AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:46:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/8/2014 7:19 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:48:15 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?

Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
people are too important to use them.

Truly? In the small 3rd world country I reside in use of "turn lights"
is nearly universal even when only changing lanes on the highway.

Really, the use of turn signals is amazingly uncommon in the U.S. (I
was going to write "in Ohio," but it occurs to me it's been the same
everywhere.)

It's most frustrating to me when leaving our little neighborhood, trying
to turn out onto the busy five lane road. I'll be waiting for one last
car coming from the left to pass by, so I can scoot out into a brief
clear space. And the car will slow, and slow further; then turn into
the street I'm trying to exit. Some drivers seem to flick the turn
signal on at the same time they begin cranking the wheel to the right.
Many others will never signal at all.

We had friends from Ireland visit us a few years back. The lack of turn
signals caused some astonishment in our friends. "They don't use their
indicators!"

On the plus side, it's not that uncommon for cops to use this as
justification for stopping a known bad guy. Newspaper reports sometimes
say "XXXX was cited for an improper turn, possession of narcotics,
possession of drug paraphernalia..." If these guys were smart enough to
drive really carefully, they'd last longer on the streets.

But as one of my cop friends told me, "They're not Einsteins, Frank."

I would have to say that turn indicators are nearly universally used
here, by both private and commercial vehicles. In fact, it would be
very, very rare to see a large truck even change lanes without using
his turn lights.

Re criminals, I once had a conversation with a Maine State Policeman
and had a remark like, "some of these guys seem kinda slow", referring
to some of the state prisoners. He replied, "that's why they are in
here". I assumed that he meant that anyone that was half smart didn't
get caught.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 07:19:34 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:48:15 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?

Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
people are too important to use them.

Truly? In the small 3rd world country I reside in use of "turn lights"
is nearly universal even when only changing lanes on the highway.

Sorry, I was referring to the US, New York City in particular. I'd say
40% of drivers signal their turn early enough for me to find it
useful. I don't trust their signals, but I do factor them into how I
react to them.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On 12/10/2014 2:33 PM, dgk wrote:


Sorry, I was referring to the US, New York City in particular. I'd say
40% of drivers signal their turn early enough for me to find it
useful.

I agree with that estimate.

I don't trust their signals, but I do factor them into how I
react to them.

Ditto.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:33:50 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 07:19:34 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:48:15 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?

Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
people are too important to use them.

Truly? In the small 3rd world country I reside in use of "turn lights"
is nearly universal even when only changing lanes on the highway.

Sorry, I was referring to the US, New York City in particular. I'd say
40% of drivers signal their turn early enough for me to find it
useful. I don't trust their signals, but I do factor them into how I
react to them.


I'm surprised, really. I remember way back when I was in High School
they started a "Driver's Training" course. The school even had a car
with dual controls. I had assumed that by now USians all had formal
driver's training and were aware of all the do's and don't
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:15:23 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:33:50 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 07:19:34 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:48:15 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?

Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
people are too important to use them.

Truly? In the small 3rd world country I reside in use of "turn lights"
is nearly universal even when only changing lanes on the highway.

Sorry, I was referring to the US, New York City in particular. I'd say
40% of drivers signal their turn early enough for me to find it
useful. I don't trust their signals, but I do factor them into how I
react to them.


I'm surprised, really. I remember way back when I was in High School
they started a "Driver's Training" course. The school even had a car
with dual controls. I had assumed that by now USians all had formal
driver's training and were aware of all the do's and don't

They may have been trained to use them but they don't find it
necessary in real life. Probably because they never get ticketed for
that.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:21:20 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:15:23 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:33:50 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 07:19:34 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:48:15 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?

Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
people are too important to use them.

Truly? In the small 3rd world country I reside in use of "turn lights"
is nearly universal even when only changing lanes on the highway.

Sorry, I was referring to the US, New York City in particular. I'd say
40% of drivers signal their turn early enough for me to find it
useful. I don't trust their signals, but I do factor them into how I
react to them.


I'm surprised, really. I remember way back when I was in High School
they started a "Driver's Training" course. The school even had a car
with dual controls. I had assumed that by now USians all had formal
driver's training and were aware of all the do's and don't

They may have been trained to use them but they don't find it
necessary in real life. Probably because they never get ticketed for
that.

You need to implement the "free enterprise" system that we have here.

You do something wrong; the cop stops you; you pay him the fine and go
your way; or you do something wrong; you surrender your drivers
license and must report to the Police Officer's home office in 3 days
time to pay the fine and have your license returned.

Of course, if you pay on the spot the fine goes into the "Police
Benevolence" fund and is used to improve the life of the police
officers, which provides a certain amount of enthusiasm, in the Police
ranks, for law enforcement.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.


--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/14/2014 7:25 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.



Well said.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On 12/11/2014 8:14 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


You need to implement the "free enterprise" system that we have here.

