A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old November 11th 13, 03:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:29:17 -0600, Stephen Bauman
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 21:59:02 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


I suppose that may be true in some areas, but in almost every place I've
ridden, the traffic signals have been easily visible when I've been
stopped at the light.


You move your head when you are stopped at a light. This brings the light
within your field of vision.

When you are riding your eyes and attention are on the road ahead of you.
In most cases your concentration is looking at the near field to avoid
potholes.

Your vertical field of vision is limited to +/- 15 degrees. Even if your
head looked straight ahead (level with the horizontal plane), a traffic
light would leave your field of vision 56 feet in front of it.

The brain processes what the eye sees. It abhors discontinuities and will
make you think you see things you do not. This is why those people with
blind spots in their visual field have a difficult time recognizing their
condition. Many optical illusions are based on the brain's propensity to
interpolate between discontinuities. Motion pictures are the best known
example.

Similarly, objects to not appear to suddenly disappear when they leave
one's field of vision. The brain makes you believe you still see them.
The brain cannot account for state changes in these objects, once they
have left the field of vision. Therefore, a light changing from green to
yellow will not be detected, when that light is outside the field of
vision.

Traffic lights are supposed to be placed at least 40 feet beyond the stop
line. This places the point where the traffic light leaves one's field of
vision at 16 feet before the stop line. The minimum duration for the
combined yellow and red guard intervals is 3.5 seconds. A car moving at
40 mph will travel 210 feet or 194 feet beyond the stop line in those 3.5
seconds. This is usually enough for the car to clear the intersection.
However, a bike moving at 10 mph will travel only 52.5 feet or 36.5 feet
beyond the stop line. This usually leaves the bike about 2 lanes into the
intersection.

Stephen Bauman


I see, you are having problems seeing stop signals that other have no
problem seeing.... perhaps you should stop driving if you can't see
the traffic signs.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Ads
  #42  
Old November 11th 13, 03:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:48:19 -0600, Stephen Bauman
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:52:53 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:29:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:


snip



Traffic lights are supposed to be placed at least 40 feet beyond the
stop line.


Do you have a source for that?


I had previously mentioned it: The Federal Highway Administration's
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD).

Here's a link to the current MUTCD:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm

The specific confirmation you seek is in Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf

In particular, check out section 4D-14 on page 464: Longitudinal
Positioning of Signal Faces. Figure 4D-4 on page 463 is worth a thousand
words regarding this topic.

Stephen Bauman


I see, ten million drivers don't have a problem but you do therefore
the problem lies with the placement of the traffic signs...
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #43  
Old November 11th 13, 03:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:37:49 -0800, Dan
wrote:

Stephen Bauman writes:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:52:53 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:29:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:


snip



Traffic lights are supposed to be placed at least 40 feet beyond the
stop line.

Do you have a source for that?


I had previously mentioned it: The Federal Highway Administration's
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD).

Here's a link to the current MUTCD:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm

The specific confirmation you seek is in Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf

In particular, check out section 4D-14 on page 464: Longitudinal
Positioning of Signal Faces. Figure 4D-4 on page 463 is worth a thousand
words regarding this topic.


It blows me away that anyone familiar with USA roads would
not agree that the rules are geared for automobiles.


It seems equally surprising that one should be surprised that rules
are geared to the requirements of the majority of the users :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #44  
Old November 11th 13, 03:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:39:41 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:14:33 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

But the rant sounds a lot like the truck driver that turned right and
killed the lady cyclist... "I didn't see her".


What you've described - a lady killed by a truck turning right turn (or left turn in "drive on the left" countries) is a well-known cause of cyclist death, especially in crowded cities. London is an example. And our city had a sidewalk-riding kid killed that way a few years ago.

IIRC, in London it _is_ far most often a lady, which has led to some speculation about the reason for the gender disparity. Some have said that perhaps women are less confident, and feel a self-imposed requirement to stay as close as possible to the curb, whereas men might be more willing to be at the safer lane center.

Drivers of big trucks really can't see along the trucks' sides very well. Bike lanes are certainly no guarantee of safety in this situation.

(Heck, I'm even leery of passing stopped motorcycles at their curb side.)

- Frank Krygowski


That is something that I've always wondered about. Here's a big truck
planning on turning into a side road, here comes a bicycle cruising
down the shoulder. The truck, who was doing say 35 MPH slows to make
the turn. Doesn't the bicycle notice? "Heh, Wow! I'm catching that
big guy?"

--
Cheers,

John B.
  #45  
Old November 11th 13, 03:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

John B. writes:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:37:49 -0800, Dan
wrote:

Stephen Bauman writes:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:52:53 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:29:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:

snip



Traffic lights are supposed to be placed at least 40 feet beyond the
stop line.

Do you have a source for that?


I had previously mentioned it: The Federal Highway Administration's
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD).

Here's a link to the current MUTCD:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm

The specific confirmation you seek is in Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf

In particular, check out section 4D-14 on page 464: Longitudinal
Positioning of Signal Faces. Figure 4D-4 on page 463 is worth a thousand
words regarding this topic.


