|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 23:46:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 12/26/2019 9:06 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:01:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/26/2019 6:21 PM, John B. wrote: So, what does one do Frank? Riding along with a stream of vehicles thundering past at 100 kph and the lane becomes too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle? What does one do? Well, I've explained this before, but I'm willing to explain it again. Please take notes so I can minimize further repetition. First, I think that roads with truly _continuous_ streams of 100kph traffic and lanes too narrow to safely share are best avoided for bicycling. I avoid them. Or rather, I would avoid them if I ever saw them. I don't know of any around here, other than freeways, and bicycling is illegal on our local freeways. Second, as I've always said, if a lane is wide enough to safely share, I share that lane. We can add more detail, but I want to make that clear because in the past, those arguing against me have conjured a related straw man argument. Let's not waste time with that again, OK? So what if a lane is too narrow to safely share, and it has 100 kph traffic? I do _not_ "simply ride out in front of traffic." To me, "ride out" implies changing position quickly, with no caution, no judgment, no negotiation. ("Ride out" is actually a name given to a common car-bike crash for kids, where they zoom out of a driveway directly into a car's path.) Frank, over the years you have used the term "take the lane" and "seize the lane" which rather implies that you seize, or "grab" in common usage, control of the lane. You're paying more attention to your own visualizations than to my detailed descriptions. And of course, you're not bothering to check what the curricula I describe actually teach. You need to do more reading. You're arguing from a position of ignorance, just because you like arguing. It makes you look less than wise. \ Forgive me. I had assumed that since we are posting to a discussion group that we were having a discussion, so I was simply assumed that what you say/said in your posts was what you meant. But apparently I was mistaken and you apparently believe that you are posting such esoteric and mystifying information that one needs to research everything that you say? Normally I do as we did several times on today's ride. I wait to enter the road until there is sufficient clear space to enter safely. When I have a suitable opening, I enter and take my place at lane center. Car traffic most often travels in platoons, usually generated by traffic lights, so the wait is usually less than 30 seconds. Once I'm out there, I'm visible to the first driver of the next platoon. And since I'm typically right in the lane's center, it's obvious to that driver that they'll have to use the next lane to pass me. It's obvious even when they're far back. On today's ride, some of this happened on a four lane. In my mirror I could see motorists merging to the passing lane way, way back. None were delayed for more than a couple seconds. Why? Again, because my lane position made the necessity obvious from way, way back. On today's ride, some of this happened on two-lane ex-farm roads used as cut-throughs. (Some of this was at five o'clock, rush hour and sunset.) As usual, motorists waited until it was safe to use the oncoming lane for passing. There were no horn honks, no tailgating, no punishment passes. When it was clear, they just went around. (One guy gave a 1/10 second warning toot.) Now, a more difficult situation: What if I'm riding a busy road with a lane wide enough to share, but the lane narrows? What I normally do is negotiate my way to lane center in time to move left before the constriction. That negotiation involves looking back until I catch a motorist's eye (I use my mirror to help make my choice) as I signal my desire to move left. It almost always works well. I'll admit, though, that in my riding environment that usually happens on a road with a 40 MPH speed limit, not 100 kph. But I've done the same thing on those faster roads. The key is to make the move early enough, and to work with the gaps between platoons. Having said all that, there have been a few times (in almost 50 years) I've had to pull off the road and wait for a gap in traffic. It's been rare, but it's happened. Was all that understandable? Yup. and (at least from your description) you are riding on roads with far less traffic density than I do... Which is entirely possible. and equating your experiences to other's. Then you have mentioned your "legal rights" apparently to ride in the middle of the lane but from what I read that is in Ohio, and not the rest of the world. The techniques I've described are applicable in the U.S., Canada, Britain, the European Union and probably elsewhere. Differences, if they exist for those countries, are minor. In fact, if you look back, you'll see I specified these techniques were "actually consistent with most American and European laws". Strange isn't it. I did a quick check of Holland and Denmark cycling laws and Goodness! The Holland laws say that : "You are expected to move to the side to make room for other traffic when necessary: and The Danish rules seem to be that: "Riding side by side is allowed, but let others pass". So, at least in two European countries you must give way to faster vehicles.... this doesn't sound much like "Seize the Lane!" If you're going to say I'm wrong, you should at least have the courtesy to say "Well, you're wrong regarding Malaysia" - IOW, I'm wrong regarding something I didn't even address. For instance, here, in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, to my knowledge a bicycle is required by law to ride "on the side of the road". Which, before you start your "gutter bunny" sarcasm simply means, and I did check this with my Cop neighbor, that you will not impede faster traffic... like trucks busses and automobiles. Motorcycles are also required to ride on the side of the road :-) Above all, I'm