Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/13/2011 12:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/12/2011 10:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

One key [to avoiding right hooks] is to not ride too close to far to
the right, so you're right of
a car that may turn right. Unfortunately, most bike lanes actively
encourage riding there.

"not ride too close to far to the right" -- That's clear as mud.

I can give more detail if you want.

I was commenting on your grammar.


In this case (Montreal) the cyclist was struck in a crosswalk where the
truck had a green arrow for right turn and the cyclist had a walk signal.

This is identical to an incident in DC, which happened to be described
in this video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2008070801161



Again, the cyclist was in a crosswalk, and as you can see from Google
street view, there is no explicit arrow for right turns, but the
cyclist/peds get a walk signal while the green light allows a right turn
into their path. There happens to be a bike lane on the through street
(R St.), but the cyclist wasn't struck there.

If bike lanes "encourage people to ride there", quite obviously this
lane wasn't encouraging enough, because the young woman was riding on
the sidewalk. The ghost bike is still there.

As we know, many good studies have found sidewalk riding to be more
dangerous than the street. Would the bike lane have been better than the
sidewalk? Perhaps - but still not as good as riding in the traffic lane.

So you claim, others claim otherwise.


BTW, I'm a bit familiar with that area. I rode that street several times
when we stayed on Q street during a recent DC visit. The streets are
narrow, the bike lanes are in the door zone, but traffic was pretty slow
and taking the lane no problem. That's what the girl should have done.

There is way too much "blame the victim" in cycling and pedestrian
incidents.

What some classify as "blame the victim" is often really an attempt to
educate, to prevent other victims. If one kid kills himself diving into
shallow water, should other parents not warn their kids not to do that?

And you'll note from the newspaper article that the woman did get
"educated" to wear a helmet. If she were taught only one fact about
bicycle safety, should it had been to wear a helmet? Or would it have
been better to teach her to not be on the right side of a vehicle that
might turn right? The latter would have prevented the incident completely.

She was in a crosswalk.


100% of dooring incidents are 100% the fault of the motorist, and yet
that fact gets lost in the "shouldn't have been riding there" argument.

If you want to train all motorists to never open a door without looking
back over their shoulder for a cyclist who's riding too close, that's
fine. I'd think rec.autos.driving (or whatever) would be a good place to
begin that effort. OTOH, I think there's a bigger chance for doing more
good by training all cyclists to not ride in door zones. This is a good
place to begin that effort. But both efforts can proceed simultaneously.

The claim that bike lanes "encourage" riding in unsafe places ignores
the more obvious fact that cyclists are legally allowed to ride in those
places...

Sure. Just because something's inadvisable, it's not necessarily
illegal. Adults are allowed to smoke as many cigarettes as they want!

Sure, but most places now ban second-hand smoke. A more accurate analogy.


We, in the US at least, tolerate dangerous intersections, allow free or
cheap parallel parking, don't rigorously enforce laws already on the
books and treat cases of motor vehicle homicide by negligence as acts of
god.

I agree with you, all those things are bad. I won't even claim that
you're using some "royal we," although others here have made cracks
about such phrasing. ;-)

It's the social "we".


At a minimum, bike lanes, like crosswalks, should inform drivers of the
likely presence of vulnerable users. It shouldn't come as a surprise to
find a cyclist or pedestrian there. In most of the news coverage I have
seen after these tragedies much is always made about the driver's
remorse and good character. Sometimes the driver is even referred to as
a "co-victim". That is insanity, and illustrates just how many other
"blind spots" our car-crazy culture has.

Part of the problem is simple physical difficulty, or perhaps
impossibility. For example, in one of the most publicized Portland
fatalities, the cyclist was passing the fatal truck on the right as the
motor vehicle had the green light to turn right. The driver probably
already had to look ahead for crossing pedestrians, judge his clearance
to other vehicles, make sure his rear wheels wouldn't run over the curb,
etc. Asking him to also notice whether a 20 mph biker might also be
zooming up in his blind spot is simply asking more than most humans can
handle.

