Experiment determines drivers do not see 22% of cyclists in clearview.

On 5/31/2015 7:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 6:12:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

There are, of course, constant efforts to forbid cycling without some
type of special hat. I do work against those efforts. Unfortunately,
some here mock me for that. Go figure.

Frank, do you mean a helmet or, in fact, a special hat -- like a fedora. Are there mandatory Fedora laws? Pork Pie? Fez? Yarmulke?

LOL, whenever someone starts the "foam hat" schtick you know you're
about to be subjected to an avalanche of fake studies and fabricated
data. Now he's changed it to a "special hat." Priceless.

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 11:51:28 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 31/05/15 13:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 4:20:53 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:

You need to read the statutes more carefully. There is no common
law of traffic. It's statutory. The Ohio statute is peculiar and
is not the law in every state -- or anywhere else from what I can
tell.

Under the UVC, slow moving vehicles must yield to faster traffic on
one-lane (each way) roads -- without regard to the physical fitness
of the driver, except in Ohio. in your scenario, the slow moving
tractor on a one lane road must yield to faster traffic. In other
words, it has to pull of when it is safe and let traffic by.
Tractor drivers often fail to do that, but it doesn't mean they're
following the law.

The Oregon statute gives a bicyclist the right to take the lane to
avoid "unsafe operation" within a lane that is too narrow to share.
Crossing the center line to pass is not unsafe operation -- so if
there is room to pass (no oncoming traffic), the statute does not
give riders a free pass to take the lane -- not as written.

The take-away from all of this is that the rules of the road for
bicyclists can vary significantly from one state to another. You
cannot tell a rider in another state how he or she should ride --
not without looking at state and local law. In fact, city
ordinances may affect where an how a bicyclist can use the roads or
sidewalks.


Jay, I realize you're a lawyer and I'm not. But I also realize that
Steve Magas is a lawyer. So is Bob Mionske. So are a couple of the
guys I ride with. So are people on staff at the League of American
Bicyclists, other guys on the board of the Ohio Bicycle Federation,
other folks in other state bicycling advocacy organizations.

Despite what you say, your view on controlling a narrow lane seems to
be in disagreement with what all those people say. Don't pretend
that I'm the only person recommending riding far enough left to
control a lane. It's the standard advice in the League's education
programs, in the Cycling Savvy courses, in CAN-BIKE, and in similar
cycling courses in other countries. Are all the lawyers associated
with all those education programs wrong? I doubt it.

To paraphrase and old joke: I don't think everyone's out of step
except our little Jay.


I'll control a lane while I have the cooperation of the following driver.

I have at times bailed out when the driver of an approaching vehicle
shows no signs of accommodating me.

You wouldn't indicate and move to lane control position without first
getting the cooperation of a driver approaching from behind, would you?
It would be like stepping on to a pedestrian crossing with blinkers
on, and just expecting the drivers to stop.

--
JS

A long time ago when I bailed in order not to get run over by an 18-wheeler Frank told me I shouldn't be riding in traffic if I was such a "scardy cat" and that i should hace stayed in the lane as that 18-wheeler would have slowed before hitting me.

Btw, notice how once again Frank has introduced helmets into a thread?

Cheers

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 6:09:52 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 5/30/2015 7:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Frank, we're talking about impeding laws -- and this is why Ohio is unusual. Note section (C) please:

snip huge response

-- Jay Beattie.

You got sucked into data-centric responses to a clever troll who hates
facts and data. Don't they teach you not to do that in law school.

Law school, like most schools, is taught by idealists. They really, really believe that there is nobody so obstinate and obstructive in the world that you cannot talk some sense into them. Jay should take Krygowski along to an alumni dinner and give them a rude, rude shock from the real world.

Andre Jute
LOL

On 01/06/15 15:37, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 11:51:28 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


I'll control a lane while I have the cooperation of the following
driver.

I have at times bailed out when the driver of an approaching
vehicle shows no signs of accommodating me.

You wouldn't indicate and move to lane control position without
first getting the cooperation of a driver approaching from behind,
would you? It would be like stepping on to a pedestrian crossing
with blinkers on, and just expecting the drivers to stop.


A long time ago when I bailed in order not to get run over by an
18-wheeler Frank told me I shouldn't be riding in traffic if I was
such a "scardy cat" and that i should hace stayed in the lane as that
18-wheeler would have slowed before hitting me.


Yeah, well, just a few times I haven't felt comfortable remaining out
there in the hope that they will slow down. Maybe it's because they're
busy texting, high on ice, or playing chicken. I don't want to find out
the hard way.

Btw, notice how once again Frank has introduced helmets into a
thread?


Didn't notice. I haven't read all this thread. Many replies have
fallen below the bottom of the page. I can't be bothered scrolling down
much, so I don't bother reading. Besides, it's boring same old ****.

