Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/12/2011 10:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

I'd just point out the obvious that people get mowed down in crosswalks
all the time and yet no one talks about eliminating them. Cyclists also
get right-hooked all the time in the absence of lanes or paths.

Cyclists who learn to discourage right hooks suffer far fewer of them.
In nearly 40 years of adult cycling, including decades of city
commuting, it's never happened to me.

I suppose that if you had some actual statistics you'd post them.
Otherwise, your conjecture is interesting, but still just conjecture.


One key is to not ride too close to far to the right, so you're right of
a car that may turn right. Unfortunately, most bike lanes actively
encourage riding there.

"not ride too close to far to the right" -- That's clear as mud.

In this case (Montreal) the cyclist was struck in a crosswalk where the
truck had a green arrow for right turn and the cyclist had a walk signal.

This is identical to an incident in DC, which happened to be described
in this video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2008070801161

Again, the cyclist was in a crosswalk, and as you can see from Google
street view, there is no explicit arrow for right turns, but the
cyclist/peds get a walk signal while the green light allows a right turn
into their path. There happens to be a bike lane on the through street
(R St.), but the cyclist wasn't struck there.

If bike lanes "encourage people to ride there", quite obviously this
lane wasn't encouraging enough, because the young woman was riding on
the sidewalk. The ghost bike is still there.

There is way too much "blame the victim" in cycling and pedestrian
incidents. Referring to the infamous Portland cement truck incident, the
comment (here) was that the cyclist should have known not to stop in the
drivers blind spot. How crazy is is to expect the cyclist to know where
the truck driver's bind spots are? Shouldn't the driver be responsible
for his own blind spots? Pedestrians and cyclists have right of way in
crosswalks, but given their vulnerability in even low speed situations,
what sense does it make to provide a walk signal yet allow right-turning
vehicles at the same time?

100% of dooring incidents are 100% the fault of the motorist, and yet
that fact gets lost in the "shouldn't have been riding there" argument.
The claim that bike lanes "encourage" riding in unsafe places ignores
the more obvious fact that cyclists are legally allowed to ride in those
places, and that motorist behavior (speeding, tailgating, honking,
crowding to pass, etc.) "encourage" (bully) cyclists to ride in those
"unsafe" places and create 100% of the "unsafety" at the same time. We,
in the US at least, tolerate dangerous intersections, allow free or
cheap parallel parking, don't rigorously enforce laws already on the
books and treat cases of motor vehicle homicide by negligence as acts of
god.

At a minimum, bike lanes, like crosswalks, should inform drivers of the
likely presence of vulnerable users. It shouldn't come as a surprise to
find a cyclist or pedestrian there. In most of the news coverage I have
seen after these tragedies much is always made about the driver's
remorse and good character. Sometimes the driver is even referred to as
a "co-victim". That is insanity, and illustrates just how many other
"blind spots" our car-crazy culture has.

If careless and over-entitled drivers ignore bike lanes and crosswalks
the solution isn't to blame the facilities for lack of clarity or
conspicuity, it is to blame and punish the motorists for their reckless
behavior. My problem with vehicular cycling is that it is exactly like
the articles that prominently include the "lack of helmet" statement
when a cyclist has been crushed under a truck or bus. It subtly and
dishonestly blames the victim. Yes, taking a certain position *may*
lower the chance of a right hook, but that isn't the solution to the
problem of right hooks. Yes, education is helpful, but why focus on
educating the cyclist to avoid criminally irresponsible behavior on the
part of motorists rather than dealing with the root cause? Neither I, an
experienced and skilled cyclist, nor a child, nor an older cyclist
riding at walking speed, should be required to compensate for people
abusing the privilege of driving and endangering others with their
willful behavior.

Advising cyclists to learn a complex dance of lane positions and
"negotiations" is both unrealistically raising the bar and
simultaneously shifting responsibility. Cyclists get warned about street
drain grates, slippery painted surfaces and wheel trapping trolley
tracks. Every year cyclists get killed and injured by these common
hazards. Why should they be tolerated in the first place? Instead of
"education" we should demand "elimination". The same holds for dooring
and hooks. Clean up the jungle rather than teach every cyclist to obey
the law of the jungle.

Vehicular cycling is a false god. It presumes the existence of "natural
law", and views "accidents" as violations of that law. Nonsense. As long
as cycling remains loaded with traps for the unwary and random acts of
intimidation by oblivious, incompetent, or downright hostile motorists,
it won't be anything more than the realm of the elite few. Inducting
people into that small circle with arcane practices of lane position and
negotiation is never going to work for the masses. But the greatest
damage it does is to shift the onus from the criminals to the innocent,
and often, perversely, even attempts to make the innocent into criminals.

