Rules of Thumb

On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:11:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:34:26 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
Whatever became of all the "rules of thumb" that I used to read about
in the bike magazines.

I remember strict instructions that the front of the knee must be
directly over the center line of the pedal when the crank was
horizontal, and that the end of road bike handle bars should point at
the rear wheel axle. And when one is in the drops the handle bars
should "cover" the front wheel axle.

I even remember articles about how to tape the handle bars - this was
in the days of thin bar wrapping - and some folks even recommended a
layer of "air conditioning pipe insulation" applied to the bars before
wrapping with the tape.

Now all I read is "Ohhhh, that bike is Soooo stiff", and I even saw
one entitled "Ride without looking like a Rookie" and another "How to
enjoy a solo ride".

Are bicycles now so standardized that we now don't have to be told how
to adjust handle bars? Or does the LBS now do it for us?

I even came across an article "Race Back in Time at L'Eroica" a story
about riding a steel frame bicycle that had toe clips and down tube
shifters while wearing a wool jersey.

(I think that old age has crept up behind me when I wasn't looking :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Today's magazines have no writing worth reading. The bike tests are nothing more than advertisements with every one of them "the best bike I ever rode" when the truth is that there is so little difference between the high end bikes that it is almost impossible to detect. I have three Colnagos that have some 20 years between them all and they hang from the ceiling in the garage. If you look at the geometry they are all identical to the eye.

There are no rules of thumb or even any good ideas because most of the writers are so young that they haven't ridden more than a half dozen years and the older one's are exhausted.

You know that if John and Frank and Jerge can think of fresh, intelligent, whimsical or funny things to say why wouldn't you run across this in a magazine? Because magazines no longer hire someone because they're writers but because they're someone that will do a job - advertise bicycles for maximum income.

I suspect that the "truth of the matter" is that readers have changed.
BICYCLING claims a circulation of something like 325,000 and the other
end of the line ProCycling has a circulation of 54,000 so quite a lot
of people seem to be satisfied.

On the other hand, many magazines, like Popular Mechanics, Field and
Stream, for example, have changed their content radically. I remember
Popular Mechanics publishing articles detailing how to build a Midget
race car, with a 60 HP ford engine. Or how to make a hunting knife out
of a saw blade (my father did that one), and Field & Stream used to
publish very detailed accounts of big game hunting trips or one guy
advocating high velocity bullets against another guy arguing that big
slow bullets were the answer.

Now they seem more like "show and tell" in grade school.


But there do seem to be on-line magazines that are very informative
although very specialized, and I occasionally see Velo News and they
still have quite a bit of technical stuff... they even currently have
a video on how to adjust V-brakes :-) a subject that excited some
interest here a while ago.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:18:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:34:26 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
Whatever became of all the "rules of thumb" that I used to read about
in the bike magazines.

I remember strict instructions that the front of the knee must be
directly over the center line of the pedal when the crank was
horizontal, and that the end of road bike handle bars should point at
the rear wheel axle. And when one is in the drops the handle bars
should "cover" the front wheel axle.

I even remember articles about how to tape the handle bars - this was
in the days of thin bar wrapping - and some folks even recommended a
layer of "air conditioning pipe insulation" applied to the bars before
wrapping with the tape.

Now all I read is "Ohhhh, that bike is Soooo stiff", and I even saw
one entitled "Ride without looking like a Rookie" and another "How to
enjoy a solo ride".

Are bicycles now so standardized that we now don't have to be told how
to adjust handle bars? Or does the LBS now do it for us?

I even came across an article "Race Back in Time at L'Eroica" a story
about riding a steel frame bicycle that had toe clips and down tube
shifters while wearing a wool jersey.

(I think that old age has crept up behind me when I wasn't looking :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

With all of the bikes from steel to titanium to aluminum to carbon tubes on aluminum lugs to all carbon the best bike I've ever ridden is a tie between a steel Merckx OS Corsa and a steel Basso OS Lotto. These bikes are slightly heavier than modern bikes but that only makes a difference when you're racing.

And, with the older bikes you can usually fit fenders so you don't
have to stay at home if it looks like rain :-)



But the play-racers of today HAVE to catch anyone that is in front of them so they have to have the lightest bikes available mounting the most gears possible when these gears stopped being effective for a sports rider after 8 speeds. Hell I even have to shift twice on my 9 speed all the time. The only reason that I've been forced up into more speeds is because of the absence of spare parts for the 8 speed groups.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:38:06 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-29 11:18, wrote:
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:34:26 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
Whatever became of all the "rules of thumb" that I used to read
about in the bike magazines.

I remember strict instructions that the front of the knee must be
directly over the center line of the pedal when the crank was
horizontal, and that the end of road bike handle bars should point
at the rear wheel axle. And when one is in the drops the handle
bars should "cover" the front wheel axle.

