, where it
> >doesnt matter if you're seen or not, than to ride left and cut right.
>
> If the truck crushes him to the right he's just as dead. If the
> truck driver can't see him he's increased his risk factor significantly.
>
> >It is better to ride like you're not seen than to ride to be seen.
>
> It is better to manage your position in traffic.
>
> >Most of the time, you can't do both.
>
> I can manage my position in traffic to maximize visibility and
> opportunity.
>
> Look at it this way. He's in the truck's blind spot and he wants to
> turn right, but he hasn't got the lane.
>
> The first thing to do is to make sure the truck knows he's back there.
>
> That's a simple left drift to pick up the truck's mirror.
>
> A basic maneuver.
>
> The car behind shouldn't have an incentive to pass then.
>
> The car may drop under him to the right. He brakes, falls back,
> and merges behind the car to get the right turn.
>
> If the car doesn't drop under him he can merge right and get the
> turn behind the truck and ahead of the car.
>
> Easy as pie.
>
> --
>
> _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
> ------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
>

No doubt he saw me. I was taking enough lane that on that narrow roadway -
and doing only maybe 20 mph - that I had no expectations of any one
attempting a pass. Especially as I said, with a semi slowing to a stop in
front of me.
Bernie

[Bernie]

R15757 wrote:

> Eric S. Sande wrote:
>
> << I can manage my position in traffic to maximize visibility and
> opportunity.
>
> Look at it this way. He's in the truck's blind spot and he wants to
> turn right, but he hasn't got the lane.
>
> The first thing to do is to make sure the truck knows he's back there.
>
> That's a simple left drift to pick up the truck's mirror.
>
> A basic maneuver.
>
> The car behind shouldn't have an incentive to pass then.
>
> The car may drop under him to the right. He brakes, falls back,
> and merges behind the car to get the right turn.
>
> If the car doesn't drop under him he can merge right and get the
> turn behind the truck and ahead of the car.
>
> Easy as pie.
> >>
>
> This is ridiculous Eric. Drifting to the left to let the truck driver know
> you're there does the rider no good whatsoever. The truck driver and the car
> driver both will then of course figure the cyclist is turning left. And then
> the rider will disappear from truck guy's view, confusing the hell out of
> him--where'd that guy go?? If you're going to be using so-called vehicular
> cycling, at least ride in a predictable fashion.
>
> The rider should stay behind the truck, yes in the blind spot, and observe.
> Makes no difference if the truck driver sees him or not. Probably better if he
> doesn't. Never attempt to squeeze past any vehicle on the right if that vehicle
> may be turning right, especially a big truck.
>
> Riding to be seen is a fool's game. It will work 99 out of 100 times, then that
> 100th time it won't work, you won't be seen, and you'll be in exactly the worst
> place on the road. Take responsibility for your own safety instead of pawning
> it off on other drivers.
>
> Robert

Guys, as usual, I was riding to be seen by the driver behind me. Just found it
unusually thick headed of him to squeeze by when there was no room on the side or
in front of us to "squeeze".
Bernie

[Bernie]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> In article >,
> (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > (R15757) writes:
>
> > I know this stretch, and have ridden it myself. Narrow lane, and
> > the only thing on the right is sidewalk, and then concrete barrier.
> > No shoulder, no verge. This is definitely entire-lane-taking
> > territory. Riding on there is truly "threading the needle". And
> > Bernie forgot to mention the killer diagonal RR tracks.
> >
> > > It is better to ride like you're not seen than to ride to be seen. Most of
> > > the
> > > time, you can't do both.
> >
> > In this particular stretch, I opt for the latter. Actually,
> > there's not even an option. On Front St, ya bloody well *gotta*
> > make sure you're seen.
>
> Front Street in New West? Why even bother? When that route was on my
> commute, I happily took Columbia Street instead, which parallels Front
> for its entirety.
>
> Columbia is a far saner road, even on that harrowing climb towards the
> traffic light at McBride (or whatever that little stub street that
> connects Columbia to Royal and McBride is called).
>
> I agree that if you're going to ride Front, ride down the bloody middle
> of the street and just **** off the trucks, because that's the only way
> you'll be safe (too narrow, no verge, bad sight lines due to the
> concrete pillars), but I won't drive down Front in my car if I have a
> choice. Why would you choose to ride a bike down Front?
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
> President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

It gets me to Sapperton Landing where I can ride alongside the mighty muddy Fraser
in the morning. What's the point of cycling if
(1) you're not willing to ride the ride wherever you must go
and
(2) take the scenic route
??
Best regards, Bernie

[R15757]

Eric Sande wrote:

<< I didn't do it by assuming I had all the answers and that my reflexes
would get me through. Instead I read what material was out there and
accepted the advice, with a grain of salt, that other practicioners
could give me.
>>

By the material that was out there, you must mean Effective Cycling. What other
material is there?

<< And I ride, a lot. I still don't have all the answers. But what I do
have is an appreciation for what real systematic effort will yeild in
terms of traffic safety and efficiency, even under the worst possible
conditions.

And none of it is hack riding. It all buids towards a technique that
I can take anywhere and that continues to serve me well.
>>

I share your appreciation for systematic effort in traffic. But our systems are
totally different.

If you were to ride behind me for a while, you would probably assume I was
riding according to the ol' vehicular cycling principle. My style looks to the
untrained eye pretty much the same. But my attitude is fundamentally different.
V.C. riders ride in order to maximize visibility and to look predictable to
motorists. I ride to maximize space. I have given up on depending on motorists
for anything.

We might be riding the exact same line out in the lane, but you would ride it
to be seen, and I would ride it because I assume I'm *not* seen. Interesting,
eh? I love visibility as much as the next guy, but it's a pipe dream. The V.C.
rider's attitude of dependence on others and faith in traffic law principles is
what will put him in the hospital every now and again. To me, this is not an
acceptable risk.