NOT going to ride on the very edge of pavement, or ride unpaved surfaces, because the traffic is heavy and the lane is too narrow to share. I've seen avid cyclists do that, and I've seen them nearly crash as a result. Interesting. It appears more and more that you are discussing riding on 2nd, 3rd, class roads rather than on the major highways that I ride on. Yes, I'm discussing riding in conditions common for American and European cyclists. You continued avoidance of discussing how you ride in traffic that is traveling as much as four times your speed is also informative. It is becoming more and more obvious that you are applying your experiences riding on what appear to be secondary roads and attempting to equate that to conditions in the rest of the world. Your "secondary roads" is a mistake. If I ride to the hardware store, it's on a U.S highway, a four lane that carries up to 40,000 cars per day. I regularly ride state highways north and south out of this village. I ride in and through the very center of the metro area's biggest city. And I've ridden in 47 states so far, on every style of road including freeways. I choose quieter roads much of the time, just as many cyclists. I ride major roads when it's necessary or more convenient. And did the trains cause mania? No! And do we believe that today? No! Observation and science caused learning. But your bike thinking is stuck in Victorian times! No Frank, it was simply an example of how things that are believed to be true, and in the instance of the sun and earth, almost literally, The Word of God, are later to be found to be completely wrong, and posing the question of whether your courses are right or wrong. And how do we decide, John? Do we have a mechanism? Or are you one of those guys who say "All is mystery, nothing can be known, there is no truth, ommmmmmmm..." Nice try. You are telling the world to read a book and all will be well while I'm saying "is this information correct" and pointing out that history has shown that in many cases what was thought to be correct was later found to be false. I pointed out that the Roman Church taught for nearly 2,000 years that the sun went round the earth and that the Holy Bible was used to justify it. Now you are telling me that the Church was wrong, the Bible was wrong and if I only read your book I would know the truth, But how do we know that next year someone else won't write a book and prove that your book is wrong? OH! That's right! Frank's book couldn't possible be in error. Frank you are a bigot. At the moment, at least, you are a troll. Well, perhaps I am... Assuming that the definition of Troll is "someone that disagrees with Frank". -- cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:22:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2019 8:02 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 4:22:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote: On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement. I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that doesn't mean they are. But you can't prescribe for them without knowing their circumstances, including applicable laws. sigh Well, that pretty much throws out the concept of education, doesn't it? Look, there are variations in state laws regarding bicycles, but the variations tend to be in the details. For example, AFAIK every state either defines a bicycle as a legal vehicle or else says bicyclists have all the rights of vehicle operators. It's not like Oregon has riders riding on the right and Washington State has riders facing traffic. Your friend (or at least, acquaintance) Bob Mionske wrote a book titled _Bicycling & the Law_. John Franklin wrote _Cyclecraft_. The LAB runs cycling classes, and the American Bicycle Education Association runs somewhat better ones. These people don't do a separate version for every American cyclist. They should teach state specific VCs, particular since Oregon (for example) has a unique mandatory side path law. The law changes one block north of my office -- no bikes allowed on sidewalks per Portland ordinance. Oregon has a mandatory passing distance, a new rolling stop law, and passing on the right or left on a one-way street. Passing cars on the right in stopped traffic is legal and encouraged. All sorts of things are different and legal here -- turning left onto a one way street against a red light for example. The Officious Cyclists wouldn't know that. They would sit loud and proud at a red light while I rode through it, and then I would get a lecture, and then I would yell the code section at them and tell them to shut the f*** up. Been there, done that. I get to deal with hall monitors day in and day out and wait for the bad weather to rinse away the the Officious Cyclists. If a cyclist does choose to verbally confront an abusive idiot, I think it needs to be done with care and judgment - and perhaps with a good supply of luck. I can certainly understand people choosing to never, ever do that. Right, when someone threatens me, a drop down menu appears in my vision field populated with potential responses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUqpZgHiEE Hmmm. Let me think calmly and rationally about my response. We're not cyborgs, but normal people still have inborn ability to judge strategies in personal interactions. Some are better at this than others, and mistakes sometimes occur. But almost all people find ways to get along acceptably almost all the time. And often not. But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk, or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely. Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride. Have you never seen a bicyclist riding in a gutter? Or riding within inches of a road's edge? Or riding _off_ the road's edge, in dirt or grass because a car was coming? I can't believe that. What car was coming? This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments. Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them. -- Jay Beattie. