Bicyclists going wrong way and other crimes

Zoot Katz wrote:

Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:05:36 -0400, , Nate
Nagel wrote:


Therefore IMHO speed may be a problem, but it is nowhere near as large a
a problem as many make it out to be, and also IMHO most other traffic
law violations are *larger* problems.


More than half of speed-related deaths are passengers, pedestrians
or cyclists—not the speeding drivers themselves, SCUM!

When you chop a pedestrian at low speeds of 25 MPH and below they have
89% survivability rate. At 35 MPH and higher that reverses to 89% of
pedestrians dying when struck.

Crash forces double for every 10mph increase above 50mph.

The physics would seem to dictate that speed is always a contributing
factor in traffic fatalities.

So all vehicles should be limited to 25 MPH at all times then, by your
logic. Somehow I don't think even Joan Claybrook herself would advocate
such measures. Hell, I can go faster than that on a bike.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Hunrobe" wrote in message
...
DTJ

wrote in part:

we always here of cyclists who
were killed by someone running them over from behind.

We do? I know of several cyclists injured in motor vehicle versus bicycle
crashes. None of them were struck form behind. This of course proves
nothing-
almost as little as your assertion above.

The only serious injury in my neighborhood that I know of was when a woman
was going the wrong way, riding in a crosswalk.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:18:33 -0400, ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

The physics would seem to dictate that speed is always a contributing
factor in traffic fatalities.

So all vehicles should be limited to 25 MPH at all times then, by your
logic. Somehow I don't think even Joan Claybrook herself would advocate
such measures. Hell, I can go faster than that on a bike.

I've noticed before that arguing with enslaved auto addicts is a
pointless exercise. They're too emotionally attached to their stinky
obsolescing status symbols and the cretinous culture it's bred.

My point is that I care spit if you want to smack your scud into a
bridge abutment at 120mph. Just make sure you're not harming anyone
else. If you do, you should have your license pulled forever.

I have zero tolerance for you self indulgent asswipes that flagrantly
kill others with regular impunity.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:
Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:18:33 -0400, ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


The physics would seem to dictate that speed is always a contributing
factor in traffic fatalities.

So all vehicles should be limited to 25 MPH at all times then, by your
logic. Somehow I don't think even Joan Claybrook herself would advocate
such measures. Hell, I can go faster than that on a bike.


I've noticed before that arguing with enslaved auto addicts is a
pointless exercise. They're too emotionally attached to their stinky
obsolescing status symbols and the cretinous culture it's bred.

My point is that I care spit if you want to smack your scud into a
bridge abutment at 120mph. Just make sure you're not harming anyone
else. If you do, you should have your license pulled forever.

I have zero tolerance for you self indulgent asswipes that flagrantly
kill others with regular impunity.

Why do you assert that because I choose to drive faster than 25 MPH that
I "kill others with regular impunity?" Where's your proof?

Did you know that the speed statistically safest to minimize one's
chances of being in an incident is the 85th percentile speed of traffic?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:43:49 GMT, DTJ wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:45:20 GMT, "Pete" wrote:

Crash statistics say otherwise.
Centuries of collected experience say otherwise.
My own few decades of experience say otherwise.

The fact is that for most people who are just biking around town, it
is indeed safer to ride against traffic. I am not talking about the
main roads, although I ride the same way there when I have to be on
them. However, I have had numerous events occur that required me to
ditch my bike, which would have been impossible had I not seen the
driver coming up behind me. Further, we always here of cyclists who
were killed by someone running them over from behind.

My point exactly. About ten years ago in the S.F. bay area (California)
4 bicyclists were killed by one girl who was looking for a CD and
drifted onto the bike path. All four bicyclists were riding legally.
They got killed because they were following the law.
The girl got off with a ridiculously light sentence.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

DTJ wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:45:20 GMT, "Pete" wrote:


Crash statistics say otherwise.
Centuries of collected experience say otherwise.
My own few decades of experience say otherwise.


The fact is that for most people who are just biking around town, it
is indeed safer to ride against traffic.

Absolutely false.

Try looking for actual data that backs up your claim. You'll find
you're far, far wrong.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:32:44 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:

In article ,
Bill Baka writes:

This right way/wrong way is starting to sound like a religious war.
I ride one road that requires me to ride wrong way in one direction.
The road has a bike path on one side only, so I am right way going
one direction, wrong way coming back.

When you encounter a rider going in the right direction while you're
going in the wrong direction on this bike path, how do you pass?

I dismount so as to not confuse the other rider. I don't use clips.

Is there enough room for bikes to pass each other within the path?
Even bikes with wider than usual handlebars?

If so, do you pass port-to-port, or starboard-to-starboard?

If not, on whom is the onus to swing out into the real roadway --
you, with your straight-ahead view of approaching cars? And
does your counterflow riding maneuver also imply that you're
taking the initiative to make any & all further evasive actions?

Or is the onus on the right-way rider, who'd normally swing out
to pass another right-way rider anyway?