VC is a good guideline for beginners who dont know their ass from a pothole.
For riders who are out in traffic all the time, it's not good enough.

Robert

[jmk]

In North Carolina -- and most likely other states -- roads are funded
through state and federal taxes. Some of those taxes are on gas and
other fuels, some are on tires, some comes from vehicle registration
feeds and some of it comes from the general fund (income taxes). Cars
and heavier vehicles do more damage to roads than pedestrians and
cyclists. This is acknowleged via the federal "heavy vehicles use tax."
FWIW, these fees also pay for mass transit, airports, aquatic stuff
(boating), and railroads.

Pete wrote:
> "(null)" > wrote
>
>
>> Cars pay for new roads and get a subsidy of about .04 cents
>>per mile. Bicycles pay for nothing.\
>
>
> This one was not even a good troll.
> Again, factually incorrect.
>
> Cars pay for nothing. Bicycles pay for nothing. People pay for everything.
> Almost every adult cyclist is also a car owner, and an ever greater
> percentage are income and sales tax payer.
> As such, they contribute to the public road costs just like everyone else.
>
> Pete
>
>

[R15757]

DC quoted unknown material:

<< Safety Benefits of Bike Lanes

Bike lanes help define road space, decrease the stress level of
bicyclists riding in traffic, encourage bicyclists to ride in the
correct direction of travel, and signal motorists that cyclists have a
right to the road. Bike lanes help to better organize the flow of
traffic and reduce the chance that motorists will stray into cyclists'
path of travel.1, 2 Bicyclists have stated their preference for marked
on-street bicycle lanes in numerous surveys.3 In addition, several
real-time studies (where cyclists of varying abilities and backgrounds
ride and assess actual routes and street conditions) have found that
cyclists are more comfortable and assess a street as having a better
level of service for them where there are marked bike lanes present.4

In summary, bike lanes do the following:

support and encourage bicycling as a means of transportation
help define road space
promote a more orderly flow of traffic
encourage bicyclists to ride in the correct direction, with the flow
of traffic
give bicyclists a clear place to be so they are not tempted to ride on
the sidewalk
remind motorists to look for cyclists when turning or opening car
doors
signal motorists that cyclists have a right to the road
reduce the chance that motorists will stray into cyclists' path of
travel
make it less likely that passing motorists swerve toward opposing
traffic
decrease the stress level of bicyclists riding in traffic
Well-designed facilities encourage proper behavior and decrease the
likelihood of crashes. Numerous studies have shown that bicycle lanes
improve safety and promote proper riding behavior..5

In 1996, over 2000 League of American Bicyclist members were surveyed
about the crashes (accidents) they were involved in over the course of
the previous year. From the information, a relative danger index was
calculated which shows that streets with bike lanes were the safest
places to ride, having a significantly lower crash rate then either
major or minor streets without any bicycle facilities; moreover, they
are safer than trails and sidewalks as well.6
The addition of bicycle lanes in Davis, California reduced crashes by
31 percent.7
Bicycle lanes on a major avenue in Eugene, Oregon resulted in an
increase in bicycle use and a substantial reduction in the bicycle
crash rate. The crash rate per 100,000 bike miles fell by almost half
and the motor vehicle crash rate also fell significantly.8
When the city of Corvallis, OR installed 13 miles of bicycle lanes in
one year, the number of bicycle crashes fell from 40 in the year prior
to the installation to just 16 in the year afterwards, and of the 5
crashes that occurred on streets with bike lanes, all involved
bicyclists riding at night with no lights.9
In Chicago, Illinois, crash severity was reduced in one study of
marking bike lanes in a narrow cross section where 5 foot bike lanes
were marked next to 7 foot parking lanes.10
In Denmark, bicycle lanes reduced the number of bicycle crashes by 35
percent.11 Some of the bike lanes reached risk reductions of 70 to 80
percent.12
A comparison of crash rates of all types in major cities has shown
that cities with higher bicycle use have lower traffic crash rates of
all types than cities with lower bicycle use.13
In a national study comparing streets with bike lanes and those
without, several important observations were made:14
Wrong-way riding was significantly lower on the streets with bike
lanes.
In approaching intersections, 15% of cyclists on streets without bike
lanes rode on the sidewalks, vs. 3% on the streets with bike lanes.
On streets with bike lanes, 81% of cyclists obeyed stop signs, vs. 55%
on streets without.
In Cambridge, sidewalk bicycling was cut in half after the
installation of bicycle lanes on Mass. Ave. in Central Square.15
Corvallis and Eugene, Oregon, cities with good bikeway networks, have
the highest number of riders and rider behavior is the best:
wrong-way riding is minimal, fewer ride on the sidewalk than in other
Oregon cities.
In looking at comparable streets with and without bicycle lanes in
Davis and Santa Barbara, California, the number of cyclists riding on
the wrong side of the street was one third as much on streets with
bicycle lanes.
>>

could you please post the citations that go with this piece? that would be most
helpful to me at this point in my life. Thank you.

Robert

[Eric S. Sande]

>If you were to ride behind me for a while, you would probably assume I
>was riding according to the ol' vehicular cycling principle. My style
>looks to the untrained eye pretty much the same. But my attitude is
>fundamentally different. V.C. riders ride in order to maximize
>visibility and to look predictable to motorists. I ride to maximize
>space. I have given up on depending on motorists for anything.

Interesting. I'm a fan of the "invisible bubble" theory myself.

That's the inverse of your "invisible cyclist" theory. See some of
my other posts on how to manage road space.

>We might be riding the exact same line out in the lane, but you would
>ride it to be seen, and I would ride it because I assume I'm *not* seen.
>Interesting, eh?

It comes down to how you define visibility. You seem to assume that
I actually ride in a trusting manner. You would be wrong. As I stated,
my motive is to get to point B, intact. And obey the traffic laws and
stay alive.

