NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Stephen Bauman writes:

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.


It blows me away that anyone familiar with USA roads would
not agree that the rules are geared for automobiles.

It's amazing to me that this thread immediately devolved into details concerning the context of what the roads are like an similar. Which have been fought over time and again in this group with virtually no resolve. Even the occasional lurker here could spout them from memory while solving differential equations.

The main thrust of the article--which appears to have been totally ignored--is that drivers who kill cyclists get away with it, even when they have committed violations, and get away with it with the outright complicity, to put it mildly, of the police.

The actions of the SFPD are beyond the pale, totally reprehensible.

It's these that should be the focus.

Dan wrote:
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.


Hated? You've been arguing with Frank too long. I just didn't and don't
agree that bikes belong on sidewalks, especially where it's illegal and
unexpected.

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."


I think the presumption that I won't have to deal with a rider coming
toward me against traffic is valid. Having had to deal with that myself
prevents it from being an assumption.


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.

Some rules need to be unquestionably adhered to. We're not talking about
blowing a stop on a bike when no one is around. SIr Ride's example is a
valid one. Who gets to decide in that case?
--
duane

yirgster wrote:
It's amazing to me that this thread immediately devolved into details
concerning the context of what the roads are like an similar. Which have
been fought over time and again in this group with virtually no resolve.
Even the occasional lurker here could spout them from memory while
solving differential equations.

The main thrust of the article--which appears to have been totally
ignored--is that drivers who kill cyclists get away with it, even when
they have committed violations, and get away with it with the outright
complicity, to put it mildly, of the police.

The actions of the SFPD are beyond the pale, totally reprehensible.

It's these that should be the focus.

+1
--
duane

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:14:33 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

But the rant sounds a lot like the truck driver that turned right and
killed the lady cyclist... "I didn't see her".

What you've described - a lady killed by a truck turning right turn (or left turn in "drive on the left" countries) is a well-known cause of cyclist death, especially in crowded cities. London is an example. And our city had a sidewalk-riding kid killed that way a few years ago.

IIRC, in London it _is_ far most often a lady,

You know what I observe here? If it's "far" most often one thing,
and there are any instances of the other, there must be quite a lot
of this thing overall. Sorry, just sounds like, "Danger! Danger!"

which has led to some speculation about the reason for the gender disparity. Some have said that perhaps women are less confident, and feel a self-imposed requirement to stay as close as possible to the curb, whereas men might be more willing to be at the safer lane center.

Drivers of big trucks really can't see along the trucks' sides very well. Bike lanes are certainly no guarantee of safety in this situation.

(Heck, I'm even leery of passing stopped motorcycles at their curb side.)


What are they gonna do - pinch you off into the curb? Or do you mean
passing them at the intersection on what *was* their curb side.

As approach a stopped vehicle and consider passing between them and
the curb, first you are sizing up whether they're looking at you
and whether they're the "type" to have it in for you and pull a
stunt like pinching you off out of malice. You're also sizing up
above the curb for bunny hop bailout. You're also sizing up their
and other vehicles' intentions. Is there a right turn signal
anywhere in the queue? Where is it? How many? Do any of the others
fit the type who won't signal because they don't like to tip their
hand but look like the type who would be heading that way anyway?
Any pairs or clusters? Where in the queue? How antsy are they?
What's going on out to the left? Any of these guys look apt to
get impatient and jump left. Any apparent ditzes? Etc.

All this may determine whether 'tis better to slip between a couple
cars and pass on the left instead (right turning cars can allow you
to merge back to the right at the intersection). Yeah this may
involve lane splitting or some such hijinks, but it can resolve the
right hook situation.

Anyway, let's say you've decided to filter on the right. As you
approach *each* vehicle, an action-o-meter rises. At one point you
could still just brake. A bit farther and you'll be braking hard -
maybe skidding sideways (this is past the point where you might
swerve out and go left after all). Among last ditch options are
brake hard and maybe skid and/or bunny hop the curb. If past the
curb and at the intersection you really should pretty much expect
and be prepared for any car to turn right, but if they chop it hard
there you can skid the back wheel out to the left and stay on their
inside (might have to hip check the side door but I haven't had to
yet). Sometimes they like to stop suddenly there (in your way) like
"SMIDSY" (this is a good time to slap the side window and flip them
off).

