Bicyclists going wrong way and other crimes

BTW you should be careful with these slow to 2 mph stops. Police now have
laser
speed detectors that are extremelly precise, unlike radars. They can
program the laser
gun to detect minimum speed read and they in fact use that to check stop
signs.

You could very easilly get a "Failled to come to a complete stop at stop
sign" ticket
which is very expensive.


"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:


I'm curious how many of you out there always obey red lights and stop
signs as if you were in a car?

I do. My cycling behavior and my driving behavior are very much the
same. And to clarify, my last driving citation (speeding) was about 1975.

This is not to say I'm perfect. Like most motorists, I treat many stop
signs as a "Slow to 2 mph sign" unless there is a real reason to stop.
But I drive, and ride, close enough to the letter of the law to get no
tickets and have no accidents.

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

Bill Baka wrote:

Did I not mention that I am always watching oncoming traffic? When a
driver sees me the usual is for them to move over to about the middle
of the road about 200 to 300 feet before we meet. I then give them a wave
and all is happy. If a driver gets within 100 feet and doesn't move
over then it is obvious they either don't see me or don't care so
I go into the brush. I pay attention, unlike so many motorists.
Bill Baka

You know, as a right way rider since about 1970, I have never, not even
once, been in a situation where I had to go into the brush. The only time I
came close was when dealing with...a wrong way cyclist!

You have convinced yourself of what you should do, and you are actively
training the motor vehicle drivers to expect you and all other cyclists to
do the same.

Good luck. You are going to need it.

Austin

Nate Nagel wrote:

Zoot Katz wrote:

Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:51:41 -0400,
, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

How many of those are _DIRECTLY_ related to speeding?

A study in NSW found 40%. Another in the UK claimed 56%.
in which speed was a factor)


All that means is that in 40% or 56% of incidents, one of the vehicles
involved was proven to have been exceeding the speed limit.

Without reading the study, it's not possible to say that. But given the
straightforward effect speed has on stopping distance, it's not hard for
me to believe there are a great many accidents that could be avoided if
speed were a little less. Say, actually within the limit, for example.

Oh, yeah, and what do studies in NSW and the UK have to do with US
traffic, anywho?

Nothing, obviously! It's well known that in NSW everything is upside
down, and in the UK everything is mirror-image, right to left. That
means all the laws of physics are completely different in those countries!

Um... or is that not what you meant??


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

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:39:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

Zoot Katz wrote:

Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:51:41 -0400,
, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

How many of those are _DIRECTLY_ related to speeding?

A study in NSW found 40%. Another in the UK claimed 56%. in which
speed was a factor)


All that means is that in 40% or 56% of incidents, one of the vehicles
involved was proven to have been exceeding the speed limit.

Without reading the study, it's not possible to say that. But given the
straightforward effect speed has on stopping distance, it's not hard for
me to believe there are a great many accidents that could be avoided if
speed were a little less. Say, actually within the limit, for example.

Oh, yeah, and what do studies in NSW and the UK have to do with US
traffic, anywho?

Nothing, obviously! It's well known that in NSW everything is upside
down, and in the UK everything is mirror-image, right to left. That
means all the laws of physics are completely different in those
countries!

Um... or is that not what you meant??

Dude - isn't it obvious. NSW and the UK are on different planets. The
acceleration of gravity is not the same. This changes everything.

--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

Zoot Katz wrote:

Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:51:41 -0400,
, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

How many of those are _DIRECTLY_ related to speeding?


A study in NSW found 40%. Another in the UK claimed 56%.
in which speed was a factor)



All that means is that in 40% or 56% of incidents, one of the vehicles
involved was proven to have been exceeding the speed limit.


Without reading the study, it's not possible to say that. But given the
straightforward effect speed has on stopping distance, it's not hard for
me to believe there are a great many accidents that could be avoided if
speed were a little less. Say, actually within the limit, for example.

I believe that I know which study the OP was referring to at least in
NSW, and it was, um, unscientific and statistically invalid, to be kind.


Oh, yeah, and what do studies in NSW and the UK have to do with US
traffic, anywho?


Nothing, obviously! It's well known that in NSW everything is upside
down, and in the UK everything is mirror-image, right to left. That
means all the laws of physics are completely different in those countries!

Um... or is that not what you meant??


LOL not exactly. I meant that the effects of exceeding the speed limit
might be different in different countries, depending on the skill level
required to obtain a license in the first place, and the method of
setting the speed limit (85th percentile, pulling a number out of your
ass, etc.) which varies greatly from country to country and even
somewhat within different states in the US.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

All that means is that in 40% or 56% of incidents, one of the vehicles
involved was proven to have been exceeding the speed limit. Since at
least in the area where I live, larger percentages of vehicles exceed
the speed limit than those given above, I don't consider that compelling
evidence that speeding is in and of itself dangerous.

One question: In the studies indicated, what is "speeding," defined as - driving
dangerously in excess of the flow of traffic or traveling at a speed higher than what
is arbitrarily posted on a sign?

--
Paul

Paul wrote:

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...


All that means is that in 40% or 56% of incidents, one of the vehicles
involved was proven to have been exceeding the speed limit. Since at
least in the area where I live, larger percentages of vehicles exceed
the speed limit than those given above, I don't consider that compelling
evidence that speeding is in and of itself dangerous.


One question: In the studies indicated, what is "speeding," defined as - driving
dangerously in excess of the flow of traffic or traveling at a speed higher than what
is arbitrarily posted on a sign?


*I* would define it as driving dangerously in excess of the flow of
traffic; however, most of the studies I've seen cited here (RAD) by
proponents of the "speed kills" argument (including one in NSW, which I
assume is the one referred to by the OP) define it as the latter.
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.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.



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

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??

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.

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


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

"Hunrobe" wrote: (clip) When, as you cycle along against traffic, you
mistake a driver's intent to turn (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Add to that possibility that the driver may have a sudden change of intent,
and do something unexpected. I'm not proud of it, but I have sometimes
realized that I was passing my street, or needed to go back for something I
had forgotten, and made a move that could have caused an accident. What's
worse about that is that a bicycle is not a very visible obstacle.
Furthermore, what might have been a fender-bender with another car could
easily be a fatal event to a bicyclist