NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:25:23 PM UTC-5, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 10 Nov 2013

Drivers of big trucks really can't see along the trucks' sides very well..

As an ex-driver of them (class 1 articulated trucks), I can say that
it has got worse as time has gone on. Drivers are set back further
into the cab these days, in order to better protect the driver
themself. Pillars each side of the windshield are thicker for
stronger cabs.

But the "I couldn't see the cyclist" is most often just an excuse.
Drivers are (or damned well should be) WELL aware of their "blind
spots", and a little movement of the head and upper body is all that
is required to see into almost the entire "blind area" from the
driver's seat.


I've ridden in an American "semi" (your "Articulated Lorry" I think) only once. (Interestingly, the friend who was driving was a young lady friend of mine, about 5 feet 2 inches tall and less than 100 pounds.) Anyway, yes it was possible to see, but it was not necessarily easy. I'd never put myself in a position where my life depended on the driver spotted me quickly.

In a case where the trucker pulls up alongside a cyclist, then forgets and turns across the cyclist, I'd say the trucker is absolutely at fault. But I know I've heard of cases where the trucker had begun a turn, but a cyclist then attempted to pass on the curb side. I'd say that's the cyclist's fault. Even if some "designer" had put a bike lane there.

- Frank Krygowski

John B. writes:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:04:21 -0800, Dan
wrote:

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_.

Certainly. cyclists are soft and comparatively light so even if you
hit one it doesn't cause much damage to the car, hardly a scratch in
some cases. So even if they do violate the rules of the road it is
little or no skin off the motorists nose.

Thus, one would suppose, the superior ( this is right out of Chinese
philosophy) person should conduct him/her-self (politically
correctness too) in such a manner as to not impose on the space
occupied by a large, heavy, hard, quickly, moving object.


Agreed. That is ultimately what it's all about.

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.

Or perhaps the Butts on Bikes should concern themselves with not
coming in contact with large, heavy, hard, fast, moving objects.

Absolutely. The problem, though, is that the pool of potential
butts are not attached to ninja courage and agility, so they'll
never get on bikes until the dragons have been at least tamed.

Until then, "Sancho! Bridle Rozinante and bring my helmet!"

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 11:12:28 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:

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.

A salute you for your +/- 50 degree vertical field of vision, although I
remain skeptical of the empirical methods you used to determine this. I
have 20/15 vision in one eye thanks to a cataract operation. The doctor
told me this vision places me in the top 0.5%.

The point is what's the minimum vision requirement for driving. Here's a
link to what USDOT recommends for commercial motor vehicle drivers:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-resea...chnology/tech/
TB-01-007.htm

The relevant portions a

Under the requirements drivers must have: distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (as measured by the standard Snellen chart test) in each eye
without corrective lenses, or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40
or better with corrective lenses; distant binocular acuity of at least
20/40 in both eyes, with or without corrective lenses;

and

The panel also recommended a new requirement of at least 20 degrees of
visual field both above and below the horizontal axis in each eye.

That's who should determine how roads are designed, not those with +/- 50
degree vertical vision fields or 20/15 vision.

Stephen Bauman

datakoll writes:

Well written word package,
Effective communication at a high level of theater and impact.
Gold star
The highway safety norms are directed to the low median of perception and understanding. That was my direction and the writer’s.
Our direction is to pierce that layer with information communicating our presence direction and rights for survival.


Right! And I'm all about being somewhat predictable -
feeding cues to their situational awareness (using my
situational awareness to assess theirs).

But jeez, unthinking adherence to rules and assumptive
decision making is Dumb and Dumber.

I wish they'd take a look around and think; but if they
can't do that at least leave me be to watch out for my
own self my own way and not try to force me into the fold.

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 5:17:59 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

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?

Yes, Dan.

Or do you mean passing them at the intersection on what *was* their curb side.

Yes, that too.

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
stunt like pinching you off out of malice. You're also sizing up...

Dan, I know you're telepathic enough to tell the "type" of motorist by glancing at the back of their vehicle. And you're so wonderfully perceptive, as to instantly size up your potential escape paths, and balance the likelihood of a right hook vs. the amazing benefits of saving as much as, oh, thirty seconds.

So please go on riding as you brag, ignoring all rules and expert advice, ignoring all data on causes of crashes, counting on the fact that you're "special." Do continue trusting your immense superiority to skillfully flout the rules and save you seconds and seconds of time.