You do something wrong; the cop stops you; you pay him the fine and go
your way; or you do something wrong; you surrender your drivers
license and must report to the Police Officer's home office in 3 days
time to pay the fine and have your license returned.

Of course, if you pay on the spot the fine goes into the "Police
Benevolence" fund and is used to improve the life of the police
officers, which provides a certain amount of enthusiasm, in the Police
ranks, for law enforcement.

So, the free market philosophy applied to policing! I think that would
be approved by roughly half the American public.

Until the first time they were pulled over, that is.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/14/2014 7:25 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

Well, when I ride in the middle of a narrow lane, it seems to adequately
communicate that there's insufficient room to pass unless the passers
leave the lane.

Call it what you will; it works.

And for the situation I usually ask about - an 8.5 foot truck coming up
behind me in a 10 foot lane - I don't know a better alternative.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:12:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/11/2014 8:14 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


You need to implement the "free enterprise" system that we have here.

You do something wrong; the cop stops you; you pay him the fine and go
your way; or you do something wrong; you surrender your drivers
license and must report to the Police Officer's home office in 3 days
time to pay the fine and have your license returned.

Of course, if you pay on the spot the fine goes into the "Police
Benevolence" fund and is used to improve the life of the police
officers, which provides a certain amount of enthusiasm, in the Police
ranks, for law enforcement.

So, the free market philosophy applied to policing! I think that would
be approved by roughly half the American public.

Until the first time they were pulled over, that is.

Foreigners complain loudly about the "corruption", but I always
wondered. The purpose of a fine is to impress on the evildoer that
this is not a good thing to do. Does it matter who, in the end,
receives the money?

As paying the fine is the punishment, whether this money goes into the
government coffers to be spent on the minister's upcoming trip to
London (with wife and family) or goes into the pockets of the poor
policeman would seem immaterial.

And, it does make for very industrious policemen, eager to enforce the
law.

--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

That's the common fear, of course: "What if they don't slow down or
change lanes? What if they run me over?" It's why most cyclists will
balance on a 4" fog line 2" away from a pavement dropoff as motor
vehicles squeeze by inches from their elbow, rather than ride centered
in a narrow lane.

Those of us who have learned to ride in the "primary position" know that
the "What if..." is superstition. It probably happens much less often
than hits-from-behind while riding in a bike lane. Riding in primary
position soon becomes much less scary than edge riding.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

You are violently agreeing with me.

I'm usually a spectator at these strange, but oddly-common, events.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:32:37 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Dec 2014
18:18:38 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

You are worrying about something that happens so rarely that it barely
even has any place in the statistics.
The risk of getting wiped out by someone trying to squeeze past in an
inadequate space is certainly many times greater.
Which is why it is recommended practice in every reputable cycle
training course I know of.

No, that isn't really true. Both John Forester and Kenneth Cross
discussed it in their writings and strangely they draw different
conclusions with one arguing that the overtaking risk is negligible,
and on the other hand an analysis that characterizes the overtaking
collision as the most deadly of all car-bike crashes.


--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:01:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

That's the common fear, of course: "What if they don't slow down or
change lanes? What if they run me over?" It's why most cyclists will
balance on a 4" fog line 2" away from a pavement dropoff as motor
vehicles squeeze by inches from their elbow, rather than ride centered
in a narrow lane.

Those of us who have learned to ride in the "primary position" know that
the "What if..." is superstition. It probably happens much less often
than hits-from-behind while riding in a bike lane. Riding in primary
position soon becomes much less scary than edge riding.

But Frank, I described an accident that happened where a little
village road joined a main highway - two women and two kids on a small
motorcycle "seized the lane" and were hit by an overtaking truck
traveling probably 50 or 60 KPH. Two dead at the site and two taken to
the hospital.

When I described the accident you replied with something like - "well
they shouldn't have done that".

Now you say it is the best option. But your "best option" resulted in
two dead at the scene and two with severe injuries who may have died
later.

--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/16/2014 8:32 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:32:37 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

You are worrying about something that happens so rarely that it barely
even has any place in the statistics.
The risk of getting wiped out by someone trying to squeeze past in an
inadequate space is certainly many times greater.
Which is why it is recommended practice in every reputable cycle
training course I know of.

No, that isn't really true. Both John Forester and Kenneth Cross
discussed it in their writings and strangely they draw different
conclusions with one arguing that the overtaking risk is negligible,
and on the other hand an analysis that characterizes the overtaking
collision as the most deadly of all car-bike crashes.

Note that the two "on the other hand" statements do not really conflict.
It's not much different than airliner crashes: Yes, they're very
deadly; but yes, the risk is still negligible.

As I've posted many times, American bicyclists probably ride ten million
to fifteen million miles per fatality. (Estimates vary, even estimates
by the same researcher, even those whose entire academic career is
focused on these issues.) That risk of fatality is, by any rational
evaluation, negligible.