I even remember articles about how to tape the handle bars - this
was in the days of thin bar wrapping - and some folks even
recommended a layer of "air conditioning pipe insulation" applied
to the bars before wrapping with the tape.

Now all I read is "Ohhhh, that bike is Soooo stiff", and I even
saw one entitled "Ride without looking like a Rookie" and another
"How to enjoy a solo ride".

Are bicycles now so standardized that we now don't have to be told
how to adjust handle bars? Or does the LBS now do it for us?

I even came across an article "Race Back in Time at L'Eroica" a
story about riding a steel frame bicycle that had toe clips and
down tube shifters while wearing a wool jersey.

(I think that old age has crept up behind me when I wasn't looking
:-) -- cheers,

John B.

With all of the bikes from steel to titanium to aluminum to carbon
tubes on aluminum lugs to all carbon the best bike I've ever ridden
is a tie between a steel Merckx OS Corsa and a steel Basso OS Lotto.
These bikes are slightly heavier than modern bikes but that only
makes a difference when you're racing.


Amen!

After adding all sorts of useful stuff and some ruggedizing my MTB
weighs close to 40lbs and my road bike is well over 30lbs. Who cares?
Even when I know a trip will only be 20mi I leave the whole big tool kit
in there. It's in a pouch so would be easy to take out but why bother? I
also carry excess water in the panniers.


I can't comment on the MTB but the road bike sounds kind of heavy. My
road bikes weigh in the 11 - 12 kg. range with everything including
tools, spare tube, etc., but not including water in the bottles.


But the play-racers of today HAVE to catch anyone that is in front of
them so they have to have the lightest bikes available mounting the
most gears possible when these gears stopped being effective for a
sports rider after 8 speeds. Hell I even have to shift twice on my 9
speed all the time. The only reason that I've been forced up into
more speeds is because of the absence of spare parts for the 8 speed
groups.


I found that 7-speed parts are widely available (in the US) and I get
about twice the bang for the buck versus 10-speed which my MTB
unfortunately came with.

Cheer up. Here nearly all new road bikes now have 11 speed, with, of
course, a commensurate increase in price.

Even with the 11-32T 7-speed cassette I have on my trusty old steel road
bike now I usually shift across two gears, in the hills near home
sometimes three. Overshifting is about the only situation where the
friction shifters shine.

:-) In some places I don't just shift two gears. I go all the way to
the bottom :-)


If Rohloff had an affordable 5-6 speed with a 400-500% ratio I'd pounce.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 13:40:29 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:18:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:

snip

With all of the bikes from steel to titanium to aluminum to carbon tubes on aluminum lugs to all carbon the best bike I've ever ridden is a tie between a steel Merckx OS Corsa and a steel Basso OS Lotto. These bikes are slightly heavier than modern bikes but that only makes a difference when you're racing.

But the play-racers of today HAVE to catch anyone that is in front of them so they have to have the lightest bikes available mounting the most gears possible when these gears stopped being effective for a sports rider after 8 speeds. Hell I even have to shift twice on my 9 speed all the time. The only reason that I've been forced up into more speeds is because of the absence of spare parts for the 8 speed groups.

Why ineffective after 8 speeds?

All of the old dudes on this NG got by fine with 5sp freewheels, but would I want a 5sp now? Gawd no.

A while back I bought a bike with a 7 speed cassette and rode it a
bit. What I noticed was that I never seemed to be in the "right gear"
it was always a little bit too high or a bit too low.

These days you can spec a race bike with gears so low you're popping wheelies unless you get out of the saddle, and you still have a pretty tight range with all the favorite gears. Riders have wised-up. It's now sit-and-spin and not stand-and-grind. I don't like the shorter useful life of narrow chains and cassettes, but riding a 10sp or 11sp racing bike is nice, particularly if you are riding on varying terrain with a fast group of play-racers -- or in any setting where keeping up is desired.

-- Jay Beattie






--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/29/2016 10:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:15:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/29/2016 4:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:46:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


But let's review. I've always said that if there's enough lane width to
safely share it, I do share the lane. IOW, I ride as far right as I
think is reasonable.

No Frank, you have not "always said". In fact that was what initially
led me to reply to one of your, long ago, posts. What you usually say
is something along the line of "well, I've been taking the lane for
years, and it is my right under state laws and bicycle instructors
teach it."

Ah. So you interpret "I've always said..." to mean "Each and every time
I've ever posted anything, I've said the following:..."

No Frank I don't "interpret". As I stated, "What you usually say
is something along the line of "well, I've been taking the lane for
years, and it is my right under state laws and bicycle instructors
teach it."

A few synonym for "usually" would be, "almost always, frequently,
normally, commonly, ordinarily"

In fact, I can't remember you ever saying something like, "when it is
safe to do so" in connection with your advice to seize the lane. Of
course this is not proof positive that you never said it, just that
you don't say it frequently enough for it to be memorable.