In the most notorious example in Portland, both the driver and the
cyclist were stopped at a red light. The light turned green and the
truck driver crushed the cyclist. I don't know what case you're
referring to.


That's why things like this http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/lane3.jpg
are not considered good practice in traffic engineering. And that's why
these bumper stickers say what they do:
http://www.zazzle.com/passing+side+s...bumperstickers

If careless and over-entitled drivers ignore bike lanes and crosswalks
the solution isn't to blame the facilities for lack of clarity or
conspicuity, it is to blame and punish the motorists for their reckless
behavior.

The only cyclist killed in our area last year ran a stop sign at speed,
where a bike trail crosses a road, right in front of a car. A few years
ago, we had a young kid riding without brakes who rode west off the
sidewalk into the side of a truck that was turning right, from north to
east.

We can talk about over-entitled drivers, but in those two instances, and
many others, there's no way the motorist could be expected to defend
against every possible chaotic cyclist move.

I'm not talking about that kind of instance, obviously. Vehicular
cyclists like to believe that those are the majority. They're not. We've
been over this.


The fundamental rules of traffic work quite well when people pay
attention to them, and when facilities aren't designed to violate them.
And I'd say "Don't put yourself at the right of a right turning truck"
is a fundamental rule of traffic.

I'd say a more "fundamental rule of traffic" is look before you turn so
you don't run over people. But that's just me.


My problem with vehicular cycling is that it is exactly like
the articles that prominently include the "lack of helmet" statement
when a cyclist has been crushed under a truck or bus. It subtly and
dishonestly blames the victim. Yes, taking a certain position *may*
lower the chance of a right hook, but that isn't the solution to the
problem of right hooks. Yes, education is helpful, but why focus on
educating the cyclist to avoid criminally irresponsible behavior on the
part of motorists rather than dealing with the root cause? Neither I, an
experienced and skilled cyclist, nor a child, nor an older cyclist
riding at walking speed, should be required to compensate for people
abusing the privilege of driving and endangering others with their
willful behavior.

Advising cyclists to learn a complex dance of lane positions and
"negotiations" is both unrealistically raising the bar and
simultaneously shifting responsibility. Cyclists get warned about street
drain grates, slippery painted surfaces and wheel trapping trolley
tracks. Every year cyclists get killed and injured by these common
hazards. Why should they be tolerated in the first place? Instead of
"education" we should demand "elimination". The same holds for dooring
and hooks. Clean up the jungle rather than teach every cyclist to obey
the law of the jungle.

So how long will it take you to clean up this jungle, Peter? And in the
meanwhile, should we keep it all secret from cyclists, and never tell
them to watch out for these hazards? Is that even moral?

You're evading, as usual. You guys are really too much.


Vehicular cycling is a false god. It presumes the existence of "natural
law", and views "accidents" as violations of that law.

You're really not qualified to say much about vehicular cycling. You've
repeatedly mis-characterized what vehicular cyclists say and believe.
You've shown you can't even keep straight yes or no facts, like whether
Forester thinks bikes should be defined as vehicles.

We've been over that, too. Forester lied.

"Vehicular cycling" isn't subtle. Crazy, but not subtle.

On 8/13/2011 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

[...]
If careless and over-entitled drivers ignore bike lanes and crosswalks
the solution isn't to blame the facilities for lack of clarity or
conspicuity, it is to blame and punish the motorists for their reckless
behavior.

The only cyclist killed in our area last year ran a stop sign at speed,
where a bike trail crosses a road, right in front of a car. A few years
ago, we had a young kid riding without brakes who rode west off the
sidewalk into the side of a truck that was turning right, from north to
east.

We can talk about over-entitled drivers, but in those two instances, and
many others, there's no way the motorist could be expected to defend
against every possible chaotic cyclist move.