It's true that if a cyclist is going to be killed by a car, being hit
from behind is a more common mechanism than many others - although it's
far from being the only one. But nobody has demonstrated that being hit
from behind is more likely when one rides conspicuously at lane center
of a narrow lane. We know that hit-from-behind fatalities occur even in
bike lanes. And while there's not definitive proof, there's lots of
evidence that "primary position" riding reduces that tiny risk.

Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence that hits-from-behind are a small
percentage of all car-bike crashes. The latest one I came across is
from the city of Cambridge, MA. There, hits-from-behind were 4% of
car-bike crashes. See
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Trans...formation.aspx

That’s:
Angle (90 degree, usually) 32%
Dooring 20%
Left Hook 19%
Sideswipe (squeeze by!) 12%
Right hook 10%
Rear end 4%
Head on 1%
Unknown 2%

If cyclists didn't ride in gutters where they were less visible, and
where they tempt motorists to squeeze by, I think that 4% figure would
be even lower.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/16/2014 8:39 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:01:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

That's the common fear, of course: "What if they don't slow down or
change lanes? What if they run me over?" It's why most cyclists will
balance on a 4" fog line 2" away from a pavement dropoff as motor
vehicles squeeze by inches from their elbow, rather than ride centered
in a narrow lane.

Those of us who have learned to ride in the "primary position" know that
the "What if..." is superstition. It probably happens much less often
than hits-from-behind while riding in a bike lane. Riding in primary
position soon becomes much less scary than edge riding.

But Frank, I described an accident that happened where a little
village road joined a main highway - two women and two kids on a small
motorcycle "seized the lane" and were hit by an overtaking truck
traveling probably 50 or 60 KPH. Two dead at the site and two taken to
the hospital.

When I described the accident you replied with something like - "well
they shouldn't have done that".

Now you say it is the best option. But your "best option" resulted in
two dead at the scene and two with severe injuries who may have died
later.

I may be recalling incorrectly, but I thought that incident involved
suddenly swerving in front of a rapidly overtaking motor vehicle.
That's not how it's to be done.

In any case, putting up one lane-center, hit-from-behind incident
doesn't prove that primary position riding is dangerous. After all, I
can put up accounts of horrific crashes to cyclists riding to the right
of wide lanes, or even riding in bike lanes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:46:01 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 8:39 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:01:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

That's the common fear, of course: "What if they don't slow down or
change lanes? What if they run me over?" It's why most cyclists will
balance on a 4" fog line 2" away from a pavement dropoff as motor
vehicles squeeze by inches from their elbow, rather than ride centered
in a narrow lane.

Those of us who have learned to ride in the "primary position" know that
the "What if..." is superstition. It probably happens much less often
than hits-from-behind while riding in a bike lane. Riding in primary
position soon becomes much less scary than edge riding.

But Frank, I described an accident that happened where a little
village road joined a main highway - two women and two kids on a small
motorcycle "seized the lane" and were hit by an overtaking truck
traveling probably 50 or 60 KPH. Two dead at the site and two taken to
the hospital.

When I described the accident you replied with something like - "well
they shouldn't have done that".

Now you say it is the best option. But your "best option" resulted in
two dead at the scene and two with severe injuries who may have died
later.

I may be recalling incorrectly, but I thought that incident involved
suddenly swerving in front of a rapidly overtaking motor vehicle.
That's not how it's to be done.


Perhaps I was not detailed enough. They rode from a small, one lane,
one way, village road onto the main N.S. Phuket highway. The small
road merges with the main road at the exit of a very large 90 degree
bend. They entered the road and started down the outer lane of the
road. A large truck hauling a 4 wheel trailer - probably approaching
80 ton capacity, and loaded - was approaching around the bend. From
living in the village I would guess that two women and two kids on a
90 cc Honda may have been traveling about 15 KMH. The truck was likely
doing 50 - 60 KPH, at least I usually am going about 50 KPH on that
curve and the big trucks sometimes pass me.

The truck driver obviously saw the woman and made an attempt to stop,
apparently braked rather violently as he lost the trailer which was
lying crosswise in the road when I came by a few minutes after the
crash.

The truck couldn't stop in time and hit the motorcycle that was,
apparently, well into the lane. Two dead in the crash and two severely
injured.

Had they not "taken the lane"...

In any case, putting up one lane-center, hit-from-behind incident
doesn't prove that primary position riding is dangerous. After all, I
can put up accounts of horrific crashes to cyclists riding to the right
of wide lanes, or even riding in bike lanes.