However I am not under any illusions as to how best to approach the
problem.

>I love visibility as much as the next guy, but it's a pipe dream. The
>V.C. rider's attitude of dependence on others and faith in traffic law
>principles is what will put him in the hospital every now and again.

I'm a street rider, not what you think of as a V.C. rider, I think.

I'm on record as saying EC is "a good start". Maybe we're closer on this
than you seem to think. I remain flexible.

>To me, this is not an acceptable risk.

Mastery of the traffic environment on a bicycle is not a passive process.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[R15757]

<< Mastery of the traffic environment on a bicycle is not a passive process. >>


I agree 120%. My active process though is all vision and anticipation. As far
as controlling or influencing motor traffic goes, I find that I rarely need to.

[R15757]

No, the citations that go with each of the alleged facts within the article. Or
failing that the source for the article so I can check it.

Thanks,
Robert

[Pete]

"Fritz M" +> wrote in message
. ..
> "Pete" > wrote:
>
> > Well...Maastricht in the south gets to almost 1000 feet....:)
>
> He said mountains, not speed bumps ;-)
>

hence the smiley.

Pete

[DurangoKid]

I saw a documentary on the German autobahn and I've talked to those who
have driven it. Some observations.

1. The per mile fatality rates on the Autobahn are signifcantly less
than on American limited access freeways.
2. Germans take driving at high speed very seriously. They don't
tolerate distractions like cell phones, coffee, make-up, newspapers,
etc. All of which I've seen on American highways.
3. The Autobahn has a requirement that drivers drive right and pass
left. If you're in the left lane and you get blinked from behind you
are required to move to the right lane. Failure to yield may make you
at fault for a rear end collision. Typically, in America, the driver
in the rear is automatically at fault in a rear end collision.
4. The pavements on the Autobahn are over twice as thick as typical
American freeways. The Germans are also fastidious about keeping the
surface in good repair.
5. Sections of the Autobahn around larger cities have speed limits that
are strickly enforced.
6. Typically, licenses in Europe are more difficult to get and
maintain. They are also much more expensive. Losing a license is a
major economic loss.
7. On Autobahn drive I spoke with contends that American drivers are
slow and dangerous. As a cyclist I'm inclined to agree.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[DurangoKid]

spcjb001 wrote:
> Personally, I think it would make a lot of sense for cycle lobby groups
> to raise funds from members with the view of supporting law suits
> against ANY car driver who runs down a cyclist in apparently negligent
> circumstances. If motorists and their insurers get hit where it hurst
> then they will also start lobbying for better roads, driver education
> etc. Sadly in today's world, if you do not hit people in their pocket,
> then they do not give a stuff.
> Who knows whether or not the silly old bugger who ran down those
> cyclists has any money - certainly it would be a pleasure to bankrupt
> him and deprive his heirs of any inheritance. Then anyone who knows him
> will be paranoid about hitting a cyclist - that can only help.



I would be nice to hit them in the sensitive parts, mainly their bank
accounts. Often damage suits are financed on a contingency basis. The
plantiff doesn't pay unless there is a judgement and award. The lawyer
collects a portion of the award. Therein lies the rub. When the police
refuse to issue a citation, it makes it more difficult to prevail in
court. Lawyers are reluctant to take contingency cases where the
outcomes are doubtful or the defendant has no money or underwriting.
Pooling funds from bike riders for the purposes of bringing suits
wouldn't be much of an improvement. In the end it's up to the courts.
I've been in two accidents with cars where the drivers were at fault. No
citations were issued. All I got were new bikes and bruises. I did
notice that the insurance company was in a lather to get my signature on
a release form. If such a situation should arise again I shall have to
remember that my signature has a monetary value, too.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[spcjb001]

Personally, I think it would make a lot of sense for cycle lobby groups
to raise funds from members with the view of supporting law suits
against ANY car driver who runs down a cyclist in apparently negligent
circumstances. If motorists and their insurers get hit where it hurst
then they will also start lobbying for better roads, driver education
etc. Sadly in today's world, if you do not hit people in their pocket,
then they do not give a stuff.

Who knows whether or not the silly old bugger who ran down those
cyclists has any money - certainly it would be a pleasure to bankrupt
him and deprive his heirs of any inheritance. Then anyone who knows him
will be paranoid about hitting a cyclist - that can only help.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[DurangoKid]

7. An Autobahn driver I spoke with contends that American drivers are
slow and dangerous. As a cyclist I'm inclined to agree.

Damn typos.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[DurangoKid]

zumbrunndbla wrote:
> I grew up in Switzerland, using the bike for vitually all my
> transportation. I agree with some of the things you say, but not all.
> Generally, European driving tests are harder (a lot harder) than in the
> US. So Europeans are technically much better drivers than most
> Americans. However: this is balanced by the more relaxed and courteous
> attitude of drivers in the US (well - not here in Boston, but certainly
> generally around the country). If you have a car in your rear view
> mirror that is so close you think you have a trailer you know this is e
> mean guy in Europe. In the US it is more likely a stupid, underskilled
> driver. Take your pick. It is also true that European roads are better
> maintained (government is generally more efficient over there - why
> would be a very interesting question). Specially in Germany I have found
> drivers to be mean and aggressive and in your face (I like their culture
> in any other way).