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:22:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2019 8:02 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 4:22:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote: On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement. I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that doesn't mean they are. But you can't prescribe for them without knowing their circumstances, including applicable laws. sigh Well, that pretty much throws out the concept of education, doesn't it? Look, there are variations in state laws regarding bicycles, but the variations tend to be in the details. For example, AFAIK every state either defines a bicycle as a legal vehicle or else says bicyclists have all the rights of vehicle operators. It's not like Oregon has riders riding on the right and Washington State has riders facing traffic. Your friend (or at least, acquaintance) Bob Mionske wrote a book titled _Bicycling & the Law_. John Franklin wrote _Cyclecraft_. The LAB runs cycling classes, and the American Bicycle Education Association runs somewhat better ones. These people don't do a separate version for every American cyclist. If a cyclist does choose to verbally confront an abusive idiot, I think it needs to be done with care and judgment - and perhaps with a good supply of luck. I can certainly understand people choosing to never, ever do that. Right, when someone threatens me, a drop down menu appears in my vision field populated with potential responses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUqpZgHiEE Hmmm. Let me think calmly and rationally about my response. We're not cyborgs, but normal people still have inborn ability to judge strategies in personal interactions. Some are better at this than others, and mistakes sometimes occur. But almost all people find ways to get along acceptably almost all the time. But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk, or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely. Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride. Have you never seen a bicyclist riding in a gutter? Or riding within inches of a road's edge? Or riding _off_ the road's edge, in dirt or grass because a car was coming? I can't believe that. -- - Frank Krygowski Not knowing a single problem people have you want to tell them they are wrong and you consider that education. It is pretty obvious why you couldn't make it as an engineer and switched to teaching, That way the students wouldn't know you're so full of crap - they would just suspect it. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/27/2019 12:45 AM, John B. wrote:
Now you are telling me that ... if I only read your book I would know the truth, But how do we know that next year someone else won't write a book and prove that your book is wrong? OH! That's right! Frank's book couldn't possible be in error. Let's try this: First, read _Street Smarts_ by John Allen. It's only 50 pages or so. Take notes as you do. Surely you can manage that? Then read _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. It's longer, and feel free to speed through the parts that go into too much detail for you. Again, take notes. This shouldn't be hard. You claim to be a bicyclist, so why not read a book that is intended to make bicycling better for you? Next, come back here and tell me which parts of those books you think are wrong. (And it would be better if you distinguished what was wrong for Malaysia from what you thought was wrong for, say, U.S. riding. Be specific.) This would be a lot more productive than your vague assertions that a book you had never read might be wrong. Of course, I can't force you to do the above. But until you do, you're certainly arguing out of ignorance. At best, that's a waste of our time. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/27/2019 7:01 AM, wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:22:10 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote: On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement. I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that doesn't mean they are. Maybe this also apply to you sometimes. I'm sure it does. Of course! A) Whatever activity is being discussed, nobody is perfect. B) BUT some people are better than others. They do things more correctly, more often. As a result they have fewer problems. C) Most people can improve, especially if they receive the right information. Any sane person recognizes those points. Society as a whole recognizes them, which is why things like schools, classes, many books and other information sources exist. How weird that this little corner of the internet harbors people that disparage those ideas! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/27/2019 1:02 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:22:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: Look, there are variations in state laws regarding bicycles, but the variations tend to be in the details. For example, AFAIK every state either defines a bicycle as a legal vehicle or else says bicyclists have all the rights of vehicle operators. It's not like Oregon has riders riding on the right and Washington State has riders facing traffic. Your friend (or at least, acquaintance) Bob Mionske wrote a book titled _Bicycling & the Law_. John Franklin wrote _Cyclecraft_. The LAB runs cycling classes, and the American Bicycle Education Association runs somewhat better ones. These people don't do a separate version for every American cyclist. They should teach state specific VCs, particular since Oregon (for example) has a unique mandatory side path law. The law changes one block north of my office -- no bikes allowed on sidewalks per Portland ordinance. Oregon has a mandatory passing distance, a new rolling stop law, and passing on the right or left on a one-way street. Passing cars on the right in stopped traffic is legal and encouraged. All sorts of things are different and legal here -- turning left onto a one way street against a red light for example. Yes, Oregon has some weird traffic laws, and Portland has some super-weird bike facilities. However, Jay, if