I'm gonna be honest, and not pull any punches about risking
getting clobbered by cars, etc. My main beef with wrong-way
riders is that they interfere with /me/ -- a right-way rider.

I have only encountered one other bicyclist on the road I ride
wrong way. Other people avoid that stretch of road.
Bill Baka


cheers,
Tom




--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

R15757 wrote:

But you've repeatedly stated that traffic laws "work
remarkably well." Question:
If traffic laws work so remarkably
well, why couldn't you just cruise around daydreaming, as long as you follow
all the laws, that is?
Answer: because traffic laws do not work remarkably
well.

I think you're definition of "remarkably well" is based on some fairy tale.

Screwdrivers work remarkably well. Radios work remarkably well. And
traffic laws work remarkably well, as do thousands of other devices and
systems.

Each enables the user to accomplish something practical if used with a
minimum of common sense and training.

Of course, a screwdriver can be misused so as to put out your eye. A
radio can be dropped into a bathtub and cause an electrocution. And
traffic laws can be both flagrantly violated, and overly trusted. But
that doesn't change the fact that all these things do work very well,
indeed.

If they didn't, society would come up with something that does work
well, to replace them.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:17:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Bill Baka wrote:

I was on the right, riding on the white line where the pavement
drops off into dirt, or where I was at the railroad tracks.

I'd _never_ do that. I'm a very steady rider, but I'm _not_ going to
put my self within six inches of a drop off. The usual result of a
slight mistake is a quick fall, perhaps under the wheels of a car that's
trying to squeeze by you!

Again, no bike lane...

They're not necessary. All you need is enough lane width. If you don't
have enough lane width, you take the lane. Drivers will go around you,
just as they go around me.

... and I doubt that a rear view mirror would have
been that much help since said kid in truck was doing about 70 in a 55.
If I had taken the lane I probably would have been hit and he would have
gotten off with "He came out of nowhere."

No, if you had taken the lane, he would have either passed immediately
in the opposite lane, or slowed and waited until traffic was clear to
get around you in the opposite lane.

Don't you believe that this is what we do??

I think the kid would have just hit me since he was obviously not
about concerned missing me. There was no oncoming traffic and he
could have easily used the other lane but instead appeared to be
playing "How close can I get?" when his mirror het my arm.

Now I just don't ride in that
area any more. The irony is that the spot is in the town of Sutter, Ca.
where the annual 'Bike around the buttes' is held.

Well, a person shouldn't ride in a place that makes him too afraid. You
need to gradually increase your skill and comfort level.

I am not afraid of much of anything and I have more than enough skill.
I used to race motorcycles, non-professionaly on dirt track, lots of
controlled side sliding and other stuff. I also do a lot of off road
riding that requires a reasonable amout of skill.

But it should occur to you that others (like those organizing and riding
the "Buttes" ride) handle those roads without problems!

When the Buttes ride is on there are plenty of cops and SAG vehicles, plus
the traffic is limited to those who live on the route. I ride it every
year sometimes the short course 40 miles, sometimes the century.
It is a controlled environment ride and for some reason we all ride on
the right.
Bill Baka





--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:09:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Bill Baka wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:30:05 GMT, AustinMN wrote:

If you stop 10 feet (3 meters) short
of the intersection, a significant percentage of right-turning drivers
will
still hit you. You do not have to be in front of them, you just need
to be
where they are neither expecting you nor looking for you. A classic
situation where a wrong-way driver is in danger no matter what he does
to
compensate.

Austin

If that ever happened I would be on the sidewalk in a hurry.

?? Then you must literally be stopping for every car that appears!
Otherwise, such a move is often impossible!

It doesn't happen since I am right side where there are lights.

I make it a point to see what (or if) the driver may be thinking.

Hah!

If you can really do that, you're wasting your time here. You should be
entering big-stakes poker games. By "seeing" what someone is thinking,
there are millions to be made!

When I see someone using a cell phone I stay way clear of them.

Besides that I ride right way within town limits, even hitting the
button
for the crosswalk just like a pedestrian.

?? Well, that's the "right way" if you happen to be walking the bike,
all right. But you seem unaware that it's better to operate a bike as a
vehicle.

You missed my point. I live where there are too many bad drivers.

Even riding on the right side
I have almost been hit by drivers making left turns into parking lots
without signals.

Note that this, too, is more of a problem for cyclists who hug the curb
too closely. When you do that, you aren't a visible part of traffic.

Hugging the curb, means I am riding in the bike lane, legally.

Defensive driving is needed more on a bike than motorcycle or car.

I'm not sure. From what I've seen, the per-hour fatality rate is MUCH
worse for motorcycling. Personally, I feel safer on my bicycle than on
my motorcycle.



That is because there are a lot of motorcyclist who think they can
weave through traffic and misjudge, then splat. Speed is an issue too,
since I like to see if the bike will go to the top of the speedometer.
I once pegged a 160 MPH speedometer, but only once. That blast was
enough for me. Now I keep it under 90 MPH.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/