I never mentioned courtesy. Some Germans are obsessed with correctness
and are "in your face" when they believe they are in the right. My
argument was centered around competency. Americans are so relaxed while
driving I have to wonder if they really understand the process in which
they're involved. You know, f = ma, ke = 1/2mv**2, and that sort of
thing. Parenthetically, my brother lived in Boston for several years.
I've heard plenty of stories about Boston drivers.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[DurangoKid]

Bikes and cars can mix. To make it work we need:
1. Educated cyclists and drivers.
2. Smaller cars.
3. Roads with well marked bike and car lanes.
4. Bike lanes that don't suddenly quit or switch to sidewalks.
5. Bike lanes that allow for safe left turns at intersections.
6. Police officers who are willing to cite drivers when they cause
accidents.
7. Streets reserved for cyclists only. No pedestrians.
8. Streets reserved for motorists only.
9. Signs that clearly mark items 7 and 8.
10. Licensing for cyclists. For educational purposes.
11. More rigorous licensing for motorists.
12. More mass transit, especially rail and subways.
13. Annual renewal quizzes for licenses.
14. Annual or semi anual physical exams for older drivers. These would
include reaction time, peripheral vision, hearing, cataracts,
cognition.
15. A national data base for bike related accidents.
16. Federal highway funds for bike lanes and reserved streets.
17. Downtown areas closed to cars.
18. Higher motor fuel taxes to pay for it all.
19. More cyclists. Strength in numbers.

I've seen plenty of examples of cyclists and drivers mistakes to know
that both sides share the blame for accidents. It seems that when
drivers are the cause of accidents the cyclists usually get the worst of
it. It's probably a question of the mass properties of cars. Wouldn't it
be better to get beyond blame and anecdotal horror stories and actually
change traffic and highway policies? I'm lucky to live in the San
Francisco Bay Area where activists have achieved some of my program.
What we have here is well worth the struggle. Most of the changes came
about at the city and county level. It didn't happen over night. What
was accomplished in the Bay Area shows that better conditions for
cyclists are possible. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[zumbrunndbla]

DurangoKid wrote:
> I saw a documentary on the German autobahn and I've talked to those who
> have driven it. Some observations.
> 1. The per mile fatality rates on the Autobahn are signifcantly less
> than on American limited access freeways.
> 2. Germans take driving at high speed very seriously. They don't
> tolerate distractions like cell phones, coffee, make-up, newspapers,
> etc. All of which I've seen on American highways.
> 3. The Autobahn has a requirement that drivers drive right and pass
> left. If you're in the left lane and you get blinked from behind you
> are required to move to the right lane. Failure to yield may make you
> at fault for a rear end collision. Typically, in America, the driver
> in the rear is automatically at fault in a rear end collision.
> 4. The pavements on the Autobahn are over twice as thick as typical
> American freeways. The Germans are also fastidious about keeping the
> surface in good repair.
> 5. Sections of the Autobahn around larger cities have speed limits that
> are strickly enforced.
> 6. Typically, licenses in Europe are more difficult to get and
> maintain. They are also much more expensive. Losing a license is a
> major economic loss.
> 7. On Autobahn drive I spoke with contends that American drivers are
> slow and dangerous. As a cyclist I'm inclined to agree.



I grew up in Switzerland, using the bike for vitually all my
transportation. I agree with some of the things you say, but not all.
Generally, European driving tests are harder (a lot harder) than in the
US. So Europeans are technically much better drivers than most
Americans. However: this is balanced by the more relaxed and courteous
attitude of drivers in the US (well - not here in Boston, but certainly
generally around the country). If you have a car in your rear view
mirror that is so close you think you have a trailer you know this is e
mean guy in Europe. In the US it is more likely a stupid, underskilled
driver. Take your pick. It is also true that European roads are better
maintained (government is generally more efficient over there - why
would be a very interesting question). Specially in Germany I have found
drivers to be mean and aggressive and in your face (I like their culture
in any other way).



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[zumbrunndbla]

DurangoKid wrote:
> 7. An Autobahn driver I spoke with contends that American drivers are
> slow and dangerous. As a cyclist I'm inclined to agree.



I agree. But: they are not dangerous BECAUSE they are slow. They are
slow AND dangerous, because they are underskilled. Germans are fast and
dangerous, because they think they are even better drivers than they
are. Trust me: if you drive on an Autobahn and somebody comes up behind
you at what seems to be twice your speed and flashes the lights at you:
it is truly scary - and happens all the time. Not a few guys come within
a few yards before flashing. In the seventies the speed limits were
lowered to 100km/h to save gasoline. The fatality rate dropped
dramatically - and inched back up once the speed limits were relaxed.
Slow is NOT dangerous per se. The danger comes from mixing too many
different speeds on the same road. The fast drivers could lower the
danger by adapting to the lower speed around them - or the other way
around. Your German friend did not see himself as part of the danger -
well, most of us don't. At the end of the day: IF it comes to a crash,
your chances of survival are much better at lower speed - remember that
kinetic energy grows with the square of speed.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[DurangoKid]

zumbrunndbla wrote:
> I agree. But: they are not dangerous BECAUSE they are slow. They are
> slow AND dangerous, because they are underskilled. Germans are fast and
> dangerous, because they think they are even better drivers than they
> are. Trust me: if you drive on an Autobahn and somebody comes up behind
> you at what seems to be twice your speed and flashes the lights at you:
> it is truly scary - and happens all the time. Not a few guys come within
> a few yards before flashing. In the seventies the speed limits were
> lowered to 100km/h to save gasoline. The fatality rate dropped
> dramatically - and inched back up once the speed limits were relaxed.
> Slow is NOT dangerous per se. The danger comes from mixing too many
> different speeds on the same road. The fast drivers could lower the
> danger by adapting to the lower speed around them - or the other way
> around. Your German friend did not see himself as part of the danger -
> well, most of us don't. At the end of the day: IF it comes to a crash,
> your chances of survival are much better at lower speed - remember that
> kinetic energy grows with the square of speed.



I agree with you. American drivers have it too easy. They don't get the
training that would make them more skilled drivers. My point was that
there is less correlation between speed and the frequency of accidents.
Skill is a more determining factor. Of course, there's no arguing with
ke = 1/2mv**2.

