Canada's most dangerous city for cyclists

On May 3, 4:10 pm, Dan O wrote:
On May 2, 10:08 pm, James wrote:



On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:

On May 2, 8:15 pm, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
it

pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...

Yup. We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/becausealthoughtheir goal is

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which
is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness,
and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by
many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried
and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult,
and not tried."

It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

Aw, c'mon now, Dan. While that made me giggle a little, it wasn't
really called for just there, was it?

I think those of us who regularly mix it with the fossil fuel burners
have learned to ride defensively, which is a lot of what VC is about.

I'm no practitioner of strict VC. I have to say quite a few hail Eddy's
whenever I go to the VC priest for confession, but I do a lot of what
the Godfather of the "one true way" prescribes, though it was learned
from experience.

I suggest that although you take alternate routes, you do some VC stuff
without realising it. I know I do.

Not without realizing it. I absolutely *do* realize it. Moreover, I
well realize that I could *easily* do it quite completely if I wanted
to (but then my riding experience would *suck*) - references available
in the archive.

What irritates me so is Frank's superciliousness about it -
"competency" and all that. In fact I would venture to say that my way
is far more difficult ("don't try this at home, kids"), but I don't go
around criticizing anybody else's way (until they start to berate me
and mine for no good reason but to make themselves feel superior).


My way (and I've described this before) involves a radically dynamic
range of heightened risk and significance on situational awareness.
Just following the prescribed, orderly, "proper" way is for wussies.

Oh, and the derogatory phrase abive is a ~quote from the archives -
something that's "been said" by someone else (the all lowercase is a
hint). It's a bit of a play on the value of "It's been said... "

On May 3, 4:47 pm, Dan O wrote:
On May 3, 4:10 pm, Dan O wrote:



On May 2, 10:08 pm, James wrote:

On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:

On May 2, 8:15 pm, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
it

pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...

Yup. We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/bec...houghtheirgoal is

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which
is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness,
and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by
many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried
and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult,
and not tried."

It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

Aw, c'mon now, Dan. While that made me giggle a little, it wasn't
really called for just there, was it?

I think those of us who regularly mix it with the fossil fuel burners
have learned to ride defensively, which is a lot of what VC is about.

I'm no practitioner of strict VC. I have to say quite a few hail Eddy's
whenever I go to the VC priest for confession, but I do a lot of what
the Godfather of the "one true way" prescribes, though it was learned
from experience.

I suggest that although you take alternate routes, you do some VC stuff
without realising it. I know I do.

Not without realizing it. I absolutely *do* realize it. Moreover, I
well realize that I could *easily* do it quite completely if I wanted
to (but then my riding experience would *suck*) - references available
in the archive.

What irritates me so is Frank's superciliousness about it -
"competency" and all that. In fact I would venture to say that my way
is far more difficult ("don't try this at home, kids"), but I don't go
around criticizing anybody else's way (until they start to berate me
and mine for no good reason but to make themselves feel superior).

My way (and I've described this before) involves a radically dynamic
range of heightened risk and significance on situational awareness.
Just following the prescribed, orderly, "proper" way is for wussies.


What's aggravating is that my hijinks do not practically harm or even
affect anyone else - practically. But they *do* elevate my experience
from what may be at best merely pleasant to indescribably joyous
exultation.

What my hijinks *do* do is offend the sensibility of people with
serious control hangups (Hall Monitors, especially). **** 'em. Ride
Bike!

Oh, and the derogatory phrase abive is a ~quote from the archives -
something that's "been said" by someone else (the all lowercase is a
hint). It's a bit of a play on the value of "It's been said... "

On May 3, 5:10 pm, Dan O wrote:
On May 3, 4:47 pm, Dan O wrote:



On May 3, 4:10 pm, Dan O wrote:

On May 2, 10:08 pm, James wrote:

On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:

On May 2, 8:15 pm, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
it

pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...

Yup. We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/bec...ughtheirgoalis

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which
is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness,
and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by
many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried
and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult,
and not tried."

It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

Aw, c'mon now, Dan. While that made me giggle a little, it wasn't
really called for just there, was it?

I think those of us who regularly mix it with the fossil fuel burners
have learned to ride defensively, which is a lot of what VC is about.