--
JS

On 5/31/2015 10:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 6:12:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2015 8:20 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Regarding demands for banishment or licences, those are probably evident
only in internet posts and the occasional letter to the editor. They're
about as logical as demands that everyone give up their car. I wouldn't
worry about them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I just love the way you disregard everything anyone says that doesn't match
your agenda or experience. There are many areas where motorists are
trying to
get bicyclists off the roads or into bike lanes. Many of those motorists
are
very active in doing that. Not worrying about would mean that you as a
bicyclist
would do nothing to stop it!

If I knew of a place where that was really happening, I'd probably work
at stopping it.

I do worry that organizations like the useless League of American
Bicyclists has apparently stopped caring about our rights to the road,
to concentrate instead on dreams of segregated facilities. But AFAIK in
Ohio or in Pennsylvania (the two states where I do most of my riding)
there's no current effort to either forbid cycling or to require
licenses. Maybe you could link to a report about a place where that is
going on.

There are, of course, constant efforts to forbid cycling without some
type of special hat. I do work against those efforts. Unfortunately,
some here mock me for that. Go figure.

Frank, do you mean a helmet or, in fact, a special hat -- like a fedora. Are there mandatory Fedora laws? Pork Pie? Fez? Yarmulke?

Seems to me a bike helmet is a special hat. Here's a dictionary entry:
"hel·met 'helmət/ noun 1. a hard or padded protective hat ..."

Do you disagree?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/31/2015 9:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 09:41:21 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie


The internationally accepted "rules of the Road", The Merchant
Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations,
that control ship traffic specify that a "sailing vessel" has the
right of way over motor vessels, with, of course, many exceptions, but
an "overtaking Vessel" always has the obligation to avoid the
overtaken vessel.

Perhaps the inclusion of some such language in the road traffic rules
would reduce bike accidents.

ISTM the road traffic analogy would be "strict liability" laws for
motorists, as in some European countries.

Folks there claim the laws do reduce car-bike accidents.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/31/2015 11:51 PM, James wrote:

I have at times bailed out when the driver of an approaching vehicle
shows no signs of accommodating me.

I've never had to do that. The most I've ever done was to move a foot
or so rightward (from lane center) as a vehicle passed, to get a bit
more clearance. And even that I do that only rarely, and it's never
been because I otherwise would have been hit.

Occasionally (rarely) some jerk gives less than a meter clearance as he
passes, but that's even more rare, perhaps twice per year.

I'll control a lane while I have the cooperation of the following
driver. ...

You wouldn't indicate and move to lane control position without first
getting the cooperation of a driver approaching from behind, would you?
It would be like stepping on to a pedestrian crossing with blinkers
on, and just expecting the drivers to stop.

No, I wouldn't just indicate and swerve out. That would indeed be like
running out in front of a car, and no cycling education material ever
suggests doing so. John Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ gives several
paragraphs on exactly how to make this move (he advises beginning the
move 8 seconds in advance), and John Forester's _Effective Cycling_
deals with it in two separate places in the book.

But regarding "getting cooperation": That's necessary only if the
motorist is close behind you or beside you. Yes, in that situation, I
do perform a sort of face-to-face request, indicating or signaling my
move and waiting for some sign that it's accepted. However, in most
situations I'm watching far enough up the road that my decision to move
toward lane center can take place when no cars are close behind. When a
car does get close, I'm already where I want to be.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Phil W Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 28 May 2015
16:21:47 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 5/28/2015 10:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 8:56:52 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2015 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2015 16:13:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
snip

Everyone I know who has tried it - and there are many - report that
riding more prominently gets them much more passing clearance from
motorists, and fewer crashes and close calls. For one thing, it's
obvious from much further back that the presence of the cyclist will
require some attention.


Although passing clearance often has nothing to do with road position.
I have been passed closely while riding lane center -- taking the entire
lane. Numerous times. Taking the lane makes sense in places, but it is no
guaranty of safe passes.

Really, nothing is 100% guaranteed. All one can do is arrange to put
the odds in one's favor.

Today I did a club ride (retirement is nice!), about 25 miles on mostly
narrow rural roads, plus a state highway or two. About a dozen riders.
I don't think there was a moment when we didn't control the lane, i.e.
ride near lane center, often two abreast. We suffered zero close
passes, and I believe every motorist went as far left as possible to
pass us.

No, it's not always 100%. About two weeks ago I led a club ride and had
one pickup truck driver (with a "handicapped" plate) deliberately pass
me with about a foot of clearance, despite having an open left lane on
the low-traffic four-lane road. Jerks exist. But even in that case, my
leftward position gave me room to move right if I'd really needed it.

