Canada's most dangerous city for cyclists

On May 3, 9:51 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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."


Actually, that's a charitable characterization.

Are you comfortable riding without a bike lane?

Yes.

Do you understand the
downsides of "cycle tracks" that hide cyclists from path-crossing
motorists?

Duh.

Can you properly merge into a left turn lane?

(I think I see where this is going... )

Do you ride
far enough left to be safe, especially in a narrow-lane situation?


Still alive and kicking, so I guess so.

If so, you may be a vehicular cyclist,

And I "may be" a redneck, too (but I'm not). So what? Got any more
"It's been said:... "

... no matter how much you dislike
the term. If not, you have much to learn.


Everyone *always* has much to learn. Do you?

On May 3, 10:04 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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?


Are you ****ing kidding me? It's better to be in the middle of the
lane to be safe from inattentive drivers?

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.


Got any statistics on lane position and those fatalities? Don't
forget to factor exposure time in each position.

On Fri, 3 May 2013 21:51:22 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On May 3, 3:36Â*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. Â*Competent "vehicular cyclists" don't, AFAIK, approve of riding like that. Â*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

What in the world is a "vehicular cyclist" and how is he different
from any another individual that rides a bicycle?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/4/2013 12:18 AM, Dan O wrote:
On May 3, 9:51 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
-snip-

... no matter how much you dislike
the term. If not, you have much to learn.


Everyone *always* has much to learn. Do you?


Semantically, "you have much to learn" rubs people the wrong
way when it's not learning as the term is commonly used.
What to do at any moment for a cyclist is always
situational because whatever rule we use cannot account for
the increasing anomalies of the addled pilots among us.

Expressing an opinion about general riding habits is one
thing (and I probably share almost all of those opinions
with both Frank and Dan, whose practical differences are
small) but telling a guy who actually rides a bike every day
that he's both wrong and ignorant is something else and
probably isn't helpful.

You can learn pi to however many places but you can't learn
bus on left, broken pavement every meter or so, car door
maybe about to open ahead, another bike with/behind you, etc
etc. Even the same rider on the same street may well react
differently with different weather, speed etc from day to day.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Per Frank Krygowski:
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.

Since discovering the wonders of a rear-view mirror, I have come around
to a modified version of that.

Closest I've come to death have been situations where something passed
me when there was insufficient room. In those cases, if I had been
"taking the lane", the drivers would not have been tempted to pass me
unsafely. OTOH, the on-in-ten-thousand psycho would have just run me
down.... -)

"Modified" because, when riding on a road street, although I do take the
lane, when I see closing traffic I let it by at the first opportunity
which, 99.9% of the time is before they have to slow down - I just jump
up onto a sidewalk or slow down and take to the gravel and/or weeds. The
slowing down part has to be done well before the closing traffic
establishes "contact" - so it does not mess up the driver's perception
of closing time.

Another reason for "taking the lane" vs riding too far over to the right
at speed is that traffic pulling out from side streets is more likely to
see the rider that is not hugging the shoulder.

OTOH, you don't want to be in the left wheel track of the lane going
around corners because, at least around here, a lot of people cut their
corners - coming around the curve at you 2-3 feet over the line. I
almost got nailed a couple of times before this reality sunk in.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Dan O:

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.


Got any statistics on lane position and those fatalities? Don't
forget to factor exposure time in each position.


Whenever I hear statistics on cycling accidents my reflex reaction is
that maybe people are attributing much more
sophistication/granularity/accuracy to the collection system than is
actually there.

I actually know *nothing* about those systems; but, based on what I do
know, I would not give them much credit without reliable information to
the contrary.
--
Pete Cresswell

On May 3, 10:21*pm, Dan O wrote:
On May 3, 10:04 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:









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?

Are you ****ing kidding me? *It's better to be in the middle of the
lane to be safe from inattentive drivers?

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.

Got any statistics on lane position and those fatalities? *Don't
forget to factor exposure time in each position.

Being conspicuous is important, even when you are not in the traffic
lane, but taking the lane center to be conspicuous makes no sense when
there is an ample shoulder and no cross-traffic (the straight road
scenario).