I'm no practitioner of strict VC. I have to say quite a few hail Eddy's
whenever I go to the VC priest for confession, but I do a lot of what
the Godfather of the "one true way" prescribes, though it was learned
from experience.

I suggest that although you take alternate routes, you do some VC stuff
without realising it. I know I do.

Not without realizing it. I absolutely *do* realize it. Moreover, I
well realize that I could *easily* do it quite completely if I wanted
to (but then my riding experience would *suck*) - references available
in the archive.

What irritates me so is Frank's superciliousness about it -
"competency" and all that. In fact I would venture to say that my way
is far more difficult ("don't try this at home, kids"), but I don't go
around criticizing anybody else's way (until they start to berate me
and mine for no good reason but to make themselves feel superior).

My way (and I've described this before) involves a radically dynamic
range of heightened risk and significance on situational awareness.
Just following the prescribed, orderly, "proper" way is for wussies.

What's aggravating is that my hijinks do not practically harm or even
affect anyone else - practically. But they *do* elevate my experience
from what may be at best merely pleasant to indescribably joyous
exultation.

What my hijinks *do* do is offend the sensibility of people with
serious control hangups (Hall Monitors, especially). **** 'em. Ride
Bike!


And yes, I absolutely do incorporate elements of VC right out of the
book... though that's not where I got them. At times I am the most
compliant and sedate thing imaginable. It depends.

Oh, and the derogatory phrase abive is a ~quote from the archives -
something that's "been said" by someone else (the all lowercase is a
hint). It's a bit of a play on the value of "It's been said... "

On May 3, 5:12 pm, Dan O wrote:
On May 3, 5:10 pm, Dan O wrote:



On May 3, 4:47 pm, Dan O wrote:

On May 3, 4:10 pm, Dan O wrote:

On May 2, 10:08 pm, James wrote:

On 03/05/13 13:55, Dan O wrote:

On May 2, 8:15 pm, wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:29:30 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 03/05/13 11:02, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it
that

really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think
that

bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how
many

bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever
it

pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...

Yup. We get that a lot.

I recently admonished one of our bicycling advocacy groups

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/bec...ughtheirgoalis

admirable, their methods are highly questionable.

They reject all notions that any sort of vehicular cycling (which
is

really what I would call defensive riding) has any usefulness,
and say

it has "failed", though it was never taught to or practiced by
many here.

It's been said: "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried
and found to be difficult. It's that it's been assumed difficult,
and not tried."

It's been said: "krygowski you're a ****ing idiot!"

Aw, c'mon now, Dan. While that made me giggle a little, it wasn't
really called for just there, was it?

I think those of us who regularly mix it with the fossil fuel burners
have learned to ride defensively, which is a lot of what VC is about.

I'm no practitioner of strict VC. I have to say quite a few hail Eddy's
whenever I go to the VC priest for confession, but I do a lot of what
the Godfather of the "one true way" prescribes, though it was learned
from experience.

I suggest that although you take alternate routes, you do some VC stuff
without realising it. I know I do.

Not without realizing it. I absolutely *do* realize it. Moreover, I
well realize that I could *easily* do it quite completely if I wanted
to (but then my riding experience would *suck*) - references available
in the archive.

What irritates me so is Frank's superciliousness about it -
"competency" and all that. In fact I would venture to say that my way
is far more difficult ("don't try this at home, kids"), but I don't go
around criticizing anybody else's way (until they start to berate me
and mine for no good reason but to make themselves feel superior).

My way (and I've described this before) involves a radically dynamic
range of heightened risk and significance on situational awareness.
Just following the prescribed, orderly, "proper" way is for wussies.

What's aggravating is that my hijinks do not practically harm or even
affect anyone else - practically. But they *do* elevate my experience
from what may be at best merely pleasant to indescribably joyous
exultation.

What my hijinks *do* do is offend the sensibility of people with
serious control hangups (Hall Monitors, especially). **** 'em. Ride
Bike!

And yes, I absolutely do incorporate elements of VC right out of the
book... though that's not where I got them. At times I am the most
compliant and sedate thing imaginable. It depends.


Me, me, me - it's all about me. (Calm down, self. Perspective. Get
a grip.)

