AG: Aunt Granny's Advice, or How to become an elderly cyclist:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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