I suppose "memorable" depends on one's memory. I just tried to make
things clear once again. I have tried to make these things clear many
times in the past. Perhaps you weren't reading those discussions.
Perhaps you simply forgot those discussions. Again, "memorable" depends
on one's memory.

Yes, my emphasis is certainly on taking the lane when necessary (note
the "when necessary", John). If there were vast number of cyclists who
were obstructing traffic for no reason, I'd probably emphasize being
more cooperative. I put emphasis where I do because the vast majority
of cyclists think they must get out of the way, no matter what. I've
given examples here before, and can repeat them if necessary. Let me
know if you need them.

I see. You don't have to "get out of the way"? Just ride right on out
there because you have the "right to ride your bicycle on the road"?

No, John, you're still confused. You really should read three or four
of the books and documents I cited. It's not like I'm the only person
saying this. Not even close.

FWIW, in the very first cycling class I took, back in about 1980 (during
which they asked me to become certified as an instructor) I asked for
extra advice on how to improve my riding. Understand, I had gotten 100%
on the final written test and easily passed the road test, but I was
trying to be as competent as I could.

The instructor replied "Well, you're still riding too far to the right."
We discussed that further, and thereafter I gave extra attention to
that aspect of riding. More briefly, I've thought about this a LOT.
Far more than you have, quite obviously.

Again (and please take notes!): When the lane is wide enough to safely
share with a motor vehicle, I ride far enough right to facilitate safe
passing by motor vehicles. When the lane is too narrow or is otherwise
unsafe to share with a motor vehicle, I ride far enough left to prevent
the following driver from trying to pass within the lane. What I do is
specifically legal, it's taught in every legitimate cycling class I've
ever heard of, and it's what's recommended in countless books and
websites (including some posted by police departments). In my
experience and the experience of many cyclists, it works very well to
increase safety and make cycling more pleasant.


None of this should be difficult to understand. It's part of Effective
Cycling courses and League of American Bicyclists riding courses. It's
part of _Street Smarts_, it's part of _Cyclecraft_, it's part of these
courses https://abea.bike/ and these
http://www.cyclingcanada.ca/resource...-bike-courses/ and
every other cycling class or book that deals with riding in traffic.
Perhaps you should buy a copy of _Cyclecraft_. Or at LEAST read and
think about this:
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter2a.htm

Strictly from reading your posts I can only assume that you are
advocating is that regardless of the traffic,, if you feel the need,
you just ride on out there in the middle of the lane.

Re-read what you wrote, but say the part "If you feel the need" out
loud, for emphasis. When there's no need - i.e. when I can safely share
the lane - I definitely do so.

Ah, "can safely share the lane". If memory serves this is a new
requirement, that I don't remember you ever including in one of your
posts.

Again, memory can be a tricky thing!

As above, I believe that it was you that stated, "The exception
is when there is an area where I must keep motorist behind me".

Do you honestly believe that an doddering old bloke on a bicycle can
actually "keep motorists behind me"?

What I've described above is what I do to at least some extent on almost
every ride. But to help your confusion, my objective is not to "keep
motorists behind me." My objective is to dissuade unsafe passing.
That's not quite the same thing - although I suppose some people might
be confused about the difference.

In situations where there is no way to safely pass until oncoming
traffic presents a gap, then yes, they must wait behind me, unless they
choose to drive directly over me. In well over 40 years of riding,
nobody has ever done that. From that, you might be able to judge what a
doddering old bloke can do.

I might mention that a while ago two foreigners, on a round the world
cycling expedition I believe, were hit and killed by a pickup truck in
N.E. Thailand. From the news it appears that they were on a wide two
lane road, riding two abreast in "their lane" and the pickup came
around a corner and hit them from behind. Had they been riding in line
on the side of the road that might be alive today.

And I've linked to accounts of pedestrians on sidewalks being killed by
cars. I can find for you accounts of bicyclists being hit from behind
while riding in bike lanes - including one, IIRC, where the offending
motorist was a cop. (And BTW, your link to a drugged Kohn Kaen
motorist, like most such articles, does not describe the cyclist lane
position.)

If one or two anomalous anecdotes are going to rule your life, perhaps
you need to join Joerg in a nice, safe concrete tower.


Well, I once had a very large double decker cruise bus once came up
beside me at a stop light and I could, without stretching lay my palm
on the side of the bus.

Then I, and every cycling instructor I know (there are many) would say
you played that wrong.

I played it wrong? I was at a stop light, sitting there on the edge of
the road, on my bike with my outside foot on an 8 inch curb and this
big white "wall" rolled up beside me.

You played it wrong. When you're stopped at a traffic light, it's far
safer to be at lane center.

In London last year, the press went manic on the issue of bicyclist
deaths. It was the usual "Danger! Danger!" or "year of the shark"
claptrap, because contrary to claims, there was no increase over the
previous year, the long term trend had been steadily downward, and the
pedestrian fatality count completely eclipsed the cyclist count - as
usual - with no corresponding hand wringing.