Oh, and the derogatory phrase abive is a ~quote from the archives -
something that's "been said" by someone else (the all lowercase is a
hint). It's a bit of a play on the value of "It's been said... "

On May 3, 5:10 pm, Dan O wrote:

snip


... Hall Monitors...

Rooney, Strickland, Krygowski - classic fuddy-duddy antagonists.

**** 'em. Ride
Bike!


snip

On May 3, 5:47 pm, Dan O wrote:
On May 3, 5:10 pm, Dan O wrote:

snip



... Hall Monitors...

Rooney, Strickland, Krygowski - classic fuddy-duddy antagonists.


Frank, jus tin case (ha!) you don't get the reference, google "Rooney
Ferris" and "Strickland Slacker".


snip

On May 3, 5:14 pm, Dan O wrote:
On May 3, 5:12 pm, Dan O wrote:


snip


...
compliant and sedate thing imaginable. It depends.

... Calm down, self. Perspective. Get
a grip.)


http://www.google.com/search?q=why+a...ning+away+pink

snip

On May 3, 2:30 pm, (Király) wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting it's the comments below it that
really get me thinking. It's amazing how many people think that
bicyclists do NOT belong on the roads. Also interesting how many
bicyclists delight in flaunting the Rules of the Road whenever it
pleases tthem.

http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/canad...city-for-cycli...

Ha. Vancouver is at the top with the most collisions. Nowhere in the
article does it say that that's almost certainly because Vancouver has a
lot more year-round cyclists than any other Canadian city. Sure your
city's stats are going to be lower if cyclists aren't out for eight
months of the year.


The data worshipers kill me; it's not as if they really know anything.

(Wait for it... )

On May 3, 3:36*pm, Duane wrote:
On 5/3/2013 3:25 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per :

However, that's not the same as absolving or arguing in favor of riding salmon-style head-on at other cyclists; or riding drunk at night without lights; or blowing through traffic lights at whim. *Competent "vehicular cyclists" don't, AFAIK, approve of riding like that. *And of course, the dolts who ride like that don't approve of vehicular cycling.

Nice post.

The post gave me a much-improved understanding of "Vehicular Cycling" -
which I had previously take to be soon-to-be-short-lived people trying
to act just like motor vehicles.

That comment would have been just as valid by replacing Vehicular
Cyclists with "competent cyclists" and Vehicular Cycling with "competent
cycling."

You don't have to join the cult to be a competent cyclist.

It's rather odd to think that using the most commonly accepted term
constitutes "joining the cult."

Are you comfortable riding without a bike lane? Do you understand the
downsides of "cycle tracks" that hide cyclists from path-crossing
motorists? Can you properly merge into a left turn lane? Do you ride
far enough left to be safe, especially in a narrow-lane situation?

If so, you may be a vehicular cyclist, no matter how much you dislike
the term. If not, you have much to learn.

- Frank Krygowski

On May 3, 3:42*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Andre Jute:



But I think nothing of riding on the pavement to keep safe in places where the traffic is too heavy and traveling too fast. Even without malice most people here don't know how wide/long their cars and especially vans are.

A close-family-member-who-shall-remain-unnamed has no idea whatsoever -
zero, zilch, bupkis, nada... - where their left wheels are when driving
an automobile. * Potholes that are way beyond the ghost line, curbs...
you name it. *The right-side tires on that car really catch hell. * *Woe
be undo the poor cyclist....

That plus knowing that cell phone use, texting while driving, and doing
email while driving have become significantly-common informs my riding
today.

My suspicion is that the rules for safe riding are still evolving and
were not formulated in the context of, for instance, the study by
somebody somewhere that indicated 30 percent of people under 30 years of
age admitting to texting while driving within the last 30 days.

Couple years back, a guy I windsurfed with got his while riding the
shoulder of a flat, dead-straight stretch of road. * Seemed like the
only plausible explanation was the driver of the pickup truck texting,
dialing, or emailing.

One pertinent question is, to get the attention of a texting driver,
is it better to be at the edge of the road, in a territory they
generally ignore? Or is it better to be closer to lane center, where
they have to look from time to time to stay on course?

Deaths while cycling are extremely rare, on the order of one per 10 or
15 million miles ridden. And by your anecdote (and others) riding on
the shoulder, or in a bike lane, doesn't necessarily defend against
those rare occurrences. Personally, I think it's better to be
conspicuous.

- Frank Krygowski