NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On 11-10-2013 08:29, Stephen Bauman wrote:
Your vertical field of vision is limited to +/- 15 degrees. Even if your
head looked straight ahead (level with the horizontal plane), a traffic
light would leave your field of vision 56 feet in front of it.

Where do you get that notion? I've empirically verified that I can
consistently detect motion and color over a vertical range more than
fifty degrees above and below the point I'm staring at. That's OUTSIDE
the field that passes through my glasses.

I don't know what the range for consistent identification is. That
requires an assistant to use objects I haven't pre-identified.

And if I couldn't see the light (which never happens), stopped vehicles
beginning to move and moving vehicles beginning to stop would induce me
to look for the light.

--
Wes Groleau

The man who says, “I can do it!" may sometimes fail.
The man who says, “Impossible!" will never succeed.

On 11-10-2013 02:23, Dan wrote:
I'm not saying you weren't wronged, but does it make any sense
to blame*me*?

This in response to a post that mentions no names constitutes
self-identification with "bicycle scofflaws who ride contrary to the
rules of the road in traffic."

Apparently the shoe fits and you decided to wear it.

--
Wes Groleau

Why does everyone call it a “fanny pack" ?
When was the last time you saw one on a fanny?

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:52:53 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:29:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:

snip



Traffic lights are supposed to be placed at least 40 feet beyond the
stop line.

Do you have a source for that?


I had previously mentioned it: The Federal Highway Administration's
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD).

Here's a link to the current MUTCD:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm

The specific confirmation you seek is in Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf

In particular, check out section 4D-14 on page 464: Longitudinal
Positioning of Signal Faces. Figure 4D-4 on page 463 is worth a thousand
words regarding this topic.

Stephen Bauman

In article ,
Wes Groleau wrote:


So far, I've only biked in USA, but I've never felt threatened by cars.

I've BEEN threatened by cars, but never FELT threatened. (A personal
failing perhaps.) Yelled at, honked at, almost hit, but silly me just
keeps on going as if it never happened.

Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. But maybe there's
a subtle thing there that I'm not getting.

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:03:50 AM UTC-5, John White wrote:
In article ,

In the last few years, I've biked in Italy and in France, and never felt
threatened by cars. Not so in the US, I'm sorry to say. We have not yet
come to terms with the bicycle as useful transportation device, in this
land of the automobile. I sympathize with the author's fear of biking in
the city, and wish he didn't have good reason for that fear.

Well, I can sympathize. But I think his fears are tremendously exaggerated,
and that he could overcome them with some fairly simple learning.

I've biked in Italy and France too, as well as several other countries. And
while I certainly enjoyed the cycling, I wonder if the "Ooh, it's nicer
here!" emotion is just some sort of halo effect, from being on vacation in
another country, one chosen for its supposed pleasantness.

Maybe similar to a guy saying "Gosh honey, these British fish & chips cost
only 4 pounds! What a bargain! Back home, they'd cost at least five
dollars!"

- Frank Krygowski

I attribute the difference to more cyclists on the road, to smaller
cars, and to more recognition of bicycles as a legitimate form of
transportation. I'm really just guessing as to the reason, but I have no
doubt that there's a major difference.

On 11-10-2013 11:50, John White wrote:
In article ,
So far, I've only biked in USA, but I've never felt threatened by cars.

I've BEEN threatened by cars, but never FELT threatened. (A personal
failing perhaps.) Yelled at, honked at, almost hit, but silly me just
keeps on going as if it never happened.

Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. But maybe there's
a subtle thing there that I'm not getting.

Well, maybe it's bad memory due to being sixty;

maybe it's never having lost my teenager's lack of any sense of caution;

maybe it's the same thing that makes it nearly impossible for me to hold
a grudge.

Whatever it is, I never find myself nervous about traffic. Used to
freak out my former boss--I no longer work for her and she STILL
worries. I do intellectually recognize there are some hazards and
try to remember to act accordingly.

--
Wes Groleau

From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
O God of Truth, deliver us.
--Leslie Dixon Weatherhead
--Rabbi Mordechai M. Kaplan
--ancient prayer
--unknown
--(no attempt at attribution)
(a thousand thanks to someone who can tell me who
really wrote it AND persuade me they're not making it up!)

In article ,
Wes Groleau wrote:

On 11-10-2013 11:50, John White wrote:
In article ,
So far, I've only biked in USA, but I've never felt threatened by cars.

I've BEEN threatened by cars, but never FELT threatened. (A personal
failing perhaps.) Yelled at, honked at, almost hit, but silly me just
keeps on going as if it never happened.

Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. But maybe there's
a subtle thing there that I'm not getting.

Well, maybe it's bad memory due to being sixty;

maybe it's never having lost my teenager's lack of any sense of caution;

maybe it's the same thing that makes it nearly impossible for me to hold
a grudge.