But those deaths that did occur were disproportionately caused by
cyclists at the curb side of large vehicles that turned over them when
the light turned green.

The solution is simple: Be at lane center. You may not believe it, but
it's standard advice, and it works. IOW, you played it wrong.


In addition to riding lane-centered to prevent unsafe passing, another
principle of traffic cycling is that if you're moving at the same speed
as motor vehicle traffic, you should be at lane center. That includes if
the speed of traffic is zero.

Accordingly, when I come to a stop at a stop sign or traffic light, I'm
at lane center whether or not the lane is wide. Doing so greatly
reduces the two biggest intersection hazards: right hooks and left
crosses (or in drive-on-left countries, left hooks and right crosses).

But apropos of your meaning, If there isn't room for me and a 14 wheel
truck, hauling forty or fifty ton, or even a 90cc motorcycle, why, I
get out of the way.

In that case, you wouldn't be able to do any of our bike club rides.
You'd be off the side of the road "out of the way" as the rest of the
riders proceeded down the road. You wouldn't be able to make your way
to the store I'll visit this morning. You certainly wouldn't be able to
do the bike tours I've done, nor the ones I still plan to do. Without
accepting and using your right to the road,

You explanation is, well, self serving. You allege that if one rides
in the middle of the road they are safe so I can only assume that no
rider who rides in the middle of the lane has been hit by a car?

That's a very simple minded notion of "safe." It's not what was stated,
and I find it hard to believe that you actually think that way.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:46:41 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 3:24:57 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 4:40:31 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:18:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:

snip

With all of the bikes from steel to titanium to aluminum to carbon tubes on aluminum lugs to all carbon the best bike I've ever ridden is a tie between a steel Merckx OS Corsa and a steel Basso OS Lotto. These bikes are slightly heavier than modern bikes but that only makes a difference when you're racing.

But the play-racers of today HAVE to catch anyone that is in front of them so they have to have the lightest bikes available mounting the most gears possible when these gears stopped being effective for a sports rider after 8 speeds. Hell I even have to shift twice on my 9 speed all the time. The only reason that I've been forced up into more speeds is because of the absence of spare parts for the 8 speed groups.

Why ineffective after 8 speeds?

All of the old dudes on this NG got by fine with 5sp freewheels, but would I want a 5sp now? Gawd no.

These days you can spec a race bike with gears so low you're popping wheelies unless you get out of the saddle, and you still have a pretty tight range with all the favorite gears. Riders have wised-up. It's now sit-and-spin and not stand-and-grind. I don't like the shorter useful life of narrow chains and cassettes, but riding a 10sp or 11sp racing bike is nice, particularly if you are riding on varying terrain with a fast group of play-racers -- or in any setting where keeping up is desired.

-- Jay Beattie

I know a lot of people who found/find the 52-14 combo on the lod freeweels too high a gear for them. So the 11,12 and 13 teeth cogs are extra weight for them.

I liked the 9-speed because I could set it up with a close 7-speed cluster plus two extra lower bail out gears. If i hasd an 11-speed I could do the same thing but with 9 closer spaced cogs and two bailout cogs. 9-speed is enough for me.

One of the bikes I ride the most around here is my MTB with a 9-speed 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 19 corncob coupled to a 26-38-48 chainset. I find it's perfect for the rolling hills hereabouts. I want to put the same thing on one of my road bikes that I use just for road riding.

I have a friend with almost the same set-up on an old Cannondale.
She loves it, although finding cassettes is a trick. I'm fine with
nine on my commuter and ten on my race bike. The 11sp on the Roubaix
gives me a 34/28 that I never use, but will soon as I grow even older
and more decrepit.

I could give my son a CVT. He's like a constant speed motor and shifts a lot.
It's almost distracting on climbs. I grind over temporary grade
changes, and he shifts -- and then chides me for grinding. He has a
10sp and uses all the cogs a lot.

-- Jay Beattie.

When he shifts is that because he is behind you catching up or ahead
of you going away? :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 23:46:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 10:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:15:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/29/2016 4:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:46:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


But let's review. I've always said that if there's enough lane width to
safely share it, I do share the lane. IOW, I ride as far right as I
think is reasonable.

No Frank, you have not "always said". In fact that was what initially
led me to reply to one of your, long ago, posts. What you usually say
is something along the line of "well, I've been taking the lane for
years, and it is my right under state laws and bicycle instructors
teach it."

Ah. So you interpret "I've always said..." to mean "Each and every time
I've ever posted anything, I've said the following:..."

No Frank I don't "interpret". As I stated, "What you usually say
is something along the line of "well, I've been taking the lane for
years, and it is my right under state laws and bicycle instructors
teach it."