Right, ignore it as it happens so seldom.... I'm sure that the woman's
family agrees completely.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)


That's the thing. I think the OP was saying that she questioned the
word "Controlling" and I agreed.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

Am 16.12.2014 12:13, schrieb John B. Slocomb:

Foreigners complain loudly about the "corruption", but I always
wondered. The purpose of a fine is to impress on the evildoer that
this is not a good thing to do. Does it matter who, in the end,
receives the money?

As paying the fine is the punishment, whether this money goes into
the government coffers to be spent on the minister's upcoming trip
to London or goes into the pockets of the poor policeman would seem
immaterial.

And, it does make for very industrious policemen, eager to enforce
the law.

It also makes for very industrious policemen, eager to issue fines where
none are appropriate; ine the 1990s, I repeatedly heared about the 'Road
robbery' in Texas of imposing inappropriately low speed limits
immediately behind blind corners for the purpose of collecting fines.

Some countries pass on the fines to approriate charities precisely for
this reason: road traffic fines would go to charities for reducing road
hazards, sexual offences fines might go to charities who help the victim
of sex offenders etc.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/17/2014 6:17 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:



Perhaps I was not detailed enough. They rode from a small, one lane,
one way, village road onto the main N.S. Phuket highway. The small
road merges with the main road at the exit of a very large 90 degree
bend. They entered the road and started down the outer lane of the
road. A large truck hauling a 4 wheel trailer - probably approaching
80 ton capacity, and loaded - was approaching around the bend. From
living in the village I would guess that two women and two kids on a
90 cc Honda may have been traveling about 15 KMH. The truck was likely
doing 50 - 60 KPH, at least I usually am going about 50 KPH on that
curve and the big trucks sometimes pass me.

The truck driver obviously saw the woman and made an attempt to stop,
apparently braked rather violently as he lost the trailer which was
lying crosswise in the road when I came by a few minutes after the
crash.

The truck couldn't stop in time and hit the motorcycle that was,
apparently, well into the lane. Two dead in the crash and two severely
injured.

I realize you're talking about a third-world country, and I realize that
road design in many places is not up to western standards. It sounds
like this is one of those places. If a truck can't stop in the assured
clear distance ahead, then the combination of road design and allowable
speed is clearly defective. After all, what if (say) another truck
pulling a large trailer had done what the motorbike rider did?

This is one of the reasons that third world countries tend to have far
higher death rates per km traveled. That's true for motorists,
pedestrians, bus passengers and bicyclists.

Had they not "taken the lane"...

In any case, putting up one lane-center, hit-from-behind incident
doesn't prove that primary position riding is dangerous. After all, I
can put up accounts of horrific crashes to cyclists riding to the right
of wide lanes, or even riding in bike lanes.

Right, ignore it as it happens so seldom.... I'm sure that the woman's
family agrees completely.

Don't ignore these, either:

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/l...284488831.html
["He was riding his bicycle in the bike lane of westbound White Lane
sometime before 6 a.m. when he was struck from behind by a vehicle,
according to police."]

http://wishtv.com/2014/04/24/school-...ls-pedestrian/
["Bicyclist was in bike lane when hit, killed by bus..."]

http://www.twazlaw.com/blog/2014/09/...icyclist.shtml
["... a biker was in the designated bike lane when he was hit from
behind by a car..."]


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:04:28 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)


That's the thing. I think the OP was saying that she questioned the
word "Controlling" and I agreed.

I agree. While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently. My
experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous. One of the most common statement I
read in cases of motor vehicle bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't
see him".
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:23:30 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 6:17 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:



Perhaps I was not detailed enough. They rode from a small, one lane,
one way, village road onto the main N.S. Phuket highway. The small
road merges with the main road at the exit of a very large 90 degree
bend. They entered the road and started down the outer lane of the
road. A large truck hauling a 4 wheel trailer - probably approaching
80 ton capacity, and loaded - was approaching around the bend. From
living in the village I would guess that two women and two kids on a
90 cc Honda may have been traveling about 15 KMH. The truck was likely
doing 50 - 60 KPH, at least I usually am going about 50 KPH on that
curve and the big trucks sometimes pass me.

The truck driver obviously saw the woman and made an attempt to stop,
apparently braked rather violently as he lost the trailer which was
lying crosswise in the road when I came by a few minutes after the
crash.

The truck couldn't stop in time and hit the motorcycle that was,
apparently, well into the lane. Two dead in the crash and two severely
injured.

I realize you're talking about a third-world country, and I realize that
road design in many places is not up to western standards. It sounds
like this is one of those places. If a truck can't stop in the assured
clear distance ahead, then the combination of road design and allowable
speed is clearly defective. After all, what if (say) another truck
pulling a large trailer had done what the motorbike rider did?