If a driver is so inattentive as to leave the road and hit a rider on
the shoulder, then that driver is going to hit the rider on the road,
too. And while I have no statistics to back this up, it has been my
experience that "minor inattention" --people who look down or reach
for a cup or answer a phone (not texting) -- try hard to keep going
straight and often end up causing rear end collisions. People who
leave the lane are drunk, night blind, confused by the roadway,
startled, falling asleep, etc. Not much you can do about them.

But, IMO, conspicuity on the shoulder is very important and taking the
lane is reasonable at intersections or any place there is entering or
exiting traffic that doesn't have a good sight line down the road.
Then you have to make a judgment as to whether taking the lane is
going to expose you to more danger from through traffic. It all
depends on road and traffic conditions.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:18:25 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:

Everyone *always* has much to learn. Do you?

I do, and I try to learn.

For example, in the past 12 months, I've attended two separate cycling education events. I'm talking about events that I traveled hundreds of miles to get to, organized on a statewide or nationwide basis, and attended and run by people who are nationally prominent in bicycling advocacy and education. I got additional training in both riding and teaching.

And you? What steps have you taken to learn more?

(I'm not talking about claims that you're thinking deeply. Anybody can claim that. I'm talking about gaining knowledge from recognized sources outside of yourself.)

- Frank Krygowski

On May 4, 7:17 am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 3, 10:21 pm, Dan O wrote:



On May 3, 10:04 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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?

Are you ****ing kidding me? It's better to be in the middle of the
lane to be safe from inattentive drivers?

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.

Got any statistics on lane position and those fatalities? Don't
forget to factor exposure time in each position.

Being conspicuous is important, even when you are not in the traffic
lane, but taking the lane center to be conspicuous makes no sense when
there is an ample shoulder and no cross-traffic (the straight road
scenario).

If a driver is so inattentive as to leave the road and hit a rider on
the shoulder, then that driver is going to hit the rider on the road,
too. And while I have no statistics to back this up, it has been my
experience that "minor inattention" --people who look down or reach
for a cup or answer a phone (not texting) -- try hard to keep going
straight and often end up causing rear end collisions. People who
leave the lane are drunk, night blind, confused by the roadway,
startled, falling asleep, etc. Not much you can do about them.

But, IMO, conspicuity on the shoulder is very important and taking the
lane is reasonable at intersections or any place there is entering or
exiting traffic that doesn't have a good sight line down the road.
Then you have to make a judgment as to whether taking the lane is
going to expose you to more danger from through traffic. It all
depends on road and traffic conditions.


Yes, absolutely right - you, Pete, Andy, et al - even much of what
Frank says.

There are situations where it makes sense to "take the lane"; but for
me, the purpose is almost never to "take the lane" - that I have taken
it is just incidental to the fact that my lane position does not leave
room for cars to pass me in that same lane; I almost *never* do it to
"control" traffic.

And I try to keep such lane taking to a minimum. The reasons for
keeping as far right as practicable (or out of the lane or even off
the road completely) are at least twofold: One, it's just gonna ****
cagers off and they're already intolerant enough as it is, and Two...
well, let me start another paragraph for this:

About inattentive drivers and keeping yourself from getting creamed by
them: Most of the action you can watch ahead for and observe /
predict / anticipate (possibilities / probabilities / eventualities) /
take action to deal with. (If most of the action that could affect
you is coming from behind, I look for a more preferable route.) Those
coming from behind, you just kind of have to trust in Providence to
keep from creaming you; and you can largely do this (trust in
Providence), because drivers are largely paying enough attention to
keep from mowing things down in their path. But if they're not paying
enough attention to keep from mowing things down in their path, I want
to be incidentally out of their path when they our paths in space /
time ~coincide. It just happens that even inattentive drivers are far
more apt (at any moment in time) to be occupying the middle of the
lane than the road edge.

Per Jay Beattie:
Being conspicuous is important, even when you are not in the traffic
lane,

The two close calls I've had in the past year have both been
attributable to the colors of what I was wearing: Olive cargo pants and
a dark green or blue long-sleeved shirt.

After one, the guy actually chased me down to apologize profusely "I
just did not see you....". In the other I'm pretty sure the kid behind
the wheel was high. But I attribute both to my lack of visibility.

Now I take pains to wear a bright red jacket or shirt.
--
Pete Cresswell