A few synonym for "usually" would be, "almost always, frequently,
normally, commonly, ordinarily"

In fact, I can't remember you ever saying something like, "when it is
safe to do so" in connection with your advice to seize the lane. Of
course this is not proof positive that you never said it, just that
you don't say it frequently enough for it to be memorable.

I suppose "memorable" depends on one's memory. I just tried to make
things clear once again. I have tried to make these things clear many
times in the past. Perhaps you weren't reading those discussions.
Perhaps you simply forgot those discussions. Again, "memorable" depends
on one's memory.

As I mention above.

Yes, my emphasis is certainly on taking the lane when necessary (note
the "when necessary", John). If there were vast number of cyclists who
were obstructing traffic for no reason, I'd probably emphasize being
more cooperative. I put emphasis where I do because the vast majority
of cyclists think they must get out of the way, no matter what. I've
given examples here before, and can repeat them if necessary. Let me
know if you need them.

I see. You don't have to "get out of the way"? Just ride right on out
there because you have the "right to ride your bicycle on the road"?

No, John, you're still confused. You really should read three or four
of the books and documents I cited. It's not like I'm the only person
saying this. Not even close.

Why do I need to read a book to listen to you? Why can't I listen to
what you say and form my opinions based on that?

FWIW, in the very first cycling class I took, back in about 1980 (during
which they asked me to become certified as an instructor) I asked for
extra advice on how to improve my riding. Understand, I had gotten 100%
on the final written test and easily passed the road test, but I was
trying to be as competent as I could.

The instructor replied "Well, you're still riding too far to the right."
We discussed that further, and thereafter I gave extra attention to
that aspect of riding. More briefly, I've thought about this a LOT.
Far more than you have, quite obviously.

Again (and please take notes!): When the lane is wide enough to safely
share with a motor vehicle, I ride far enough right to facilitate safe
passing by motor vehicles. When the lane is too narrow or is otherwise
unsafe to share with a motor vehicle, I ride far enough left to prevent
the following driver from trying to pass within the lane. What I do is
specifically legal, it's taught in every legitimate cycling class I've
ever heard of, and it's what's recommended in countless books and
websites (including some posted by police departments). In my
experience and the experience of many cyclists, it works very well to
increase safety and make cycling more pleasant.

Ah! The word "safely" rears" its head. First you debate "memory" and
+memorable+ and now, for the first time, the word safe or safety
appears.

Sorry Frank, when I do anything SAFETY is my primary concern. If I am
riding a bicycle, driving a car, sailing a boat, or whittling on a
stick I do my very best not to get hurt.



None of this should be difficult to understand. It's part of Effective
Cycling courses and League of American Bicyclists riding courses. It's
part of _Street Smarts_, it's part of _Cyclecraft_, it's part of these
courses https://abea.bike/ and these
http://www.cyclingcanada.ca/resource...-bike-courses/ and
every other cycling class or book that deals with riding in traffic.
Perhaps you should buy a copy of _Cyclecraft_. Or at LEAST read and
think about this:
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter2a.htm

Strictly from reading your posts I can only assume that you are
advocating is that regardless of the traffic,, if you feel the need,
you just ride on out there in the middle of the lane.

Re-read what you wrote, but say the part "If you feel the need" out
loud, for emphasis. When there's no need - i.e. when I can safely share
the lane - I definitely do so.

Ah, "can safely share the lane". If memory serves this is a new
requirement, that I don't remember you ever including in one of your
posts.

Again, memory can be a tricky thing!

As above, I believe that it was you that stated, "The exception
is when there is an area where I must keep motorist behind me".

Do you honestly believe that an doddering old bloke on a bicycle can
actually "keep motorists behind me"?

What I've described above is what I do to at least some extent on almost
every ride. But to help your confusion, my objective is not to "keep
motorists behind me." My objective is to dissuade unsafe passing.
That's not quite the same thing - although I suppose some people might
be confused about the difference.

In situations where there is no way to safely pass until oncoming
traffic presents a gap, then yes, they must wait behind me, unless they
choose to drive directly over me. In well over 40 years of riding,
nobody has ever done that. From that, you might be able to judge what a
doddering old bloke can do.

Well, perhaps you have been lucky. After all your helmet hasn't done a
thing for you either :-)


I might mention that a while ago two foreigners, on a round the world
cycling expedition I believe, were hit and killed by a pickup truck in
N.E. Thailand. From the news it appears that they were on a wide two
lane road, riding two abreast in "their lane" and the pickup came
around a corner and hit them from behind. Had they been riding in line
on the side of the road that might be alive today.

And I've linked to accounts of pedestrians on sidewalks being killed by
cars. I can find for you accounts of bicyclists being hit from behind
while riding in bike lanes - including one, IIRC, where the offending
motorist was a cop. (And BTW, your link to a drugged Kohn Kaen
motorist, like most such articles, does not describe the cyclist lane
position.)