What possible excuse can a motorist have, after proceeding down a street
with a clearly marked bicycle lane, parking their car, and then flinging
open their door without looking for an approaching cyclist? If the car
door was ripped off by a passing truck, do you think the insurance
company would fault the truck driver? If dooring is the fault of the
cyclist, why not enact laws making it an offense for cyclists to ride
within a motorists "door zone"? I suppose cyclists should be required to
memorize tables of door widths for all vehicles currently in service,
too. While we're at it, we could make laws requiring cyclists to "take
the lane" before every possible right hand turn, since they'd otherwise
be "enticing" motorists to run them down and suffer the consequential
emotional trauma. Such "for your own good" laws are no different in
principle than mandatory helmet laws. "Blame the victim" thinking
becomes obviously absurd when taken to its logical conclusions.

Vehicular cycling advocates spend so much time in their own echo chamber
that they lose sight of the absurdity of their arguments. The only
people who use the "she shouldn't have been riding there"
rationalization are typically non-cyclists, cops and vehicular cyclists.
Vehicular cyclists don't want to change the world, they want to
accommodate it. Some things can never be accommodated, and shouldn't be.
It's a pipe dream and a particularly harmful one. Vehicular cyclists
have vigorously lobbied against virtually all cycling facilities and the
integration of those facilities into socially and legally accepted
street culture, despite overwhelming evidence that such advances make a
much more efficient, pleasant and safer environment for non-motorists.
From what I've seen, vehicular cyclists are cycling advocates at all,
they're cycling opponents, at least in consequence. A few more decades
of vehicular cycling and the only place you'll see a bicycle is in a museum.

On 8/13/2011 3:12 AM, wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:

I'm sure there is some reason he found it important. Perhaps it was that
he believed that it would be less likely for bicycles to be banned from
roads if they were legally defined as vehicles.

That was the ostensible reason for the original bikes-as-vehicle
thing, but that effort can be traced back at least to the 1880s in New
York, and a certain character named Isaac Potter. Potter pushed
through a law classifying bikes as vehicles, allowing them access to
Central Park as such, but limiting them to the then-current vehicular
speed limit of _5 mph._ So the law was ridiculous, and widely
ignored from the beginning, by police and cyclist alike.

Potter was way more Forester than Forester could ever be. Behind the
so-called "Liberty Law" (classic Orwellian anti-speak) is a familiar
force, classism, or snobbishness or whatever you want to call it, that
sought to draw a distinction between the 'proper wheelmen' (today
'lawful, competent cyclists') and dirtbags on bikes. It wasn't about
access, in my opinion, this bike-as-vehicle thing, it was more about
applying control to the uncontrolled. And it still is.

Around that time (1880's) I believe the League of American Wheelmen (or
whatever it was called then) also attempted to ban blacks from their
ranks by charter. If I recall the history properly, it won the majority
but fell short of the 2/3's required for an amendment.

Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Frank wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Then retract your assertion.

Hmm. I don't remember seeing proof that I should.

The proof is that responsible investigators
provide evidence of their claims.

They supply evidence of _every_ assertion they ever make? Um... Where's
your evidence for that claim? ;-)

Do most USA states define a bicycle as a vehicle?

Yes, I believe they do. Are you saying most of them don't?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Frank wrote:


So let's go over this again, Michael:

Are you claiming that most U.S. states do not class bicycles as
vehicles? I just want to be clear.

You claim that most USA states' vehicle codes
define vehicles in such a way that bicycles
are not vehicles.

No, that's not what I said. In fact, you've got that precisely
backwards. Is that the reason for your confusion?

You seem to have missed the question I asked above, or are trying really
hard not to answer it. Since you've made precisely opposite statements,
I'd like to know what you're really thinking about the question.

Do _you_ claim that most U.S. states do _not_ class bicycles as vehicles?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/13/2011 7:22 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

In this case (Montreal) the cyclist was struck in a crosswalk where the
truck had a green arrow for right turn and the cyclist had a walk signal.

The right arrows are confusing for many drivers. You can make a right on
red on a red light, but not on a red arrow. On the surface, it's nicer
to use a right red arrow than a "No Right Turn on Red" sign, but in
practice many drivers don't understand what the right arrow means.

There would never be a walk signal given to a pedestrian if traffic had
a left green arrow, and no doubt the truck driver believed that the same
would be the case for a green right arrow.

I find it difficult to believe that any city would design their traffic
signals to give vehicular traffic a right green arrow and pedestrians a
walk signal at the same time. There aren't a lot of right green arrows
around my area but where there are you would never have a walk signal be
on at the same time. Are you sure that this is what happened?

On Aug 13, 8:22 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Frank wrote:

So let's go over this again, Michael:

Are you claiming that most U.S. states do not class bicycles as
vehicles? I just want to be clear.

You claim that most USA states' vehicle codes
define vehicles in such a way that bicycles
are not vehicles.