Well Frank, the road is eight lanes wide, the north and south bound
sides are separated by a dividing median so each direction has two
"traffic" lanes, a bus/parking/stopping/breakdown lane, about the
width of the traffic lanes, on the outside and a strange inner lane
that is now blocked off. It has "rumble strips, four on either end if
memory serves. It is a ninety degree bend, smoothly paved with asphalt
cement. My guess is that it is about a 200 yard radius which would
make the length of the curve about 150 yards. It is a banked turn well
lighted and although you really can't far past the end of the turn
there isn't any artificial "blind spots".

This is one of the reasons that third world countries tend to have far
higher death rates per km traveled. That's true for motorists,
pedestrians, bus passengers and bicyclists.


While that is a nice condescending attitude it is not necessarily
true. Thailand, for one, has been building roads and improving
highways since the Vietnam War days when the U.S. built the first
major highway from just north of Bangkok to the Laotian border in the
North East.

The very high highway accident/death rate in Thailand is largely a
factor of something other than "bad roads". Approximately 26,000
people die annually in Thai highway accidents. About 70% of these are
motorcycles and alcohol is involved in about 26% of all highway
accidents.

Police statistics state that for all accidents, speeding and reckless
driving is the major factor in accidents.


Had they not "taken the lane"...

In any case, putting up one lane-center, hit-from-behind incident
doesn't prove that primary position riding is dangerous. After all, I
can put up accounts of horrific crashes to cyclists riding to the right
of wide lanes, or even riding in bike lanes.

Right, ignore it as it happens so seldom.... I'm sure that the woman's
family agrees completely.

Don't ignore these, either:

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/l...284488831.html
["He was riding his bicycle in the bike lane of westbound White Lane
sometime before 6 a.m. when he was struck from behind by a vehicle,
according to police."]

http://wishtv.com/2014/04/24/school-...ls-pedestrian/
["Bicyclist was in bike lane when hit, killed by bus..."]

http://www.twazlaw.com/blog/2014/09/...icyclist.shtml
["... a biker was in the designated bike lane when he was hit from
behind by a car..."]

I think that your references simply point out the fallacy of "taking
the lane". From a quick reading of the above it appears that they
describe bicycle accidents involving riding in a specified, but not
physically separated, "bike lane". In short taking the lane.... and an
overtaking vehicle hit them.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

The problem with all the I did this or I did that is, at least in
California, the cyclists seem to be the culprits. See:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...es-statistics/

Which says that in the cases where the police can establish guilt the
cyclist is the guilty party in the majority of the cases.

Excerpt:

In 2011, officers determined fault in 701 crashes between a bicyclist
and a motorist in which a cyclist was hurt or killed, according to the
reports, submitted to California's Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System. Cyclists were found to be the party most at fault in
390 of those crashes, or 56 percent of the time.

In 2012, bicyclists were deemed to be at fault 60 percent of the time,
in 2013, 56 percent of the time and as of the date of the report, 57
percent in 2014.

Perhaps the battle cry should be "Obey the law" rather than "Take the
Lane".
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

Flashing lights has to help. I haven't seen any studies but just
driving and biking along I notice bikes that have flashies. I often
keep them on in the day when I'm riding. If they don't see you, it
doesn't matter if you're on the edge or in the middle. Mostly I do
ride on the edge though, simply because I can't keep up with the speed
of traffic so there are few places where it's considerate for me to
take a lane.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/18/2014 6:10 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

The problem with all the I did this or I did that is, at least in
California, the cyclists seem to be the culprits. See:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...es-statistics/

Which says that in the cases where the police can establish guilt the
cyclist is the guilty party in the majority of the cases.

Excerpt:

In 2011, officers determined fault in 701 crashes between a bicyclist
and a motorist in which a cyclist was hurt or killed, according to the
reports, submitted to California's Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System. Cyclists were found to be the party most at fault in
390 of those crashes, or 56 percent of the time.

In 2012, bicyclists were deemed to be at fault 60 percent of the time,
in 2013, 56 percent of the time and as of the date of the report, 57
percent in 2014.

Perhaps the battle cry should be "Obey the law" rather than "Take the
Lane".


And when the law is to not take the lane? Here you can only take the
lane if you're merging for a left turn or avoiding obstacles otherwise
you must "keep to the extreme right" to quote the highway code.

So if you're not to the extreme right, not avoiding an obstacle and not
turning and you get hit you would be deemed to be at fault. Which is
pretty unusual in that normally when someone is hit from behind, it's
the hitter and not the "hittee" who is at fault.

To me the legality is secondary. If I think by moving to the center I
can be safer in some situation I will do it. Better to fight a ticket
than an undertaker. I just don't think it's a panacea. I think in most
cases if the idiot is going to run you over in a bike lane where he
isn't supposed to be, he's likely going to run you over in the center
where you're not supposed to be.

We've had two death by trucks here recently. One was a woman run over
from behind when in the lane. Driver didn't know he hit her until he
hear a thump thump under his car. The other was a right hook where a
truck passed a cyclist and then turned right running over the rider.
Didn't know he hit the rider until a witness flagged him down blocks
later. Would a bike lane have save the first woman? Would taking the
lane have saved the second guy? Who knows?