That is exactly what Mr. Cole and his ilk appear to be advocating. They
want to be free from all rules, with the responsibility shifted onto
others. Really is a "cyclists as children" attitude, with everywhere
considered a playground.

[...]
Vehicular cycling is a false god. It presumes the existence of "natural
law", and views "accidents" as violations of that law.

The US Constitution is based on English Common Law, which in turn is
based on Natural Law.

You're really not qualified to say much about vehicular cycling. You've
repeatedly mis-characterized what vehicular cyclists say and believe.
You've shown you can't even keep straight yes or no facts, like whether
Forester thinks bikes should be defined as vehicles.

Mr. Cole's real problem with vehicular cycling appears to be that it
treats cyclists as equal road users, while he advocates that cyclists be
a special class, protected by the law, but not assuming any
responsibility in return. Quite a hard sell to other road users, eh?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 8/13/2011 3:45 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/13/2011 12:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
We can talk about over-entitled drivers, but in those two instances, and
many others, there's no way the motorist could be expected to defend
against every possible chaotic cyclist move.

I'm not talking about that kind of instance, obviously. Vehicular
cyclists like to believe that those are the majority. They're not. We've
been over this.[...]

Really? In a culture [1] where bicycles are still considered children's
toys for the most part? Maybe 21st Century Greater Boston is different,
but every place I have been in the US, cyclists *not* following traffic
regulations has been the general rule, not the exception.

[1] US, that is. Europe is different, and at least in the past [2], the
police would not tolerate children riding bicycles in a chaotic manner
on the streets, as is commonly done in the US.
[2] Much social disintegration has taken place from the time when when
children were to be seen and not heard.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Peter Cole wrote:

On 8/13/2011 3:12 AM, wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:

I'm sure there is some reason he found it important. Perhaps it was
that
he believed that it would be less likely for bicycles to be banned
from
roads if they were legally defined as vehicles.

That was the ostensible reason for the original bikes-as-vehicle
thing, but that effort can be traced back at least to the 1880s in
New
York, and a certain character named Isaac Potter. Potter pushed
through a law classifying bikes as vehicles, allowing them access to
Central Park as such, but limiting them to the then-current
vehicular
speed limit of _5 mph._ So the law was ridiculous, and widely
ignored from the beginning, by police and cyclist alike.

Potter was way more Forester than Forester could ever be. Behind the
so-called "Liberty Law" (classic Orwellian anti-speak) is a familiar
force, classism, or snobbishness or whatever you want to call it,
that
sought to draw a distinction between the 'proper wheelmen' (today
'lawful, competent cyclists') and dirtbags on bikes. It wasn't about
access, in my opinion, this bike-as-vehicle thing, it was more about
applying control to the uncontrolled. And it still is.

Around that time (1880's) I believe the League of American Wheelmen
(or
whatever it was called then) also attempted to ban blacks from their
ranks by charter. If I recall the history properly, it won the
majority
but fell short of the 2/3's required for an amendment.

According to Andrew Ritchie's book on Major Taylor, the LAW did in fact
amend its constitution to exclude new black members in 1894. Existing
black members were allowed to keep their memberships if they were
current with dues, and blacks were allowed to race in LAW-sanctioned
events.

On Aug 13, 8:37 am, Peter Cole wrote:

Around that time (1880's) I believe the League of American Wheelmen (or
whatever it was called then) also attempted to ban blacks from their
ranks by charter. If I recall the history properly, it won the majority
but fell short of the 2/3's required for an amendment.

As far as I know, the LAW's "whites only" amendment was passed in
1894, and was in place until repeal in 1999.

On 8/13/2011 4:24 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/13/2011 11:23 AM, SMS wrote:
On 8/13/2011 7:22 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

In this case (Montreal) the cyclist was struck in a crosswalk where the
truck had a green arrow for right turn and the cyclist had a walk
signal.

The right arrows are confusing for many drivers. You can make a right on
red on a red light, but not on a red arrow. On the surface, it's nicer
to use a right red arrow than a "No Right Turn on Red" sign, but in
practice many drivers don't understand what the right arrow means.