No, that's not what I said. In fact, you've got that precisely
backwards. Is that the reason for your confusion?

You seem to have missed the question I asked above, or are trying really
hard not to answer it. Since you've made precisely opposite statements,
I'd like to know what you're really thinking about the question.

Do _you_ claim that most U.S. states do _not_ class bicycles as vehicles?


Frank, really - just put up the data or drop it already and leave the
assertion as purely your own impression.

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/12/2011 10:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

One key [to avoiding right hooks] is to not ride too close to far to the right, so you're right of
a car that may turn right. Unfortunately, most bike lanes actively
encourage riding there.

"not ride too close to far to the right" -- That's clear as mud.

I can give more detail if you want.

In this case (Montreal) the cyclist was struck in a crosswalk where the
truck had a green arrow for right turn and the cyclist had a walk signal.

This is identical to an incident in DC, which happened to be described
in this video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2008070801161


Again, the cyclist was in a crosswalk, and as you can see from Google
street view, there is no explicit arrow for right turns, but the
cyclist/peds get a walk signal while the green light allows a right turn
into their path. There happens to be a bike lane on the through street
(R St.), but the cyclist wasn't struck there.

If bike lanes "encourage people to ride there", quite obviously this
lane wasn't encouraging enough, because the young woman was riding on
the sidewalk. The ghost bike is still there.

As we know, many good studies have found sidewalk riding to be more
dangerous than the street. Would the bike lane have been better than
the sidewalk? Perhaps - but still not as good as riding in the traffic
lane.

BTW, I'm a bit familiar with that area. I rode that street several
times when we stayed on Q street during a recent DC visit. The streets
are narrow, the bike lanes are in the door zone, but traffic was pretty
slow and taking the lane no problem. That's what the girl should have done.

There is way too much "blame the victim" in cycling and pedestrian
incidents.

What some classify as "blame the victim" is often really an attempt to
educate, to prevent other victims. If one kid kills himself diving into
shallow water, should other parents not warn their kids not to do that?

And you'll note from the newspaper article that the woman did get
"educated" to wear a helmet. If she were taught only one fact about
bicycle safety, should it had been to wear a helmet? Or would it have
been better to teach her to not be on the right side of a vehicle that
might turn right? The latter would have prevented the incident
completely.

100% of dooring incidents are 100% the fault of the motorist, and yet
that fact gets lost in the "shouldn't have been riding there" argument.

If you want to train all motorists to never open a door without looking
back over their shoulder for a cyclist who's riding too close, that's
fine. I'd think rec.autos.driving (or whatever) would be a good place
to begin that effort. OTOH, I think there's a bigger chance for doing
more good by training all cyclists to not ride in door zones. This is a
good place to begin that effort. But both efforts can proceed
simultaneously.

The claim that bike lanes "encourage" riding in unsafe places ignores
the more obvious fact that cyclists are legally allowed to ride in those
places...

Sure. Just because something's inadvisable, it's not necessarily
illegal. Adults are allowed to smoke as many cigarettes as they want!

We, in the US at least, tolerate dangerous intersections, allow free or
cheap parallel parking, don't rigorously enforce laws already on the
books and treat cases of motor vehicle homicide by negligence as acts of
god.

I agree with you, all those things are bad. I won't even claim that
you're using some "royal we," although others here have made cracks
about such phrasing. ;-)

At a minimum, bike lanes, like crosswalks, should inform drivers of the
likely presence of vulnerable users. It shouldn't come as a surprise to
find a cyclist or pedestrian there. In most of the news coverage I have
seen after these tragedies much is always made about the driver's
remorse and good character. Sometimes the driver is even referred to as
a "co-victim". That is insanity, and illustrates just how many other
"blind spots" our car-crazy culture has.

Part of the problem is simple physical difficulty, or perhaps
impossibility. For example, in one of the most publicized Portland
fatalities, the cyclist was passing the fatal truck on the right as the
motor vehicle had the green light to turn right. The driver probably
already had to look ahead for crossing pedestrians, judge his clearance
to other vehicles, make sure his rear wheels wouldn't run over the curb,
etc. Asking him to also notice whether a 20 mph biker might also be
zooming up in his blind spot is simply asking more than most humans can
handle.

That's why things like this http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/lane3.jpg
are not considered good practice in traffic engineering. And that's why
these bumper stickers say what they do:
http://www.zazzle.com/passing+side+s...bumperstickers

If careless and over-entitled drivers ignore bike lanes and crosswalks
the solution isn't to blame the facilities for lack of clarity or
conspicuity, it is to blame and punish the motorists for their reckless
behavior.

The only cyclist killed in our area last year ran a stop sign at speed,
where a bike trail crosses a road, right in front of a car. A few years
ago, we had a young kid riding without brakes who rode west off the
sidewalk into the side of a truck that was turning right, from north to
east.