I lived in Colorado for a while. There they have a principle in the
traffic regulations called driving too fast for the conditions. You
could be cited for driving the speed limit if there was bad weather or
congestion, etc. They were concerned about driving in the mountains.
The roads are often narrow, the curves are blind, and the side of the
road is the bottom of a canyon. I guess it all boils down to using
one's head.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[scottesq]

P.J. Hartman wrote:
> (Don Quijote) wrote in message
> >...
> > "Everybody was just chatting," said Debra Ryder, out for her first
> > ride with the group.
> Oh, I already know I'm going to get lambasted by the cyclists for this
> comment, but here it is anyway.
> Without taking anything away from the egregious actions of the
> automobile driver, perhaps a lot of the cyclists could have avoided
> injury if they'd been paying better attention themselves. Riding in
> large groups tends to become more of a social function and less of a
> cycling one. If this had been a single bicyclist, perhaps the rider
> would have been alert enought to avoid the oncoming car.



You are right, you are going to be lambasted. In this particular
instance, the car crossed a double yellow and plowed into cyclists in
the oncoming lane, ie there was nowhere for the cyclists to go to avoid
the oncoming car.

A portion of the community reaction here in St. Petersburg was that if
the cyclists were not on the road, this wouldnt have happened. This
position is as specious as it is asinine. It is tantamount to saying
that if no one had flew on 9-11, there wouldnt have been a terrorist
attack. Bicyclists are seen as disposable and inferior to automobiles
and until that is changed, we will continue to have incidents like this
where the driver expresses no accountability or remorse.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Pete]

"Mitch Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Pete wrote:
> >
> > "Don Quijote" > wrote in message
> > > ***If I'm a vehicle why can't I ride like one!?***
> >
> > This is the way *I* ride. Why can't you?
>
> Phobia.

No. He's just a monkey. He said so himself.

Pete

[R15757]

Don Quijote slashes at windmills:

<< If point A is far from point B you better ride on a non stop street,
or else you take a bus, don't you? >>

No.

<< *I ain't riding because it ain't safe*. But what do you expect, for me
to drive on secondary streets stopping and going at every corner? I
ain't got an engine, remember, so to get up to speed every block or so
is not my idea of fun or safety.
>>

News flash to Don and all other freaked-out victims of poor advice: get off the
busy narrow arterial boulevard and chart a route on secondary streets. Look
around and you will find streets with relatively few stops and reasonably quiet
traffic.

<< I'm at the wrong end of the food chain, being the slowest on the road,
and you expect me to go out there and play with lions? >>

Don you'll never get anywhere with that attitude--the bicycle is clearly at the
top of the current transportation food chain. Yes, cycling is dangerous. Yes,
getting run down and killed is a possibility. But there is a way to ride which
greatly minimizes the possibility. First step is clever route finding. Why are
you so freaked out by riding in traffic? It's really no more dangerous than
driving or walking. Motorcycling is far more dangerous. If you're out in
traffic, there's going to be **** happening, people making mistakes all around
you, all the time. Just gotta be ready for it. And then, know that there will
still be some measure of risk, which, because you LOVE CYCLING SO DAMN MUCH,
you are willing to accept.

Failing that, move out of Fla.

<< However, in riding off-road since 1988, I have had exactly 1 accident,
a
dislocated shoulder, and I can attribute that to my own stupidity (me
and wet, mossy rocks don't mix). I have never killed any indigenous
species, and I take great care to leave trails in the same or better
condition than I found them.
>>
<< My point? It is not the nature of the type of riding, but rather the
nature of the individual cyclist that makes riding off-road dangerous.
And with that said, I'm sure all of the cyclists in these groups who
have experience both on and off-road will agree that riding on the
road
is inherently MORE dangerous than riding off-road - why do you think
mountain biking has gotten so popular? >>



Kudos on the trail ethics, but have to say your reporting of 1 "accident" in 15
years of off-roading (trail riding?) indicates not much off-roading done by you
in the past 15 years. When trai ridin there is a bigger chance of incidents and
I would say injuries, even if the chance of getting hit by a car is eliminated.
Kind of like riding on the bike path. Also those with supreme trail skills,
while they definitely welcome the lack of vehicles and feel safer on the trail
than on the road, tend to escalate their speeds and risk-taking to make up for
their increase in skill.

Also I collided with a moto earlier this summer out in the woods. What if I had
sustained some nasty open leg fracture or something, 15 miles from the nearest
road? Get hauled out in a chopper I guess. Makes ya think twice about riding
fast on the trail.

Robert

[R15757]

Quijote said:

<< No what? Why don't cyclists go training on secondary streets? Could it
be because of dogs or because of speed? >>

Who says they don't. Many "secondary" streets are quite suitable for fast
riding: wide, quiet, few stops. cyclist will go basically the same speed on a
30 mph boulevard as a 75 mph freeway, and much faster on the quiet 30 mph
secondary street than the super-busy arterial with stop lights..not all
secondaries are created equal.

<< >Don you'll never get anywhere with that attitude--the bicycle is clearly at
the
> top of the current transportation food chain.

Compared to what, cats?
>>

DQ, if you can't see that the bike is clearly the superior mode of transport in
urban and suburban areas, despite the danger, then I can't help you.

<< don't think motorcycling is more dangerous because you ride with
traffic. Someone said the problem is mixing different speeds together.
Comprende? >>

You are wrong. It is precisely the speed of the motorcycle which makes
motorcycling far more dangerous than riding a bike. You are about 30 times more
likely to die while motorcycling than while cycling. People can't handle the
responsibility that comes with all that speed. Furthermore, that motorcycles
have to ride in the traffic lane is a disadvantage, not an advantage. Cyclists
have the option of getting out of the traffic lane--use it. Or are you just
another hopeless victim of "vehicular cycling" dogma?

The only streets that are going to get any new bike lanes are streets that
don't need them, because they're already wide enough. I doubt any cities would
sacrifice a single high-traffic lane to create a bike lane. That's reality. you
may not like it, but you should get used to it. Not going to change any time
soon.