Yes, I am aware of that. On the other hand I haven't bothered to
research it at all. (by the way, that wasn't my quote :-)

But you are rather reinforcing my point, aren't you? That a bloke
should take adequate evasive action when attacked by anything larger
than he is... whether on or off a bicycle.

If one or two anomalous anecdotes are going to rule your life, perhaps
you need to join Joerg in a nice, safe concrete tower.


Well, yes, I suppose anecdotes do influence me... It is called
"learning by experience", and I have found that those that don't are
doomed to mishap after mishap.


Well, I once had a very large double decker cruise bus once came up
beside me at a stop light and I could, without stretching lay my palm
on the side of the bus.

Then I, and every cycling instructor I know (there are many) would say
you played that wrong.

I played it wrong? I was at a stop light, sitting there on the edge of
the road, on my bike with my outside foot on an 8 inch curb and this
big white "wall" rolled up beside me.

You played it wrong. When you're stopped at a traffic light, it's far
safer to be at lane center.

That would be a bit awkward. The Left lane was one of these go
straight (but you can turn left if safe) lanes and the law says I must
ride on the left side of the road, so I would be breaking the law to
move to the center lane....

In London last year, the press went manic on the issue of bicyclist
deaths. It was the usual "Danger! Danger!" or "year of the shark"
claptrap, because contrary to claims, there was no increase over the
previous year, the long term trend had been steadily downward, and the
pedestrian fatality count completely eclipsed the cyclist count - as
usual - with no corresponding hand wringing.

But those deaths that did occur were disproportionately caused by
cyclists at the curb side of large vehicles that turned over them when
the light turned green.

Yes, I've read those accounts, but with a certain amount of wonder. It
seems that some people ride blindly through an intersection without
ever looking behind them to see if anyone is back there.

I know that Satchel Page said, "Don't look back. Something might be
gaining on you", but I don't think he was talking about bicycles.


The solution is simple: Be at lane center. You may not believe it, but
it's standard advice, and it works. IOW, you played it wrong.


In addition to riding lane-centered to prevent unsafe passing, another
principle of traffic cycling is that if you're moving at the same speed
as motor vehicle traffic, you should be at lane center. That includes if
the speed of traffic is zero.

Accordingly, when I come to a stop at a stop sign or traffic light, I'm
at lane center whether or not the lane is wide. Doing so greatly
reduces the two biggest intersection hazards: right hooks and left
crosses (or in drive-on-left countries, left hooks and right crosses).

But apropos of your meaning, If there isn't room for me and a 14 wheel
truck, hauling forty or fifty ton, or even a 90cc motorcycle, why, I
get out of the way.

In that case, you wouldn't be able to do any of our bike club rides.
You'd be off the side of the road "out of the way" as the rest of the
riders proceeded down the road. You wouldn't be able to make your way
to the store I'll visit this morning. You certainly wouldn't be able to
do the bike tours I've done, nor the ones I still plan to do. Without
accepting and using your right to the road,

You explanation is, well, self serving. You allege that if one rides
in the middle of the road they are safe so I can only assume that no
rider who rides in the middle of the lane has been hit by a car?

That's a very simple minded notion of "safe." It's not what was stated,
and I find it hard to believe that you actually think that way.

Nope. I'm still listening to you and you are telling me that "lane
center" is the safe place to be. At a stop light "it is "far safer to
be at lane center", and so on and so forth.

And you discuss your "rights". Have you ever tried to argue your
rights with a 80 ton truck on a wet and windy night?

So in essence your entire lecture has essentially been "stay in the
middle of the road".

Thanks, but no thanks.

--
cheers,

John B.

On 30/05/16 12:46, jbeattie wrote:

I could give my son a CVT. He's like a constant speed motor and
shifts a lot. It's almost distracting on climbs. I grind over
temporary grade changes, and he shifts -- and then chides me for
grinding. He has a 10sp and uses all the cogs a lot.


Sounds like he's trying to maintain the same cadence and power.
Something Frank doesn't think bicycle riders do.

--
JS

On 5/30/2016 3:16 AM, James wrote:
On 30/05/16 12:46, jbeattie wrote:

I could give my son a CVT. He's like a constant speed motor and
shifts a lot. It's almost distracting on climbs. I grind over
temporary grade changes, and he shifts -- and then chides me for
grinding. He has a 10sp and uses all the cogs a lot.


Sounds like he's trying to maintain the same cadence and power.
Something Frank doesn't think bicycle riders do.

I think most of us get more out of breath when climbing a hill. To me,
that indicates non-constant power output. YMMV.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2016 3:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 23:46:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


No, John, you're still confused. You really should read three or four
of the books and documents I cited. It's not like I'm the only person
saying this. Not even close.

Why do I need to read a book to listen to you? Why can't I listen to
what you say and form my opinions based on that?

Because you're obviously still confused.