We can talk about over-entitled drivers, but in those two instances, and
many others, there's no way the motorist could be expected to defend
against every possible chaotic cyclist move.

The fundamental rules of traffic work quite well when people pay
attention to them, and when facilities aren't designed to violate them.
And I'd say "Don't put yourself at the right of a right turning truck"
is a fundamental rule of traffic.

My problem with vehicular cycling is that it is exactly like
the articles that prominently include the "lack of helmet" statement
when a cyclist has been crushed under a truck or bus. It subtly and
dishonestly blames the victim. Yes, taking a certain position *may*
lower the chance of a right hook, but that isn't the solution to the
problem of right hooks. Yes, education is helpful, but why focus on
educating the cyclist to avoid criminally irresponsible behavior on the
part of motorists rather than dealing with the root cause? Neither I, an
experienced and skilled cyclist, nor a child, nor an older cyclist
riding at walking speed, should be required to compensate for people
abusing the privilege of driving and endangering others with their
willful behavior.

Advising cyclists to learn a complex dance of lane positions and
"negotiations" is both unrealistically raising the bar and
simultaneously shifting responsibility. Cyclists get warned about street
drain grates, slippery painted surfaces and wheel trapping trolley
tracks. Every year cyclists get killed and injured by these common
hazards. Why should they be tolerated in the first place? Instead of
"education" we should demand "elimination". The same holds for dooring
and hooks. Clean up the jungle rather than teach every cyclist to obey
the law of the jungle.

So how long will it take you to clean up this jungle, Peter? And in the
meanwhile, should we keep it all secret from cyclists, and never tell
them to watch out for these hazards? Is that even moral?

Vehicular cycling is a false god. It presumes the existence of "natural
law", and views "accidents" as violations of that law.

You're really not qualified to say much about vehicular cycling. You've
repeatedly mis-characterized what vehicular cyclists say and believe.
You've shown you can't even keep straight yes or no facts, like whether
Forester thinks bikes should be defined as vehicles.

--
- Frank Krygowski

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Frank wrote:


So let's go over this again, Michael:

Are you claiming that most U.S. states do not class bicycles as
vehicles? I just want to be clear.

You claim that most USA states' vehicle codes
define vehicles in such a way that bicycles
are not vehicles.

No, that's not what I said. In fact, you've got that precisely
backwards. Is that the reason for your confusion?

I got it backward there. You do claim that in most
states a bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle. This
is what I have had in mind from the start, and have
acted on that understanding. The above statement
otherwise is unfortunate, but not reflective of my
thinking.

You seem to have missed the question I asked above, or are trying really
hard not to answer it. Since you've made precisely opposite statements,
I'd like to know what you're really thinking about the question.

Do _you_ claim that most U.S. states do _not_ class bicycles as vehicles?

I answered this question from you already. The answer
is that I do not claim one way or the other. I remind
you that when you claim that most state's vehicle codes
define a vehicle to include bicycles, you are obliged
to provide evidence or proof that such is the case when
asked. I ask.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Frank wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Then retract your assertion.

Hmm. I don't remember seeing proof that I should.

The proof is that responsible investigators
provide evidence of their claims.

They supply evidence of _every_ assertion they ever make? Um... Where's
your evidence for that claim? ;-)

They provide evidence or proof as a matter of course,
and when they do not, supply evidence or proof when asked.

Do most USA states define a bicycle as a vehicle?

Yes, I believe they do. Are you saying most of them don't?

Asked and answered. I do not know what is the case.

--
Michael Press

On 8/13/2011 11:23 AM, SMS wrote:
On 8/13/2011 7:22 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

In this case (Montreal) the cyclist was struck in a crosswalk where the
truck had a green arrow for right turn and the cyclist had a walk signal.

The right arrows are confusing for many drivers. You can make a right on
red on a red light, but not on a red arrow. On the surface, it's nicer
to use a right red arrow than a "No Right Turn on Red" sign, but in
practice many drivers don't understand what the right arrow means.

There would never be a walk signal given to a pedestrian if traffic had
a left green arrow, and no doubt the truck driver believed that the same
would be the case for a green right arrow.

I find it difficult to believe that any city would design their traffic
signals to give vehicular traffic a right green arrow and pedestrians a
walk signal at the same time. There aren't a lot of right green arrows
around my area but where there are you would never have a walk signal be
on at the same time. Are you sure that this is what happened?

No, but that's what the snapshot in the Google street view seemed to be
showing in that intersection*, and the news coverage said they "both had
a green".

*You could see both a green right turn arrow and a white "walker" in the
pedestrian crossing signal from one angle. There appears to be a "push
to cross" button, but it faces the through street, not the cross street
where the cyclist was struck. I'm not sure that that button halts
traffic on both streets, my guess is that it's just for the through
street. There's also a pedestrian in one photo, apparently running
between moving cars on the through street.