Robert

[R15757]

<< Having had three (3) different cars pull out in front of me, in the past few
months, (traveling 25 to 30 mph), while looking directly at me, I concluded
that it was a speed perception. I was told that people driving car's don't
expect bicycles to go 25 to 30 mph.

I then had a conversation with my youngest son... a Junior at WWU,
(Ellensburg, WA) and uses his "Dirt Bike" around campus. He informed me of
exactly the same problem. People will look right at him as he's driving
toward and intersection, acknowledge that he's there... then turn out in
front of him.

CONCLUSION:
It's survival of the fittest... and those in cars must get this feeling that
they are bigger and will survive a conflict with a smaller vehical... so
it's OK for them to *kill* people that ride *either* bicycles or
motorcycles.

Sick... but deeply hidden in the subconsious of car drivers.

fwiw

>>

Not necessarily. Just because drivers are looking right at you doesn't mean
they see you. Take eye contact with a grain of salt. File it away with turn
signals--it's nice, but don't bet your life on it. Assuming visibility is the
hallmark of the experience-challenged cyclist.

Robert

[oberlaenderm]

I was out riding on the Pinellas Trail just a few miles from where the
Pastore incident happened that day and was saddened, but not surprised,
to hear of an incompetent driver plowing into a group of cyclists. The
drivers here, in one of the most densely populated counties in Florida,
are atrocious, generally speaking.

Just a few days later I witnessed another clueless driver going north on
a southbound lane of a four-lane road at night and despite my honking
and waving, he didn't catch on that he was in the wrong lane. He had a
head-on collision with another car just shortly thereafter and it is
amazing that everyone lived through this accident. The point: driver's
licenses seem to be given out here as easily as if one was purchasing
them at K-mart.

I was pleased to find out that such a poor driving and cycling mix is
not universal to all of the states. When visiting Honolulu recently, it
was great to find that the drivers generally seemed to have more respect
for cyclists than their Florida counterparts. Even with the hillier
terrain and the mob of cars in Waikiki, I felt safer driving on the
roads there than I do here in Pinellas County.

To raise awareness of cyclists in this county, a week after the
Pastore incident, a very large group of local cyclists did a ride in
honor of those who were injured in the crash. I hope the press
coverage made a few local drivers think about respecting the cyclists
who share their roads.

-- Michaela



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[zumbrunndbla]

vancegod [/i]
Public roads are there so companies can stock the shelves in your grocery store. They're there so that you may buy parts to fix your ... bike. They're there so you may enjoy protection from the Police Dpt.. They're there so the ambulance can get you when some insensed motorist runs your bootie down! Your statements are inflamitory, selfish, and ill-advised. Your sense of entitlement truely makes me sad. [/QUOTE]

A very emotional statement. Why??
Name one incident, where an ambulance was too late because of a bicycle! Name on incident when a fire burned out of control because the firetruck was help up by a bicycle! What is all the emotion supposed to accomplish?

Originally posted by vancegod
In addition automobile drivers out number cyclists, on our roads, by how much? Ten to one, one-thousand to one, ten-thousand to one? So you would have your "rights" supported at the expense of the majority? We just don't do things that way in this country. [/B]

Actually, we do. Democracy means the majority rules, but the rule of law insures the majority does not run roughshod over minorities (among other things). Anyhow, if there are so few cyclists, how much harm can they cause?

Originally posted by vancegod
I would close with the disclosure of the fact that I was a Messenger in Portland, OR for 13 years. I have also done my stint as a line mechanic in numerable shops. In addition I have enjoyed more than my fair share of ameteur cycling competition. My friends often speculate as to whether or not I was born on two wheels. [/B]

Good for you! But:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vancegod wrote:[i]
> And the only thing in this world I dislike more than "bike-nazzi's" is
> "bike-nazzi's" in lycra. Thanks for helping to give us all a bad name.



Again, why the raw emotion? Why invoke Hitler? I just don't get it.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[cmcgarr1957]

There is always one in the group that hasn't a clue how careful we
cyclists actually are to stay away from cars. Now I have seen arrogance
from a few cyclists but it is few. I ride alone and with a few other
riders but I always prefer larger groups as to the statement, it's
better to ride in numbers.

I hope I'm not on the rode when your in your car, and like I always say
to drivers that cut me off, "Hope I give your children more room than
you have just shown me" and then I say how disappointed your mother
would be in you today.

It's not that cyclists have to stick together, it's law of nature to be
nice to people and the hard part is that there are way to many
disgruntled "IT'S MY ROAD" and you better move mentality of drivers than
should be drivers license's. I'm digressing, I sit back and read now.

Casey



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Rick Onanian]

On 8 Aug 2003 00:34:47 +0950, vancegod >
wrote:

> Dear Claire, Hopefully you are joking. And if so, I believe this is not
<snip>
> on two wheels. And the only thing in this world I dislike more than
> "bike-nazzi's" is "bike-nazzi's" in lycra. Thanks for helping to give us

I'm quite enamored with female bike-nazis in lycra.

--
Rick Onanian

[Corvus Corvax]

vancegod > wrote i
>
> Dear Claire, Hopefully you are joking.

What? Please learn to quote.

> As much as I don't like it, public roads were not
> put there for any of us to drive (or ride) to work, the video store, or
> even the bike shop.

Um. That's what "public" means. It means that everybody gets to use
them, on an equal footing. This is one of the oldest concepts in
Western common law, going back well before the Romans. You were stoned
the entire time you went to college, weren't you?

> So you would have your "rights" supported at the expense of the majority?

On my planet, that's what a "right" means. I'm not sure about your
planet.

> I would close with the disclosure of the fact that I was a Messenger in
> Portland, OR for 13 years. I have also
[..etc..]

And you're still this ignorant? Wow.