When I was teaching (either engineering or bicycling), I always urged my
students to read the textbook in addition to listening to my class
lectures. That way they'd get different explanations of the subject
matter, and have a higher chance of encountering an explanation they
could understand.

But to turn your question around: If this matter is so important to
you, why would you NOT examine other sources of information? Often,
unwillingness to examine recognized sources is a sign of a closed mind.

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter2a.htm is one click
away. It's been adopted for distribution by several states' departments
of transportation.

Again (and please take notes!): When the lane is wide enough to safely
share with a motor vehicle, I ride far enough right to facilitate safe
passing by motor vehicles. When the lane is too narrow or is otherwise
unsafe to share with a motor vehicle, I ride far enough left to prevent
the following driver from trying to pass within the lane. What I do is
specifically legal, it's taught in every legitimate cycling class I've
ever heard of, and it's what's recommended in countless books and
websites (including some posted by police departments). In my
experience and the experience of many cyclists, it works very well to
increase safety and make cycling more pleasant.

Ah! The word "safely" rears" its head. First you debate "memory" and
+memorable+ and now, for the first time, the word safe or safety
appears.

Um... perhaps for the first time in your memory. But I've been posting
the same thing here for decades.

Sorry Frank, when I do anything SAFETY is my primary concern.

Well, a while ago you were emphasizing rights to the road, or (more
accurately) what you perceived of as a lack of those rights - i.e. an
obligation to clear the road whenever a faster vehicle approached. I'm
happy to talk about safety.

If I am
riding a bicycle, driving a car, sailing a boat, or whittling on a
stick I do my very best not to get hurt.

.... and the question is, what's the best way to not get hurt? On the
river road I described, would I have been safer riding with my right
elbow scraping the wall and motorists scraping my left elbow as I rode
through gravel and broken glass? Or was I safer taking the lane so
motorists had to pass only when they could do it with at least several
feet of clearance? I chose the latter as being far safer. Would you
_really_ have chosen the former? Do you _really_ think that's safer?

What I've described above is what I do to at least some extent on almost
every ride. But to help your confusion, my objective is not to "keep
motorists behind me." My objective is to dissuade unsafe passing.
That's not quite the same thing - although I suppose some people might
be confused about the difference.

In situations where there is no way to safely pass until oncoming
traffic presents a gap, then yes, they must wait behind me, unless they
choose to drive directly over me. In well over 40 years of riding,
nobody has ever done that. From that, you might be able to judge what a
doddering old bloke can do.

Well, perhaps you have been lucky. After all your helmet hasn't done a
thing for you either :-)

When a person is "lucky" day after day, year after year, for over 40
years, there's something other than luck involved.

I might mention that a while ago two foreigners, on a round the world
cycling expedition I believe, were hit and killed by a pickup truck in
N.E. Thailand. From the news it appears that they were on a wide two
lane road, riding two abreast in "their lane" and the pickup came
around a corner and hit them from behind. Had they been riding in line
on the side of the road that might be alive today.

And I've linked to accounts of pedestrians on sidewalks being killed by
cars. I can find for you accounts of bicyclists being hit from behind
while riding in bike lanes - including one, IIRC, where the offending
motorist was a cop. (And BTW, your link to a drugged Kohn Kaen
motorist, like most such articles, does not describe the cyclist lane
position.)

Yes, I am aware of that. On the other hand I haven't bothered to
research it at all. (by the way, that wasn't my quote :-)

But you are rather reinforcing my point, aren't you? That a bloke
should take adequate evasive action when attacked by anything larger
than he is... whether on or off a bicycle.

"Attacked"?

FWIW, I do use a rear view mirror. I keep a sort of general awareness
of cars approaching from behind. I suppose if a motorist did "attack"
me, I'd certainly take evasive action. But after what I guess are many
millions of passing incidents, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

I can recall a situation on the highway less than a mile from my house
where I was lane-center in the right lane. A tractor-trailer moved to
the left lane to pass me, then cut in too soon. I can't say whether it
was deliberate or accidental. But having at least five clear feet to
the right did give me somewhere to "take evasive action." I moved right
a couple feet and was fine. If I'd been one foot from the gutter,
things might have been different.

Well, I once had a very large double decker cruise bus once came up
beside me at a stop light and I could, without stretching lay my palm
on the side of the bus.

Then I, and every cycling instructor I know (there are many) would say
you played that wrong.

I played it wrong? I was at a stop light, sitting there on the edge of
the road, on my bike with my outside foot on an 8 inch curb and this
big white "wall" rolled up beside me.

You played it wrong. When you're stopped at a traffic light, it's far
safer to be at lane center.

That would be a bit awkward. The Left lane was one of these go
straight (but you can turn left if safe) lanes and the law says I must
ride on the left side of the road, so I would be breaking the law to
move to the center lane....