you were to take a Cycling Savvy class or a League cycling class in Oregon, the instructor would almost certainly cover those weirdnesses. I certainly would if I were teaching the class. But as I've said, almost all traffic laws regarding bikes are almost always the same from state to state. We're talking fundamentals, like having a right to the road, riding with (not facing) traffic, obeying traffic control devices. Best practices and techniques are also the same, such as recognizing and dissuading or avoiding motorist mistakes, procedures for executing lane changes or turns, avoiding road hazards, negotiating with motorists etc. There are FAR more things that are common rather than different. And a detail: Some of the weird bike-specific laws that are on the books are best violated. I'm sure you know more than I about the tickets that have been written for Portland riders who rode outside door zone bike lanes, violating the letter of the mandatory bike lane law. I'm sure you know that most riders who violate that law for their own safety are not ticketed. The point there is, it's better to know the general principles in addition to the quirky local laws. And it makes no sense to say "Some bike laws differ by locality, so it makes no sense to learn to ride more competently." (Would you accept "Laws vary by city, so it makes no sense to get a law degree"?) The Officious Cyclists wouldn't know that. They would sit loud and proud at a red light while I rode through it, and then I would get a lecture, and then I would yell the code section at them and tell them to shut the f*** up. Been there, done that. I get to deal with hall monitors day in and day out and wait for the bad weather to rinse away the the Officious Cyclists. Speaking of local differences: That may be another Portland weirdness. (My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper sticker.) I don't ever remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for anything I've done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?") In fact, when I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to become a certified cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for suggestions for improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride closer to the center of the lane.") What I do get occasionally (rarely) is some motorist who thinks he knows more than I do. And it's been valuable to be able to quote the letter of the law to them. But then again, I'm able to do that because I took enough interest in this stuff to actually learn things. Very few bicyclists - even avid bicyclists - bother to really learn this stuff. But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk, or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely. Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride. Have you never seen a bicyclist riding in a gutter? Or riding within inches of a road's edge? Or riding _off_ the road's edge, in dirt or grass because a car was coming? I can't believe that. What car was coming? This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments. I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom. And I don't consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper behavior. Does a Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a bulletproof vest? Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them. Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who bragged about zooming on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps? Who bragged about riding drunk? Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to time - who claims that California law says you may never move away from the edge of the road? Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride without a marine strobe on the back of your bike? We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was not his fault that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone of a line of stopped cars, he suffered a crash. We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk of getting brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled roadway. Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent than the average bike rider. They're probably more competent than the typical avid cyclist. Don't tell me that education isn't necessary. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 1:02 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:22:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: Look, there are variations in state laws regarding bicycles, but the variations tend to be in the details. For example, AFAIK every state either defines a bicycle as a legal vehicle or else says bicyclists have all the rights of vehicle operators. It's not like Oregon has riders riding on the right and Washington State has riders facing traffic. Your friend (or at least, acquaintance) Bob Mionske wrote a book titled _Bicycling & the Law_. John Franklin wrote _Cyclecraft_. The LAB runs cycling classes, and the American Bicycle Education Association runs somewhat better ones. These people don't do a separate version for every American cyclist. They should teach state specific VCs, particular since Oregon (for example) has a unique mandatory side path law. The law changes one block north of my office -- no bikes allowed on sidewalks per Portland ordinance. Oregon has a mandatory passing distance, a new rolling stop law, and passing on the right or left on a one-way street. Passing cars on the right in stopped traffic is legal and encouraged. All sorts of things are different and legal here -- turning left onto a one way street against a red light for example. Yes, Oregon has some weird traffic laws, and Portland has some super-weird bike facilities. However, Jay, if you were to take a Cycling Savvy class or a League cycling class in Oregon, the instructor would almost certainly cover those weirdnesses. I certainly would if I were teaching the class. But as I've said, almost all traffic laws regarding bikes are almost always the same from state to state. We're talking fundamentals, like having a right to the road, riding