CC

[ybbond]

maybe a look into mass transit might be an option. Trains and buses with
bike racks might be a solution for longer hauls...as well as a way to
force some people in the US to exercise.....It would definitly help
lower health care costs.....- Winter would suck thou especially in
states with any amount of snow....... everyone would have to learn to
ride on studded cross tires.....



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Don Quijote]

tim@devrx > wrote in message >...
> Well, I'm not really Tim I'm his son Luke but I'm also a keen biker and,
> for a start, this guy shouldn't have been on the road, but also, this
> doesn't indicate that car drivers are undertrained. I'm pretty sure most
> drivers would not have blamed this accident on a lack of training. I
> also don't know if don is a car driver but if he is may I ask what makes
> him a better trained car driver than the rest of us?

I haven't claimed I'm a better driver (but riding a motorbike, chances
are I am). I just said American drivers are undertrained when they get
their license, wich is later perpetuated by a fool-proof automatic
transmission and by the lack of any comprehensive law enforcement...

>
> There is definitely a place for cars to mix with bikes, however both
> parties should try and be considerate and often they aren't. Cyclists
> are vulnerable, so in my opinion anyone found using any vehicle in a
> manner to endanger them should, rather than just being fined/getting
> points, be made to realise the possible consequences of their actions.
> When cycling myself I often force drivers not to overtake dangerously
> without thinking about it by riding far out from the kerb and thus, to
> a certain degree, trusting that motorists don't actually want to kill
> me. So far it's worked. I've been cut up/forced off the road when I
> haven't done this, but never had a near miss doing it. I also feel that
> this emphasises my status on the road as a vehicle (as the other
> vehicles have to think about overtaking me) and hopefully one day all
> drivers will see all cyclists as vehicles, and treat them with the
> respect they deserve.

Good move by almost taking the lane. That's what I propose while
there's no place for bicyclists. But not much will happen until
bicycles can have their own turf in the Asphalt Jungle, in which they
always are the prey... :(

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

[HellonWheels]

Originally posted by Claire Petersky Ah! It is clear to me now! Bicycles
and cars do not mix!

There is only one clear and sensible solution -- ban all motor
vehicles from the roadway. It would certainly make my commute safer
and more pleasant.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky, MRP )>>>

Actually, I agree. I fukking HATE cars and I HATE most car drivers. They
are ignorant *ssholes who stuff their faces, put on makeup, and talk on
cellphones while they're supposed to be watching the road.

What I esp. hate is this society's INSISTENCE that everyone drive a car!

http://www.cars-suck.org

http://www.carfree.com



--
you laugh because i'm different....I
laugh because you're all the same.
___
Conformity is the disease...rebellion
is the cure.

>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
HellonWheels > writes:

> What I esp. hate is this society's INSISTENCE that everyone drive a car!

Me too. That's why I've always resisted.

But I prefer to limit my hate to things that really deserve
it, like lima beans, or accidentally stepping in dog poo,
or getting white window envelopes with red ink stamped
on them in the post.

Hating people saps one's energy too much. Especially
when there's so much great summer weather to not let
go to waste.

Maybe it's better to dwell on things one likes, like
sunny days, bikeCulture, or finding a long-forgotten
$20 bill in a coat pocket in the closet.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Brunswick_kate]

Don Quijote wrote:
> Well, it seems the combination of undertrained, careless drivers and
> bicycles don't mix.
> <snipped>
> Another said Pastore told her something had flown into his eye. Another
> saw a diabetic necklace dangling from his neck.



First, I'm new to this list and probably should pick a less contentious
issue to wade in with but here goes...

I'm a cyclist. I'm a driver. I'm a diabetic. That is probably why the
above selected note caught my eye. I just want to say that **if** the
driver in this case was a diabetic and **if** he was suffering from
hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), then this isn't a case of someone being
careless or undertrained. It is an accident.

It's hard to explain true hypoglycemia to someone who has never
experienced it but your brain just doesn't work. Some one can be talking
to you but you can't understand their words. In addition to a very awful
physical sensation, I find that the worst part is you can't think. If
this gentleman was suffering an hypo incident, it's not that he didn't
*see* the cyclists but registering what that meant might have been
beyond his capacities at the time.

I certainly wouldn't want to be driving a car, or my bike, if this
happened to me. I don't think about it a lot because I'm a very well
managed diabetic at this point in my life and I've only gone hypo once
in the last 10 years which was probably largely caused by the fact I was
pregnant at the time -- the physiology behind that reaction is just too
complicated to explain on this list.

I know there's a long standing argument that diabetics, particularly
insulin users, should be locked into cages and not allowed to do
anything, because they might go hypo and they *might* have an accident.
Naturally, it's not a position I agree with. I don't want to be locked
in a cage because my pancreas doesn't work as well as yours does. I live
a *normal* life because advances in medical technology over the past 20
years allow me live a *normal* life, including cycling.

I just think that before we start chucking words like "careless" around,
we need to know all the facts. If the man had a heart attack, would we
be so quick to call him "careless"?

I hope that everyone is all right and has recovered from their injuries.
Does anyone have an update on the story that might give us a clue to the
findings of the investigation?

Thanks

Kate



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[AJRBJR]

In have never had trouble with a driver while riding. I think I know why. I had
this idea one day that maybe we should all think about.

When I ride, I ride as a person who is also a driver. When I drive, I drive as
a person who is also a rider.

To shorten it I just say. Ride as a driver and drive as a rider. I think it
causes you to see both sides when you are doing either activity.

I am about to go ride now. Man, I hope I didn't just jynx myself.