There is a problem, though. There are people who lack your 99th percentile skills, who have not done the diligent thinking you claim, who are not nearly so telepathic, but who ride _exactly_ same way that you do!

Since (AFAIK) none of us have ever met you, how are we to tell you from the rest of those dolts? To anybody but you, there appears to be no difference.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:58:57 PM UTC-5, 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.

I agree that should be the focus (although I think the original article contained a LOT of fear mongering).

There are people who are working to change the attitude of the police. Amazingly, even those people sometimes attract the hostility of other bicyclists - as in "You should be working for completely separate riding facilities instead."

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:26:15 PM UTC-5, Phil W Lee wrote:

Presumed liability could be a part of it.
In nearly all of Europe, the liability for any collision is presumed
to lie with the driver of the larger class of vehicle, unless
otherwise proven. Many countries place an upper limit on the
proportion of liability that can be attributed to operator of the
smaller vehicle.

So drivers have a greater tendency to be cautious of being involved in
any collision with a cyclist, as they know they will carry the can (or
at least, part of it).

I'd be curious to learn how that legal situation came to be. In the U.S., contributory negligence laws vary greatly from state to state. In some states (IIRC) if a cyclist is judged to have contributed even in a very minor way, his ability to get recompense from the courts is tremendously reduced.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 5:17:59 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

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?

Yes, Dan.

Or do you mean passing them at the intersection on what *was* their curb side.

Yes, that too.

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
stunt like pinching you off out of malice. You're also sizing up...

Dan, I know you're telepathic enough to tell the "type" of motorist by glancing at the back of their vehicle.


I don't *know* it with certainty, but there are indicators and
they can be useful.

And you're so wonderfully perceptive, as to instantly size up your potential escape paths,


Er, well... yeah (but not exactly "instantly" - that's why I
said you're soing this as you approach).

... and balance the likelihood of a right hook...

Dude, I said when you get to the intersection you'd better
expect and be prepared for *any* car to turn.

... vs. the amazing benefits of saving as much as, oh, thirty seconds.


Hey, every second counts.

So please go on riding as you brag, ignoring all rules...

Now that's simply blatantly false and you know it.

... and expert advice,

:-)

... ignoring all data on causes of crashes,

More blatant falsehood, but that won't impede your spiel.

... counting on the fact that you're "special."

Well, I am. FWIW, so are you ;-)

Do continue trusting your immense superiority to skillfully flout the rules and save you seconds and seconds of time.


Works for me. (Note that "immense", "superiority", "flout", et al
are *your* characterizations.)

There is a problem, though. There are people who lack your 99th percentile skills, who have not done the diligent thinking you claim, who are not nearly so telepathic, but who ride _exactly_ same way that you do!


Hmm... no two snowflakes are *exactly* alike, so I doubt your
assertion; but I know what you mean - it's just that they're
not my problem as much as I am my own. Know what I mean? :-)

Since (AFAIK) none of us have ever met you, how are we to tell you from the rest of those dolts?


I'm here and they're not? That's a difference, eh?

To anybody but you, there appears to be no difference.


Well then, you'd best continue to be leery of passing on
the curb side.

Nice chatting with you.

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:58:17 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

But a while ago an American posted a message here that was complainin
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?

Heck, I think it's not unusual for anybody. I've heard of horsemen bullying mountain bikers, mountain bikers bullying horsemen, joggers bullying cyclists and vice-versa... I know one super-wide MUP where four pedestrians are will commonly walk abreast, forcing cyclists to wait to pass.

I think the behavior is worse, on average, in situations where a person can be anonymously rude. Say, by being inside a car. But one can find thoughtless or worse behavior everywhere.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:15:04 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:37:49 -0800, Dan
wrote:


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

It seems equally surprising that one should be surprised that rules
are geared to the requirements of the majority of the users :-)

Well, I think many of the rules Dan complains about are NOT geared so much to motorists.

Should everybody going the same direction on the road be on the same side of the road? That makes sense even for horses and carriages (the users for whom it was first proposed). Should those already in a lane have precedence over those people trying to enter it from a driveway or sidewalk? Nothing else makes sense. Should all road users stop at red lights? Yes, unless you're a fan of chaos.

John Forester, in _Effective Cycling_, devotes some space to the logic of traffic laws. It doesn't mean that all laws are perfect. But it does mean the "I'm special!!!" people are not very logical.

- Frank Krygowski