Did it really? If so, why didn't you use the space? Are you
comfortable with one foot passes? The point I'm getting at is that
while the space seems like a good thing, for the most part, as a place
to manuever it is practically useless in that the cars pass too quickly.
The space might come in handy if you actually did get hit---better to be
knocked to the right then to be squashed against a retaining wall or
bounced back into traffic, however, I don't hear that as a rationale.


--
Joe Riel

On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 8:37:24 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2015 10:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 6:12:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2015 8:20 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Regarding demands for banishment or licences, those are probably evident
only in internet posts and the occasional letter to the editor. They're
about as logical as demands that everyone give up their car. I wouldn't
worry about them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I just love the way you disregard everything anyone says that doesn't match
your agenda or experience. There are many areas where motorists are
trying to
get bicyclists off the roads or into bike lanes. Many of those motorists
are
very active in doing that. Not worrying about would mean that you as a
bicyclist
would do nothing to stop it!

If I knew of a place where that was really happening, I'd probably work
at stopping it.

I do worry that organizations like the useless League of American
Bicyclists has apparently stopped caring about our rights to the road,
to concentrate instead on dreams of segregated facilities. But AFAIK in
Ohio or in Pennsylvania (the two states where I do most of my riding)
there's no current effort to either forbid cycling or to require
licenses. Maybe you could link to a report about a place where that is
going on.

There are, of course, constant efforts to forbid cycling without some
type of special hat. I do work against those efforts. Unfortunately,
some here mock me for that. Go figure.

Frank, do you mean a helmet or, in fact, a special hat -- like a fedora.. Are there mandatory Fedora laws? Pork Pie? Fez? Yarmulke?

Seems to me a bike helmet is a special hat. Here's a dictionary entry:
"hel·met 'helmət/ noun 1. a hard or padded protective hat ...."

Do you disagree?

Yes. Websters'Ninth New Collegiate:

1
: a covering or enclosing headpiece of ancient or medieval armor — see armor illustration
2
: any of various protective head coverings usually made of a hard material to resist impact
3
: something resembling a helmet


I don't think anyone would call this a hat -- except maybe you: https://www..universalcycles.com/sho...s.php?id=63948

Bicycle hat: http://cache.mrporter.com/prod-img/i...6_mrp_in_l.jpg

You love to use "foam hat" or "magical hat" or "magical foam hat" as a derogatory term for helmet. Just confess to it and end the misery, for all of us. Let it out . . . you hate helmets. We get that -- over and over and over again.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/1/2015 2:38 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Phil W Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 28 May 2015
16:21:47 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 5/28/2015 10:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 8:56:52 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2015 8:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2015 16:13:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
snip

Everyone I know who has tried it - and there are many - report that
riding more prominently gets them much more passing clearance from
motorists, and fewer crashes and close calls. For one thing, it's
obvious from much further back that the presence of the cyclist will
require some attention.


Although passing clearance often has nothing to do with road position.
I have been passed closely while riding lane center -- taking the entire
lane. Numerous times. Taking the lane makes sense in places, but it is no
guaranty of safe passes.

Really, nothing is 100% guaranteed. All one can do is arrange to put
the odds in one's favor.

Today I did a club ride (retirement is nice!), about 25 miles on mostly
narrow rural roads, plus a state highway or two. About a dozen riders.
I don't think there was a moment when we didn't control the lane, i.e.
ride near lane center, often two abreast. We suffered zero close
passes, and I believe every motorist went as far left as possible to
pass us.

No, it's not always 100%. About two weeks ago I led a club ride and had
one pickup truck driver (with a "handicapped" plate) deliberately pass
me with about a foot of clearance, despite having an open left lane on
the low-traffic four-lane road. Jerks exist. But even in that case, my
leftward position gave me room to move right if I'd really needed it.

Did it really? If so, why didn't you use the space?

I use a mirror, and I was watching his trajectory. It was clear he'd
pass close, but not hit me.

Are you
comfortable with one foot passes?

I think they're rude, at least at normal traffic speeds. And I there's
always a risk that someone actually aiming for a one foot pass might
misjudge by a foot. But I was pretty confident how this one would turn
out, and I was right.

The point I'm getting at is that
while the space seems like a good thing, for the most part, as a place
to manuever it is practically useless in that the cars pass too quickly.
The space might come in handy if you actually did get hit---better to be
knocked to the right then to be squashed against a retaining wall or
bounced back into traffic, however, I don't hear that as a rationale.

The need for more room can be triggered by things other than the passing
car. Especially this year, potholes or rough patches of potholes are a
real possibility. So riding near the road's edge could cause me to have
a motorist pass one foot away, and simultaneously have a big hole in
front of me. No thanks.

Here's an example on a smooth road. No potholes to worry about. But if
the lesson of the video is "don't pass until you can move into the left
lane," why is the cyclist riding on top of the edge line?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw5vOkkQVvM


--
- Frank Krygowski