[Don Quijote]

Brunswick_kate > wrote in message >...
> Don Quijote wrote:
> > Well, it seems the combination of undertrained, careless drivers and
> > bicycles don't mix.
> > <snipped>
> > Another said Pastore told her something had flown into his eye. Another
> > saw a diabetic necklace dangling from his neck.
>
>
>
> First, I'm new to this list and probably should pick a less contentious
> issue to wade in with but here goes...
>
> I'm a cyclist. I'm a driver. I'm a diabetic. That is probably why the
> above selected note caught my eye. I just want to say that **if** the
> driver in this case was a diabetic and **if** he was suffering from
> hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), then this isn't a case of someone being
> careless or undertrained. It is an accident.

I don't even know the specifics of it, but the relevant point is that
the drivers license in America is a giveaway. Perhaps later in life
some make up for the fact of being *undertrained*, while most carry on
happily with their License to Kill... ;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

[Chris Rust]

On 11 Jul 2003, (null) wrote:
>
>Some more hard numbers are available here:
>www.who.int/whr2001/2001/main/en/pdf/annex2.en.pdf
>
>under Category III Injuries: Road Traffic Accidents.


This contribution is irrelevant and innumerate. If you don't understand
statistics don't quote them.

The debate is about accidents to and deaths of cyclists and the
original comment implied that a comparison could be made between the
RATEs of deaths to cyclists in US and EU (which is the only useful way
to look at this)

However the statistics in the link supplied refer to ALL road accidents
and the figures are given as a proportion of total deaths in the country
from all causes. This is completely irrelevant. The only useful
statistic would be one which related cycling deaths or accidents to
bicycle usage (eg miles or hours travelled).

This is a serious question of public policy. In some parts of Germany
where (notional) cycle tracks exist cyclists are banned from the highway
leaving them with no effective route (eg if the cycle path is shared
with pedestrians meaning they can't keep up a decent pace).

I have seen local politicians in the UK exploit confusion over
statistics and risks to block perfectly safe reasonable proposals for
cycle provision (in one case forcing cyclists to use a highly unsafe
alternative route on a very busy highway junction) so we all have to be
very clear and specific about the facts behind our arguments. Anything
said on this forum could be picked up and used out of context by
planners and politicians looking for evidence to support cycling
restrictions.


best wishes from Sheffield, England. Home of some really bad cycle
planning. Chris



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[zumbrunndbla]

Chris Rust wrote:
> If you don't understand statistics don't quote them.
> The debate is about accidents to and deaths of cyclists and the
> original comment implied that a comparison could be made between the
> RATEs of deaths to cyclists in US and EU (which is the only useful way
> to look at this)
> However the statistics in the link supplied refer to ALL road accidents
> and the figures are given as a proportion of total deaths in the country
> from all causes. This is completely irrelevant. The only useful
> statistic would be one which related cycling deaths or accidents to
> bicycle usage (eg miles or hours travelled).
> This is a serious question of public policy. In some parts of Germany
> where (notional) cycle tracks exist cyclists are banned from the highway
> leaving them with no effective route (eg if the cycle path is shared
> with pedestrians meaning they can't keep up a decent pace).



Two questions about this:

Statistics: in order to have a meaningful statistics you need to know
how many hours or miles of total bicycle use occurr per year. I have not
the foggiest notion where statisticians can get an even remotely
accurate estimate of this figure. Given this, I mistrust all statistics
about bicycle accident risk: garbage in, garbage out. Any enlightenment
by experts is welcome on this point.

Germany: are you sure you got your facts correct here? I am not aware of
a general highway ban for bicycles other than on freeways (like almost
everywhere else). However there may be specific pieces of road banned to
bicycles, mostly in response to accidents.

I would also submit that more often than not boneheaded political
decisions are a result of (innocent) ignorance and not of spite,
particularly on the local level. Polite (but concise) language is the
tool to address this - at least in the first few rounds. Assuming hidden
agendas (that are most probably non existent) will not help.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Chris Rust]

Originally posted by zumbrunndbla Two questions about this:

>Statistics: in order to have a meaningful statistics you need to know
>how many hours or miles of total bicycle use occurr per year. I have
>not the foggiest notion where statisticians can get an even remotely
>accurate estimate of this figure. Given this, I mistrust all statistics
>about bicycle accident risk: garbage in, garbage out. Any enlightenment
>by experts is welcome on this point.

I'm not an expert but it seems to be normal to quote accident figures
for airline passenger miles etc. I think a competent social scientist
would be able to question a sample of cyclists to find out typical
patterns of behaviour which would underpin the statistics. That's the
only way that a lot of the data we rely on can be discovered. It's a
question of size of sample and quality of questioning.

>Germany: are you sure you got your facts correct here?

The report I saw was of local restrictions introduced where an
alternative cycle path had been provided and the problem was mainly
because the alternative was not really comparable, eg shared use of
sidewalk which is hardly suitable for a training run, commuter or a
tourist with miles to cover. I don't have any more details but perhaps
others will be able to clarify this.

>I would also submit that more often than not boneheaded political
>decisions are a result of (innocent) ignorance and not of spite,
>particularly on the local level. Polite (but concise) language is the
>tool to address this - at least in the first few rounds.

I used to think that too. Then I found that a cornered politician
(cornered by the evidence, not by me) would resort to any specious
argument to bludgeon his way out of a tight spot, and be happy to shout
you down in the process. Of course our national leaders wouldn't behave
that way :) but the local talent can be of variable quality.

best wishes from Sheffield (not the home of the politician referred to
above) Chris



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[bgaudet0801]

"Chris Rust" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> However the statistics in the link supplied refer to ALL road accidents
> and the figures are given as a proportion of total deaths in the country
> from all causes. This is completely irrelevant. The only useful
> statistic would be one which related cycling deaths or accidents to
> bicycle usage (eg miles or hours travelled).

My two cents: I think the best measure is per time unit. It just seems
logical to compare accidents according to the same time period. If an
auto-addict travels for 2 hours at 100 kph and the virtuous cyclist travels
for 10 hours at 20 kph, then the risk should be calculated on the length of
time not distance traveled.

--
'Sell your sin
Just cash in' -Jewell