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/18/2014 6:10 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

The problem with all the I did this or I did that is, at least in
California, the cyclists seem to be the culprits. See:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...es-statistics/

Which says that in the cases where the police can establish guilt the
cyclist is the guilty party in the majority of the cases.

Excerpt:

In 2011, officers determined fault in 701 crashes between a bicyclist
and a motorist in which a cyclist was hurt or killed, according to the
reports, submitted to California's Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System. Cyclists were found to be the party most at fault in
390 of those crashes, or 56 percent of the time.

In 2012, bicyclists were deemed to be at fault 60 percent of the time,
in 2013, 56 percent of the time and as of the date of the report, 57
percent in 2014.

Yep. That's not an unusual result, or not very different from most
others. Most studies claim fault distribution is fairly close to 50/50.

All with the usual grains of salt, of course. Very often, the cop on
the scene knows nothing (or less) about bicycling. In many cases, the
cyclist's statements are absent or ignored. Very often, standard forms
used for reporting don't allow enough detail for later analysis.

But there's no denying the existence of wrong-way sidewalk riders,
no-lights-at-night riders, drunken cyclists, etc.

Perhaps the battle cry should be "Obey the law" rather than "Take the
Lane".

Certainly in my state, "Obey the Law" and "Take the Lane When Necessary"
are far from mutually exclusive. The second is actually a subset of the
first. Permission to take a lane when necessary is specifically written
into state law.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/18/2014 9:06 AM, Duane wrote:



And when the law is to not take the lane? Here you can only take the
lane if you're merging for a left turn or avoiding obstacles otherwise
you must "keep to the extreme right" to quote the highway code.

Then you need a MUCH more effective cycling advocacy organization.

So if you're not to the extreme right, not avoiding an obstacle and not
turning and you get hit you would be deemed to be at fault. Which is
pretty unusual in that normally when someone is hit from behind, it's
the hitter and not the "hittee" who is at fault.

To me the legality is secondary. If I think by moving to the center I
can be safer in some situation I will do it. Better to fight a ticket
than an undertaker.

Makes sense. I still doubt that the law can force you to risk your life
for the convenience of a motorist. And squeezing to the extreme right
edge of a ten foot lane is risking your life, if an 8.5 foot truck is
trying to pass within that lane.

I just don't think it's a panacea. I think in most
cases if the idiot is going to run you over in a bike lane where he
isn't supposed to be, he's likely going to run you over in the center
where you're not supposed to be.

There are no true panaceas in this world. But there are techniques that
work almost all the time, and work better than typical behavior. Riding
centered in a too-narrow lane is one.

See
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/


We've had two death by trucks here recently. One was a woman run over
from behind when in the lane. Driver didn't know he hit her until he
hear a thump thump under his car.

I recall reading about one such incident, in which it turned out the
woman was essentially invisible in a dark, high-speed underpass during
the daytime. Was that this case? If so, it has aspects that don't
apply to normal roads with normal visibility.

The other was a right hook where a
truck passed a cyclist and then turned right running over the rider.
Didn't know he hit the rider until a witness flagged him down blocks
later. Would a bike lane have save the first woman? Would taking the
lane have saved the second guy? Who knows?

Taking the lane certainly seems to reduce right hook problems. When a
motorist must move away from the curb lane prior to his right turn (or
mirror image in some countries) he's much less likely to forget you're
there, or not see you before he turns.

It's absolutely worked for me with one attempted right hook incident. I
actually had time to glare at the offending motorist and convince him to
back off.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:06:15 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 12/18/2014 6:10 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

The problem with all the I did this or I did that is, at least in
California, the cyclists seem to be the culprits. See:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...es-statistics/

Which says that in the cases where the police can establish guilt the
cyclist is the guilty party in the majority of the cases.

Excerpt:

In 2011, officers determined fault in 701 crashes between a bicyclist
and a motorist in which a cyclist was hurt or killed, according to the
reports, submitted to California's Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System. Cyclists were found to be the party most at fault in
390 of those crashes, or 56 percent of the time.

In 2012, bicyclists were deemed to be at fault 60 percent of the time,
in 2013, 56 percent of the time and as of the date of the report, 57
percent in 2014.

Perhaps the battle cry should be "Obey the law" rather than "Take the
Lane".


And when the law is to not take the lane? Here you can only take the
lane if you're merging for a left turn or avoiding obstacles otherwise
you must "keep to the extreme right" to quote the highway code.

So if you're not to the extreme right, not avoiding an obstacle and not
turning and you get hit you would be deemed to be at fault. Which is
pretty unusual in that normally when someone is hit from behind, it's
the hitter and not the "hittee" who is at fault.