It blows me away that anyone familiar with USA roads would
not agree that the rules are geared for automobiles.


It seems equally surprising that one should be surprised that rules
are geared to the requirements of the majority of the users :-)


I'm not surprised. In fact it's completely understandable.

What I'm expressing is the basic reason they are less applicable
to the very different needs of bicyclists, and thus it is often
*reasonable* to deviate from them in some situations.
  #46  
Old November 11th 13, 03:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:58:57 -0800 (PST), yirgster
wrote:

It's amazing to me that this thread immediately devolved into details concerning the context of what the roads are like an similar. Which have been fought over time and again in this group with virtually no resolve. Even the occasional lurker here could spout them from memory while solving differential equations.

The main thrust of the article--which appears to have been totally ignored--is that drivers who kill cyclists get away with it, even when they have committed violations, and get away with it with the outright complicity, to put it mildly, of the police.

The actions of the SFPD are beyond the pale, totally reprehensible.

It's these that should be the focus.


I don't see that it is a matter of "motorists that kill cyclists" it
is more a matter of "motorists that kill people" as the same rules and
regulation seem to apply if they run over a pedestrian or crush
another car.

I've always wondered, particularly in the U.S., why there weren't
civil suits brought against a motorist who runs over someone's husband
and father? After all if you are in an accident down at work that rips
your arm off you may well collect a compensation equal to the
potential earnings that you have been deprived of due to the loss of
your arm. why not the loss of income due to the death of the Lord and
Master of the household.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #47  
Old November 11th 13, 03:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 1:22:25 PM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:

Well, maybe it's bad memory due to being sixty;

maybe it's never having lost my teenager's lack of any sense of caution;

maybe it's the same thing that makes it nearly impossible for me to hold
a grudge.

Whatever it is, I never find myself nervous about traffic. Used to
freak out my former boss--I no longer work for her and she STILL
worries. I do intellectually recognize there are some hazards and
try to remember to act accordingly.


It's pretty much the same for me, although I'm definitely past 60!

- Frank Krygowski
  #48  
Old November 11th 13, 03:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:48:19 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:52:53 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:29:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:


Traffic lights are supposed to be placed at least 40 feet beyond the


stop line.



Do you have a source for that?


....

The specific confirmation you seek is in Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf

In particular, check out section 4D-14 on page 464: Longitudinal
Positioning of Signal Faces. Figure 4D-4 on page 463 is worth a thousand
words regarding this topic.


OK, thanks.

- Frank Krygowski
  #49  
Old November 11th 13, 03:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:04:21 -0800, Dan
wrote:

yirgster writes:

It's amazing to me that this thread immediately devolved into details concerning the context of what the roads are like an similar. Which have been fought over time and again in this group with virtually no resolve. Even the occasional lurker here could spout them from memory while solving differential equations.

The main thrust of the article--which appears to have been totally ignored--is that drivers who kill cyclists get away with it, even when they have committed violations, and get away with it with the outright complicity, to put it mildly, of the police.

The actions of the SFPD are beyond the pale, totally reprehensible.


It's the culture - the collective attitudes.

It's assumed that if a bicyclist was involved it must have
been their fault. The author of this article and many others
(in the collective mindset) propose the solution is for
bicyclists to behave _like good motorists_. But bicyclists
are not motorists. The Rules of the Road are geared for
motorists. It doesn't make sense for bicyclists to dogmatically
adhere to them - except to reinforce the sense that automobiles
rule. Bicyclists can violate these rules and _still not create
any sort of practical traffic problems_.

Certainly. cyclists are soft and comparatively light so even if you
hit one it doesn't cause much damage to the car, hardly a scratch in
some cases. So even if they do violate the rules of the road it is
little or no skin off the motorists nose.

Thus, one would suppose, the superior ( this is right out of Chinese
philosophy) person should conduct him/her-self (politically
correctness too) in such a manner as to not impose on the space
occupied by a large, heavy, hard, quickly, moving object.

It's these that should be the focus.


The culture and attitudes must change. The solution is
butts on bikes (that and human decency in social interaction
ala Monderman) which will be the writing on the wall that
automobiles do not rule. The rules will change, too - *more*
than the current token patches grafted and shoehorned.


Or perhaps the Butts on Bikes should concern themselves with not
coming in contact with large, heavy, hard, fast, moving objects.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #50  
Old November 11th 13, 03:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
datakoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,793
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Well written word package,
Effective communication at a high level of theater and impact.
Gold star
The highway safety norms are directed to the low median of perception and understanding. That was my direction and the writer’s.
Our direction is to pierce that layer with information communicating our presence direction and rights for survival.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NY Times Cycling Article Bret Racing 1 March 20th 09 05:24 AM
Cycling article in todays Irish Times VinDevo UK 0 August 28th 08 02:09 PM
Sunday Times article on cycling safety. Garry from Cork UK 26 March 1st 08 01:40 PM
Another Times article about cycling and trains wafflycat UK 2 April 24th 06 02:48 PM
Times article on cycling 20p per mile dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers UK 15 January 28th 04 05:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.