with (not facing) traffic, obeying traffic control devices. Best practices and techniques are also the same, such as recognizing and dissuading or avoiding motorist mistakes, procedures for executing lane changes or turns, avoiding road hazards, negotiating with motorists etc. There are FAR more things that are common rather than different. And a detail: Some of the weird bike-specific laws that are on the books are best violated. I'm sure you know more than I about the tickets that have been written for Portland riders who rode outside door zone bike lanes, violating the letter of the mandatory bike lane law. I'm sure you know that most riders who violate that law for their own safety are not ticketed. The point there is, it's better to know the general principles in addition to the quirky local laws. And it makes no sense to say "Some bike laws differ by locality, so it makes no sense to learn to ride more competently." (Would you accept "Laws vary by city, so it makes no sense to get a law degree"?) The Officious Cyclists wouldn't know that. They would sit loud and proud at a red light while I rode through it, and then I would get a lecture, and then I would yell the code section at them and tell them to shut the f*** up. Been there, done that. I get to deal with hall monitors day in and day out and wait for the bad weather to rinse away the the Officious Cyclists. Speaking of local differences: That may be another Portland weirdness. (My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper sticker.) I don't ever remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for anything I've done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?") In fact, when I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to become a certified cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for suggestions for improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride closer to the center of the lane.") Extra-stringent road test? Did you have to pop wheelies and juggle? Did you get a badge? What I do get occasionally (rarely) is some motorist who thinks he knows more than I do. And it's been valuable to be able to quote the letter of the law to them. But then again, I'm able to do that because I took enough interest in this stuff to actually learn things. Very few bicyclists - even avid bicyclists - bother to really learn this stuff. But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk, or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely. Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride. Have you never seen a bicyclist riding in a gutter? Or riding within inches of a road's edge? Or riding _off_ the road's edge, in dirt or grass because a car was coming? I can't believe that. What car was coming? This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments. I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom. And I don't consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper behavior. Does a Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a bulletproof vest? The comments are just illustrative of what certain motorists think. If you pull Defective Cycling moves around some people, you'll get flattened. So maybe you don't take the lane in the pin-head region of East Toadsuck. Maybe you don't ride through certain neighborhoods at night, etc., etc. If you work in a bank that gets knocked-off frequently, then yes, you do wear a bullet-proof vest. Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them. Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who bragged about zooming on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps? Who bragged about riding drunk? Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to time - who claims that California law says you may never move away from the edge of the road? Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride without a marine strobe on the back of your bike? We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was not his fault that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone of a line of stopped cars, he suffered a crash. You have to be careful in door zones, but primary fault is on the car. https://www.tcnf.legal/car-doored-again/ I ride in the door zone because the only other option is sitting in traffic or splitting lanes, which is illegal in Oregon. I am writing a 600 page book, which comes with a 20 hour skills course, on riding in door zones. The package price will be a reasonable $350 USD. Patches will be awarded. We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk of getting brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled roadway. Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent than the average bike rider. They're probably more competent than the typical avid cyclist. Don't tell me that education isn't necessary. So is flexibility and common sense. And most of the education you need is available in the bicyclist's handbook, at least in Oregon. https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs...ist-Manual.pdf It's not rocket science, not even vinegar and baking soda rocket science. -- Jay Beattie. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/27/2019 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: Speaking of local differences: That may be another Portland weirdness. (My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper sticker.) I don't ever remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for anything I've done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?") In fact, when I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to become a certified cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for suggestions for improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride closer to the center of the lane.") Extra-stringent road test? Did you have to pop wheelies and juggle? Did you get a badge? Yes, it was extra stringent. Since the test was to qualify to become a certified instructor, there were elements that were beyond what a normal student would be asked to do. In a similar way, I believe to qualify as a law professor, you have to have proven you know more than a law student. No? Did I get badge? I'm looking at an ancient embroidered patch that says "Effective Cyclist Instructor, League of American Wheelmen." I need to sew it on my current saddlebag. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments. I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom. And I don't consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper behavior. Does a Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a bulletproof vest? The comments are just illustrative of what certain motorists think. If you pull Defective Cycling moves around some people, you'll get flattened. So maybe you don't take the lane in the pin-head region of East Toadsuck. So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot lane in East Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from behind you, exactly what do _you_ do? Do you really stop and get off the road? If so, that's amazing. Do you do what most (even) avid cyclists do, which is ride right at the pavement edge and hope Mr. Toadsuck doesn't misjudge where his right mirror is? If that's what you do, you need to take a class, whether you believe it or not. I'm serious. Maybe you don't ride through certain neighborhoods at night, etc., etc. Yes, when I lived down south I was told that. "Don't ride home past that bar at night." Because the guys that hung out there were (shudder!) black. Well, I rode past the bar anyway. Yes, the place looked a little rowdy. No, I never got a bit of trouble. Ditto for the black neighborhood immediately next to us. The white boys in big pickup trucks stayed out of it. This white guy on a bicycle rode through with never a problem. I used to occasionally stop at the house of an old black janitor I was friends with. Up here, one of my colleagues said he wouldn't even stop for traffic lights while driving his car home from the university at night. Yet I rode by bike for decades with never a problem. All this doesn't mean there aren't bad neighborhoods. But I think a lot of fear is senseless paranoia. Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them. Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who bragged about zooming on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps? Who bragged about riding drunk? Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to time - who claims that California law says you may never move away from the edge of the road? Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride without a marine strobe on the back of your bike? We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was not his fault that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone of a line of stopped cars, he suffered a crash. You have to be careful in door zones, but primary fault is on the car. https://www.tcnf.legal/car-doored-again/ I ride in the door zone because the only other option is sitting in traffic or splitting lanes, which is illegal in Oregon. If you want to ride in a door zone, have at it (although I don't). It's not impossible to do safely. However, the guy who posted here described doing it at speed, something like 20 mph, and paid for it. I'd say anything over 5 mph is taking a foolish risk. And about sitting in traffic: Especially now that I'm retired, my riding has only a few intersections where I might routinely miss a green light cycle and have to wait in traffic. Yes, I could avoid that by passing waiting cars and getting to the front of the line. But I've almost never done that. Are we supposed to tell motorists to be patient about bikes, while we're impatient about cars? I take my place in line. It's almost never more than two minutes delay. What am I going to accomplish with two extra minutes? We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk of getting brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled roadway. Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent than the average bike rider. They're probably more competent than the typical avid cyclist. Don't tell me that education isn't necessary. So is flexibility and common sense. I have never said that those are bad. I think, like John, you're arguing against what you imagine, rather than what I've actually said. And most of the education you need is available in the bicyclist's handbook, at least in Oregon. https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs...ist-Manual.pdf It's not rocket science, not even vinegar and baking soda rocket science. Um... did you even read that? How about page 4? Page 5? You've been arguing against what it says. I don't doubt that there are other sources of good information. But I do believe that most cyclists never seek out any such information, and their behavior proves that. Also, those who take a class will practice things like emergency hazard avoidance and trickier on-road situations - things like complicated intersections, freeway ramp merges, and maybe even dealing with some of the green nonsense Portland sprays on its streets. I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have people who argue against it. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/27/2019 3:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: Speaking of local differences: That may be another Portland weirdness. (My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper sticker.) I don't ever remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for anything I've done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?") In fact, when I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to become a certified cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for suggestions for improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride closer to the center of the lane.") Extra-stringent road test? Did you have to pop wheelies and juggle? Did you get a badge? Yes, it was extra stringent. Since the test was to qualify to become a certified instructor, there were elements that were beyond what a normal student would be asked to do. In a similar way, I believe to qualify as a law professor, you have to have proven you know more than a law student. No? Did I get badge? I'm looking at an ancient embroidered patch that says "Effective Cyclist Instructor, League of American Wheelmen." I need to sew it on my current saddlebag. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments. I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom. And I don't consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper behavior. Does a Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a bulletproof vest? The comments are just illustrative of what certain motorists think. If you pull Defective Cycling moves around some people, you'll get flattened. So maybe you don't take the lane in the pin-head region of East Toadsuck. So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot lane in East Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from behind you, exactly what do _you_ do? Do you really stop and get off the road? If so, that's amazing. Do you do what most (even) avid cyclists do, which is ride right at the pavement edge and hope Mr. Toadsuck doesn't misjudge where his right mirror is? If that's what you do, you need to take a class, whether you believe it or not. I'm serious. Maybe you don't ride through certain neighborhoods at night, etc., etc. Yes, when I lived down south I was told that. "Don't ride home past that bar at night." Because the guys that hung out there were (shudder!) black. Well, I rode past the bar anyway. Yes, the place looked a little rowdy. No, I never got a bit of trouble. Ditto for the black neighborhood immediately next to us. The white boys in big pickup trucks stayed out of it. This white guy on a bicycle rode through with never a problem. I used to occasionally stop at the house of an old black janitor I was friends with. Up here, one of my colleagues said he wouldn't even stop for traffic lights while driving his car home from the university at night. Yet I rode by bike for decades with never a problem. All this doesn't mean there aren't bad neighborhoods. But I think a lot of fear is senseless paranoia. Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them. Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who bragged about zooming on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps? Who bragged about riding drunk? Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to time - who claims that California law says you may never move away from the edge of the road? Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride without a marine strobe on the back of your bike? We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was not his fault that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone of a line of stopped cars, he suffered a crash. You have to be careful in door zones, but primary fault is on the car. https://www.tcnf.legal/car-doored-again/ I ride in the door zone because the only other option is sitting in traffic or splitting lanes, which is illegal in Oregon. If you want to ride in a door zone, have at it (although I don't). It's not impossible to do safely. However, the guy who posted here described doing it at speed, something like 20 mph, and paid for it. I'd say anything over 5 mph is taking a foolish risk. And about sitting in traffic: Especially now that I'm retired, my riding has only a few intersections where I might routinely miss a green light cycle and have to wait in traffic. Yes, I could avoid that by passing waiting cars and getting to the front of the line. But I've almost never done that. Are we supposed to tell motorists to be patient about bikes, while we're impatient about cars? I take my place in line. It's almost never more than two minutes delay. What am I going to accomplish with two extra minutes? We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk of getting brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled roadway. Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent than the average bike rider. They're probably more competent than the typical avid cyclist. Don't tell me that education isn't necessary. So is flexibility and common sense. I have never said that those are bad. I think, like John, you're arguing against what you imagine, rather than what I've actually said. And most of the education you need is available in the bicyclist's handbook, at least in Oregon. https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs...ist-Manual.pdf It's not rocket science, not even vinegar and baking soda rocket science. Um... did you even read that? How about page 4? Page 5? You've been arguing against what it says. I don't doubt that there are other sources of good information. But I do believe that most cyclists never seek out any such information, and their behavior proves that. Also, those who take a class will practice things like emergency hazard avoidance and trickier on-road situations - things like complicated intersections, freeway ramp merges, and maybe even dealing with some of the green nonsense Portland sprays on its streets. I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have people who argue against it. No one is 'against education' but many people see a line between actual education and indoctrination. Madrassas do their version of 'education' to inflict on the earth more jihadis. Defend that! Especially as to riding bicycles on public roads, many parse situational technique from categorical dogma. There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride lane center. There are other times and other places where that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Slow vehicles should give way to faster vehicles | Simon Jester | UK | 3 | May 20th 18 05:17 PM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | donquijote1954 | General | 278 | December 29th 07 11:12 PM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | John Everett | Social Issues | 63 | December 28th 07 02:21 AM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | Jack May | Rides | 102 | December 21st 07 02:10 AM |
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge | Toby Sleigh | UK | 8 | March 17th 07 09:12 AM |