To me the legality is secondary. If I think by moving to the center I
can be safer in some situation I will do it. Better to fight a ticket
than an undertaker. I just don't think it's a panacea. I think in most
cases if the idiot is going to run you over in a bike lane where he
isn't supposed to be, he's likely going to run you over in the center
where you're not supposed to be.

We've had two death by trucks here recently. One was a woman run over
from behind when in the lane. Driver didn't know he hit her until he
hear a thump thump under his car. The other was a right hook where a
truck passed a cyclist and then turned right running over the rider.
Didn't know he hit the rider until a witness flagged him down blocks
later. Would a bike lane have save the first woman? Would taking the
lane have saved the second guy? Who knows?

While probably denied as anecdotal the "I didn't see 'em" accidents
you mention would seem to demonstrate that taking the lane can be a
risky endeavor.

Perhaps the battle cry should be changed from "Seize the Lane" to
"Stay out of their way".
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:10:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/18/2014 6:10 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

The problem with all the I did this or I did that is, at least in
California, the cyclists seem to be the culprits. See:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...es-statistics/

Which says that in the cases where the police can establish guilt the
cyclist is the guilty party in the majority of the cases.

Excerpt:

In 2011, officers determined fault in 701 crashes between a bicyclist
and a motorist in which a cyclist was hurt or killed, according to the
reports, submitted to California's Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System. Cyclists were found to be the party most at fault in
390 of those crashes, or 56 percent of the time.

In 2012, bicyclists were deemed to be at fault 60 percent of the time,
in 2013, 56 percent of the time and as of the date of the report, 57
percent in 2014.

Yep. That's not an unusual result, or not very different from most
others. Most studies claim fault distribution is fairly close to 50/50.

All with the usual grains of salt, of course. Very often, the cop on
the scene knows nothing (or less) about bicycling. In many cases, the
cyclist's statements are absent or ignored. Very often, standard forms
used for reporting don't allow enough detail for later analysis.


Would you call that denial? Or rationalization? Sort of like the "I
didn't seem 'em" excuse by the motor vehicle operator so often denied
by the cyclist community.

But there's no denying the existence of wrong-way sidewalk riders,
no-lights-at-night riders, drunken cyclists, etc.

Perhaps the battle cry should be "Obey the law" rather than "Take the
Lane".

Certainly in my state, "Obey the Law" and "Take the Lane When Necessary"
are far from mutually exclusive. The second is actually a subset of the
first. Permission to take a lane when necessary is specifically written
into state law.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:58:44 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

Flashing lights has to help. I haven't seen any studies but just
driving and biking along I notice bikes that have flashies. I often
keep them on in the day when I'm riding. If they don't see you, it
doesn't matter if you're on the edge or in the middle. Mostly I do
ride on the edge though, simply because I can't keep up with the speed
of traffic so there are few places where it's considerate for me to
take a lane.

Flashing lights certainly, if bright enough, certainly do help. But,
unless really overcast or at night or early in the morning or evening
they have to be pretty bright to be noticeable. Certainly brighter
than the tiny little lights I sometime see used.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: on controlling the lane
 

On 12/18/2014 8:32 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:


One serious problem with the statistics is that I don't know of
anywhere that has any requirement in the method of obtaining the data
which actually separates true "run down from behind" from "Struck by
overtaking motor vehicle", and requires different entries in the
statistics for them.
Sideswipes may be squeeze by, or they may be lane changes - nothing
tells us which.
Likewise "rear ended" can often be used to describe failed overtakes,
or might be direct impact with no attempt even being made to move
over.
We just can't tell from the statistics as they are, and if you try to
compare internationally, the situation is even worse, since different
categories are used in different places and at different times or by
different researchers.
All I can say with any certainty is that I've been treated far better
on the roads when I've taken the lane as necessary than when I've
squeezed over to the side - and I've yet to hear of anyone who has
/genuinely/ tried both methods who has a different experience to mine.


I agree with all the above.

And we'll probably never get the improvement in data collection and
analysis needed to settle forever the question of which is safer
(primary position or edge riding). For one thing, bicycling is so
damned safe that few people are motivated to really study it. For
another, there's no money to be made by settling this question.

Actually... I suppose there is money to be made by the companies that
promote, then design and build "cycletracks." If they could prove that
primary position definitely doesn't work, they'd have done it by now.

The only bicycling issue that triggered tons of studies was the helmet
issue. And of course, there were hundreds of millions of dollars to be
made by deluding people into thinking they absolutely needed a hat made
of styrofoam - so by gosh, lots of studies tried to claim that was true!

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Pre-ride stretches
 

I recently read a newspaper column by a doctor who made stretching
very complicated, with distinctions between "static" and "dynamic"
stretches, and a link to a video.

Before a ride, you wave your body parts around until you are sure that
all your joints work. That's the whole bit.

Of course, a set routine helps to make sure you haven't overlooked a
joint, and this is a good time to work on any range-of-motion problems
you may have.