Boy this is getting long and there's really still *lots* more to
it. Stuff you can't really teach.

Duane writes:

Dan wrote:

snip


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.


Hated? You've been arguing with Frank too long. I just didn't and don't
agree that bikes belong on sidewalks, especially where it's illegal and
unexpected.


No, no - I said "if"; not sayin' you did :-)


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."


I think the presumption that I won't have to deal with a rider coming
toward me against traffic is valid. Having had to deal with that myself
prevents it from being an assumption.


Sure, yes, quite right and it could happen to me.

Just pointing out that rules do not constrain the realm of
possibility, which should remain a consideration.


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.

Some rules need to be unquestionably adhered to. We're not talking about
blowing a stop on a bike when no one is around. SIr Ride's example is a
valid one. Who gets to decide in that case?

Sure, yes, agreed - that was kind of my point. Just sayin' is that
reason to indict *me* going the wrong way but with SA and considerate
SI?

yirgster writes:

It's amazing to me that this thread immediately devolved into details concerning the context of what the roads are like an similar. Which have been fought over time and again in this group with virtually no resolve. Even the occasional lurker here could spout them from memory while solving differential equations.

The main thrust of the article--which appears to have been totally ignored--is that drivers who kill cyclists get away with it, even when they have committed violations, and get away with it with the outright complicity, to put it mildly, of the police.

The actions of the SFPD are beyond the pale, totally reprehensible.


It's the culture - the collective attitudes.

It's assumed that if a bicyclist was involved it must have
been their fault. The author of this article and many others
(in the collective mindset) propose the solution is for
bicyclists to behave _like good motorists_. But bicyclists
are not motorists. The Rules of the Road are geared for
motorists. It doesn't make sense for bicyclists to dogmatically
adhere to them - except to reinforce the sense that automobiles
rule. Bicyclists can violate these rules and _still not create
any sort of practical traffic problems_.

It's these that should be the focus.

The culture and attitudes must change. The solution is
butts on bikes (that and human decency in social interaction
ala Monderman) which will be the writing on the wall that
automobiles do not rule. The rules will change, too - *more*
than the current token patches grafted and shoehorned.

Dan writes:

Duane writes:

Dan wrote:

snip


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.


Hated? You've been arguing with Frank too long. I just didn't and don't
agree that bikes belong on sidewalks, especially where it's illegal and
unexpected.


No, no - I said "if"; not sayin' you did :-)


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."


I think the presumption that I won't have to deal with a rider coming
toward me against traffic is valid. Having had to deal with that myself
prevents it from being an assumption.


Sure, yes, quite right and it could happen to me.


.... because I - like everyone - employ assumptions.

Just pointing out that rules do not constrain the realm of
possibility, which should remain a consideration.


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.

Some rules need to be unquestionably adhered to. We're not talking about
blowing a stop on a bike when no one is around. SIr Ride's example is a
valid one. Who gets to decide in that case?

Sure, yes, agreed - that was kind of my point. Just sayin' is that
reason to indict *me* going the wrong way but with SA and considerate
SI?

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 08:03:50 -0500, John White
wrote:

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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.

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.

I must say that I've never cycled in a civilized country so I have no
experience with cars that hate me :-)

But a while ago an American posted a message here that was complaining
about busses... the damned things blocked him from passing, stopped
every little bit and emitted noxious smoke. His main point seemed to
be that they impeded him on his morning bike ride.

I wonder whether that attitude is typical of drivers of all type of
vehicles "there", whether two, three, four, or more, wheeled?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:48:49 -0800 (PST), 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.

I'm not so sure. The reaction of the average Western tourist exposed
to Bangkok traffic is terror :-)

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

--
Cheers,

John B.