There would never be a walk signal given to a pedestrian if traffic had
a left green arrow, and no doubt the truck driver believed that the same
would be the case for a green right arrow.

I find it difficult to believe that any city would design their traffic
signals to give vehicular traffic a right green arrow and pedestrians a
walk signal at the same time. There aren't a lot of right green arrows
around my area but where there are you would never have a walk signal be
on at the same time. Are you sure that this is what happened?

No, but that's what the snapshot in the Google street view seemed to
be showing in that intersection*, and the news coverage said they
"both had a green".

*You could see both a green right turn arrow and a white "walker" in
the pedestrian crossing signal from one angle. There appears to be a
"push to cross" button, but it faces the through street, not the cross
street where the cyclist was struck. I'm not sure that that button
halts traffic on both streets, my guess is that it's just for the
through street. There's also a pedestrian in one photo, apparently
running between moving cars on the through street.
I think that it's probable that that is exactly what happened. It is
not uncommon here to have a pedestrian crossing with a walk signal and
parallel traffic with a right turn signal just as the google street view
showed. It's nuts. I've nearly been hit by turning cars when walking
on a walk signal. These usually occur when there is a "turn right on
arrow only" intersection. Right turn on red is illegal on the Island of
Montreal. The idea is that the turning vehicle has to yield. Like I
said, it's nuts. Most drivers see a green arrow and think they have a
right of way.

On 8/13/2011 7:01 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Most drivers see a green arrow and think they have a right of way.

Yes, and I cannot imagine that any traffic engineer would be clueless
enough to allow a Walk/Don't Walk signal to be on Walk when there is a
green arrow.

"Peter Cole" wrote in message
...

big snip


Part of the problem is simple physical difficulty, or perhaps
impossibility. For example, in one of the most publicized Portland
fatalities, the cyclist was passing the fatal truck on the right as the
motor vehicle had the green light to turn right. The driver probably
already had to look ahead for crossing pedestrians, judge his clearance
to other vehicles, make sure his rear wheels wouldn't run over the curb,
etc. Asking him to also notice whether a 20 mph biker might also be
zooming up in his blind spot is simply asking more than most humans can
handle.

In the most notorious example in Portland, both the driver and the cyclist
were stopped at a red light. The light turned green and the truck driver
crushed the cyclist. I don't know what case you're referring to.

These were two separate incidences, both involving trucks -- on a garbage
truck and the other a cement truck. The garbage truck ran over a pretty
solid local racer. I think what happens was the dreaded "truck turn fake
out." The truck bobs to the left and then goes right. Cyclists (and
sometimes cars) shoot the hole, thinking they are passing a left turning
vehicle . . . and then squash. With the cement truck incident -- the
cement truck turned from a full stop. How the cyclist got herself under the
wheels of that truck is beyond me. I ride that intersection all the time
and have for the last 25 years with no problems.

-- Jay Beattie.



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

On Aug 13, 1:29*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*Frank Krygowski wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In ,
* Frank *wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Then retract your assertion.

Hmm. *I don't remember seeing proof that I should.

The proof is that responsible investigators
provide evidence of their claims.

They supply evidence of _every_ assertion they ever make? *Um... Where's
your evidence for that claim? *;-)

They provide evidence or proof as a matter of course,
and when they do not, supply evidence or proof when asked.

That's quite an assertion. Do you have evidence it's true

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 13, 1:29*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*Frank Krygowski wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In ,
* Frank *wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Then retract your assertion.

Hmm. *I don't remember seeing proof that I should.

The proof is that responsible investigators
provide evidence of their claims.

They supply evidence of _every_ assertion they ever make? *Um... Where's
your evidence for that claim? *;-)

They provide evidence or proof as a matter of course,
and when they do not, supply evidence or proof when asked.

That's quite an assertion. Please post the evidence that it's true.

- Frank Krygowski