In cold weather, it's also desirable to get your heart rate up before
going outside.


--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

AG: Pre-ride stretches
 

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:49:09 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


I recently read a newspaper column by a doctor who made stretching
very complicated, with distinctions between "static" and "dynamic"
stretches, and a link to a video.

Before a ride, you wave your body parts around until you are sure that
all your joints work. That's the whole bit.

Of course, a set routine helps to make sure you haven't overlooked a
joint, and this is a good time to work on any range-of-motion problems
you may have.

In cold weather, it's also desirable to get your heart rate up before
going outside.

Back when I used to run every day it was quite common to see runners
(particularly new runners) going through some stretching exercises
before setting off. I was lazy and just started running :-) I do the
same thing now that I cycle, - just get on and ride.

But, as I did as a runner, I do start out a bit slowly and then speed
up after the first few hundred yards.

It has always been my suspicion that most of the advice columns or
articles are triggered by the fact that the author is going to get
paid for what he/she writes :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: Pre-ride stretches
 

Joy Beeson wrote in
:

I recently read a newspaper column by a doctor who made stretching
very complicated, with distinctions between "static" and "dynamic"
stretches, and a link to a video.

Before a ride, you wave your body parts around until you are sure that
all your joints work. That's the whole bit.

Of course, a set routine helps to make sure you haven't overlooked a
joint, and this is a good time to work on any range-of-motion problems
you may have.

In cold weather, it's also desirable to get your heart rate up before
going outside.

As someone who lives on the edge of the boreal forest, I find it does not
matter where I start my warm-up, inside or out, but then I am not yet 60. I
follow John B's approach and proceed at an easy rate of knots, typically for
the first 5 minutes, and then ramp it up. Stretches are important following
any useful exercise, and that is when one should do the "range-of-motion"
work since your muscles are warm.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

AG: Pre-ride stretches
 

On 12/21/2014 5:52 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

It has always been my suspicion that most of the advice columns or
articles are triggered by the fact that the author is going to get
paid for what he/she writes :-)

I've been in the position of having to write regular missives, whether
articles, email reminders or whatever. Even doing it as a volunteer,
one eventually feels the pressure of trying to think of something new to
say.

I imagine this is a much bigger stressor if one's paycheck and continued
employment depends on it.

And this is, I'm sure, one of the reasons that television programming is
so bad. TV burns through lots of content. The good stuff gets used up
early, then programs descend into the drek. Even Shakespeare would have
exhausted himself in a few seasons.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Pre-ride stretches
 

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/21/2014 5:52 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

It has always been my suspicion that most of the advice columns or
articles are triggered by the fact that the author is going to get
paid for what he/she writes :-)

I've been in the position of having to write regular missives, whether
articles, email reminders or whatever. Even doing it as a volunteer,
one eventually feels the pressure of trying to think of something new to
say.

I imagine this is a much bigger stressor if one's paycheck and continued
employment depends on it.

And this is, I'm sure, one of the reasons that television programming is
so bad. TV burns through lots of content. The good stuff gets used up
early, then programs descend into the drek. Even Shakespeare would have
exhausted himself in a few seasons.

For a couple of years I wrote a weekly column in the local newspaper
about computer stuff and initially it was pretty easy to do but after
a while when you had covered most of the aspects of what you were
writing about and it began to be more and more difficult.

My impression of television is that it represents what the majority of
the viewers want to see. The networks apparently do stay on top of
what people are watching and take programs off the air when interest
in them drops although the sponsor's wants/needs certainly are taken
into consideration. But if Mr. Average Viewer really want to watch
Gilligan's Island then that is what they get.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: Pre-ride stretches
 

On 12/21/2014 5:52 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:49:09 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


I recently read a newspaper column by a doctor who made stretching
very complicated, with distinctions between "static" and "dynamic"
stretches, and a link to a video.

Before a ride, you wave your body parts around until you are sure that
all your joints work. That's the whole bit.

Of course, a set routine helps to make sure you haven't overlooked a
joint, and this is a good time to work on any range-of-motion problems
you may have.

In cold weather, it's also desirable to get your heart rate up before
going outside.

Back when I used to run every day it was quite common to see runners
(particularly new runners) going through some stretching exercises
before setting off. I was lazy and just started running :-) I do the
same thing now that I cycle, - just get on and ride.



But, as I did as a runner, I do start out a bit slowly and then speed
up after the first few hundred yards.


I find that starting off with a relatively easy pace is as good as
stretching before the start. I know guys though that want to take off
immediately so maybe it helps them to loosen up first.


It has always been my suspicion that most of the advice columns or
articles are triggered by the fact that the author is going to get
paid for what he/she writes :-)


Maybe but as someone who has had problems with ITB I can tell you that
stretching after a long ride is not bad advice.