Again, in cycling classes, books, etc. the rule is pretty simple. When
at the speed of traffic (including stopped traffic) it's best to be lane
centered in the appropriate lane for your destination. When moving in a
dual-destination lane, if the lane is too narrow to safely share you
should be at or near lane center. If a dual-destination lane is wide
enough to safely share, you should be at the side of the lane that
corresponds to your destination.

In London last year, the press went manic on the issue of bicyclist
deaths. It was the usual "Danger! Danger!" or "year of the shark"
claptrap, because contrary to claims, there was no increase over the
previous year, the long term trend had been steadily downward, and the
pedestrian fatality count completely eclipsed the cyclist count - as
usual - with no corresponding hand wringing.

But those deaths that did occur were disproportionately caused by
cyclists at the curb side of large vehicles that turned over them when
the light turned green.

Yes, I've read those accounts, but with a certain amount of wonder. It
seems that some people ride blindly through an intersection without
ever looking behind them to see if anyone is back there.

This was the common issue: A cyclist was at the curb edge of the road,
sometimes because they felt "safe" in a bike lane, sometimes because
they thought that's where a cyclist must always be. The driver of a
large vehicle at their elbow did not see them, partly because they
didn't expect anyone to be there, partly because mirrors always give an
imperfect view. The driver made a turn to the curb side direction, and
the rear wheels of the large vehicle cut close to the curb, running over
the cyclist.

Yes, I'd say the primary fault was the driver's. But if the cyclist had
stopped at lane center, there would have been no injury and no delay.
Why _not_ do that?

You explanation is, well, self serving. You allege that if one rides
in the middle of the road they are safe so I can only assume that no
rider who rides in the middle of the lane has been hit by a car?

That's a very simple minded notion of "safe." It's not what was stated,
and I find it hard to believe that you actually think that way.

Nope. I'm still listening to you and you are telling me that "lane
center" is the safe place to be. At a stop light "it is "far safer to
be at lane center", and so on and so forth.

That's true, but it's not the same thing as what you claimed above -
that "no one who rides in the middle of the lane has been hit by a car."
That was your assumption, but I've never made that statement. I'm sure
that someone, somewhere has been hit by a car while at lane center. I'm
also sure that more people have been hit by cars while at the road's
edge. I know that people have been hit by cars while riding in bike
lanes, even "protected" bike lanes. I think you're aware of these
things as well, but are now too invested in this argument to admit them.

And you discuss your "rights". Have you ever tried to argue your
rights with a 80 ton truck on a wet and windy night?

It wasn't night, but yes, many times. I've told this story several
times before, but I clearly remember the situation that most convinced
me of the value of this tactic. Here it is:

I was president of our bike club at the time. We were to be hosting a
group of Russian cyclists passing through our area. It was summer and I
was teaching only one night class on that day, so friends and I rode out
on the narrow, bumpy, potholed state route to meet the Russians and lead
them in.

The Russians were behind schedule, and I had to turn around and get back
to work. One other club member turned around with me. As we rode back,
thunderstorm downpours hit.

The road really was in terrible shape, it had dropoff ditches to the
right and lots of potholes. Lanes were probably ten feet wide, and as a
state route, it had lots of tractor trailers. At first, we were riding
in about the right tire track, but trucks were passing too close for
comfort, especially since it was hard to tell the difference between a
shallow puddle and a deep pothole.

My riding friend was timid, but I told her we really need to
conspicuously take the lane, so I moved further left. She followed.
And we heard the next truck approach from the rear as other traffic
approached from the front. We held our line, we heard the truck's
brakes, and he slowed down to our 15 mph or so and waited behind until
it was clear to pass. So did all subsequent trucks.

I've also posted here, after a very good friend took a cycling class
from me, he and his wife were riding tandem in the Finger Lakes region
of New York. No rain that time, just busy traffic on a narrow highway
generating lots of scary passes. My friend said he told his wife "Frank
says we should take the lane. Do you want me to try it?" She agreed,
and they said it "absolutely transformed the ride."

I've got other anecdotes if you want them. Trucks in Iowa staying
behind us on our coast-to-coast tour as we climbed hills at something
like 10 mph. Trucks in Italy doing the same as we pulled our luggage
trailers with our bikes. And of course, countless cars whose drivers
waited until safe to pass - something that's pretty much an everyday event.

So in essence your entire lecture has essentially been "stay in the
middle of the road".

Not always, John. Only when necessary. When I can safely share a lane,
I share the lane. When a lane is too narrow or otherwise unsafe to
share, I'm not going to put myself at greater risk by edge-riding and
inviting unsafe passing. There's no legal requirement to do so, and it
wouldn't be smart.

Thanks, but no thanks.

So in a ten foot wide lane, when an 8.5 foot wide truck comes up from
behind, what exactly _do_ you do?

To prevent wiggling away from the question, let's duplicate my river
road situation: A wall at my right (or your left). Add the gravel and
glass if you like. What _do_ you do?


--
- Frank Krygowski