Whatever it is, I never find myself nervous about traffic. Used to
freak out my former boss--I no longer work for her and she STILL
worries. I do intellectually recognize there are some hazards and
try to remember to act accordingly.

OK, I think it's the difference between being threatened and being
intimidated. I get that.

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:01:17 AM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 11-10-2013 08:03, John White wrote:

In the last few years, I've biked in Italy and in France, and never felt

threatened by cars. Not so in the US, I'm sorry to say. We have not yet

come to terms with the bicycle as useful transportation device, in this



So far, I've only biked in USA, but I've never felt threatened by cars.



I've BEEN threatened by cars, but never FELT threatened. (A personal

failing perhaps.) Yelled at, honked at, almost hit, but silly me just

keeps on going as if it never happened.



Actually, there was a time when the percentage of idiots and jerks on

wheels has adjusted my behavior. That was in Onondaga County, New York.

The adjustment was to stop biking altogether and buy a car.



But in Fort Wayne and San Diego the problems are so rare that

I don't even need to own a car.



--

Wes Groleau



There are some ideas so wrong that only a

very intelligent person could believe in them.

— George Orwell

The ONLY accident I'v ever had with any other vehicle that caused damage to my bicycle (bebt steel downtube and toptube = frame a righoff due to cost of repairs) was with that friggin' wrongwy riding bicyclist who never even slowed before entering a busy multi-lane road.

I think I'm more fearful of encountering another idiot bicyclist (especially the stealth/kamikaze ones at night) than I am of being hit by a motorist.

At least with a motorist there is a pretty goodchance of them behaving in a somewhat predictable manner. With the scfflaw bicyclists you never have any idea what idiot thing they're going to do next?

Cheers

Wes Groleau writes:

On 11-10-2013 02:23, Dan wrote:
I'm not saying you weren't wronged, but does it make any sense
to blame*me*?

This in response to a post that mentions no names constitutes
self-identification with "bicycle scofflaws who ride contrary to the
rules of the road in traffic."


That in the context of:

"I liked this part near the end:"So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect.""

.... and:

"... I hate bicycle scofflaws who ride contrary to the rules of the road in traffic."

I was questioning the rationale for his "hate" of an entire class
of people - a class probably defined solely by his subjective
judgement placing them beyond some subjective gray area of his.

Apparently the shoe fits and you decided to wear it.


Sure I sometimes ride contrary to the rules of the road - even scoff
sometimes. Who doesn't?

I also take great pains to ride in accord with the law. I'm just
not dogmatic about it as proposed above, or as so many people seem
to argue for it with the sole reasoning "because it says so".

There can be reasons to ride the wrong way, and it can be completely
harmless - it depends on the circumstances. It's something of a leap
to blame the rule violation for his mishap. Understand I'm not
defending the violator in this instance (who sounds like a total
dipstick). Just pointing out that his irresponsible actions should
not be held against mine just because there is a similar component.

It's a little like if Duane hated me for riding on the sidewalk because
some *other* dipstick crashed into his wife on the sidewalk.

It's easy for Sir to blame the rule violation since the rule fed his
assumption that his (blind) path would be clear. It's an easy "what
if... " - "If only things had been as I assumed they would, none of
this bad stuff would have happened."

In this case maybe unquestioning adherence to rules is what was
needed, since the violator was apparently not situationally aware
or lacked the social interaction for the possibility that someone
might come into that blind intersection with the ~reasonable assumption
of a clear path. But that *doesn't* mean it's what's needed in *every*
situation. Not logical - just a simple one-size-fits-all Band Aid for
inadequate situational awareness and social interaction.

John White writes:

In article ,
John B. wrote:


Naw Dan, the guy had all his mates killed in them there cycle crashes
and is scared to death.

and it was a Sunday, a known slow news day, and he had to gin up a
thousand words on something for the editor.


He's just an occasional freelance contributer to the NY Times, so that
wasn't it. And I agree with his request that cyclists obey the law; it
grates on me when I'm waiting at a light, on bike or in car, and a
cyclist whips right through it. That cyclist's actions reflect on me,
and on other driver's response to me when I'm on a bike.


Not reasonable. (As if that guides thinking.)

In the last few years, I've biked in Italy and in France, and never felt
threatened by cars. Not so in the US, I'm sorry to say. We have not yet
come to terms with the bicycle as useful transportation device, in this
land of the automobile. I sympathize with the author's fear of biking in
the city, and wish he didn't have good reason for that fear.

The author was on the right track when he said:

"The world is going this way regardless, toward ever denser cities and
resulting changes in law and infrastructure. But the most important
changes, with the potential to save the most lives, are the ones we can
make in our attitudes."

.... but then, a committed cager, he goes on to blame the victims, and
characterizes irresponsible operation of lethal power as, "the slightest
inattention".