|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
On 10/24/2014 8:04 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
My final and all encompassing "traffic" law is "Don't get hit!" Fine. The question is, how best to accomplish that while riding a bike? I think encouraging motorists to pass super-close doesn't help. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
On Friday, October 24, 2014 9:21:02 PM UTC-4, JoeRiel wrote:
Sir Ridesalot writes: In the instance of the 18 wheeler, me and a very narrow bridge, when I decided to leave tthe road to avoid getting run down by that truck that was gaining on me and not slowing; I was told that Ishould have maintained center lane position and the truck would have to slow before running me over and I was also told that if I was so scared about riding lane center in such instances that perhaps I shouldn't even be riding on the road! I'm no expert on vehicular cycling, but I don't believe the recommendation is to wait until you reach a bottleneck (narrow bridge) to "take the lane". That is, if you've already conceded the lane, then you'll have to wait until its safe to do so. Meaning if you look back while on the right and the truck is bearing down, you probably shouldn't move left. -- Joe Riel I was riding lane center and approaching tthe bridge but still some distance from it when in my rear view helmet mounted mirror I saw that 18 wheeler acoming. I watched it for a few seconds because its trailer wheels were already passt the fogline ande didn't seem to be slowing as he got closer. Knowing that there was no place to bail once on the bridge i elected to bail before getting onto te bridge. Leaving the asphalt at a little over 50 kph was rather interesting but it sure beat getting that run down feeling. I don't think the driver of that truck saw me because he went on by at the same speed he was going when I first spotted him. Cheers |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
On 10/24/2014 8:29 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: IIRC, the UVC now has statements explaining situations in which bicyclists don't need to be at far right. Some states (like mine) have generous lists of examples of such situations written into law, along with statements indicating there may be other valid reasons. Unfortunately, there are some areas whose laws have not progressed beyond the 1950s. More unfortunately, there are motorists and cyclists whose thinking has not progressed beyond the 1950s. Yes, I know. But the idea of riding out in the middle of the road at less then half the speed of overtaking traffic is not one that I would recommend as it places the responsibility for one's safety completely on the shoulders of others. In fact, I described a case of someone "taking the lane" in which 2 out of the four riders were killed on the spot and the other two taken to the hospital. If I remember, you said something like, "well they shouldn't taken the lane under those conditions." Sorry, I don't remember that discussion. It's true that certain conditions may make a central lane position unwise, but IME those conditions are quite rare. Since "taking the lane" involves riding out in the middle of the road, in traffic traveling perhaps two or three times the speed of the bicycle, it appears that the mind set here is, "Oh, I'm out here where they can see me so they won't hit me". But at the same time we are bombarded with news stories talking about an auto hitting a bicycle while the driver are texting, looking in the mirror to put on lipstick, etc. Are we really "bombarded" with those news stories? Or would it be more accurate to say they sometimes trickle in? Anyway, ISTM that if a motorist is texting, putting on lipstick or whatever, they are as likely to hit a cyclist a few feet to the right as a cyclist who is more conspicuous, directly in front. They are even more likely to do so if they think "Oh, I can squeeze through there." We do, after all, get a similar trickle of news stories in which bike lane cyclists are hit from behind. Again, the real question is how do we best discourage those incidents. Those who have tried only hiding at the edge are sure that must be the best way. Those who have tried riding more prominently have learned that it's better. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
On 10/24/2014 8:57 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
In the instance of the 18 wheeler, me and a very narrow bridge, when I decided to leave tthe road to avoid getting run down by that truck that was gaining on me and not slowing; I was told that Ishould have maintained center lane position and the truck would have to slow before running me over and I was also told that if I was so scared about riding lane center in such instances that perhaps I shouldn't even be riding on the road! I believe what I _actually_ said was that I had maintained a central lane position many times in such situations, and that each time, the truck driver had slowed and passed only when it was safe. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
On Friday, October 24, 2014 11:27:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2014 8:57 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: In the instance of the 18 wheeler, me and a very narrow bridge, when I decided to leave tthe road to avoid getting run down by that truck that was gaining on me and not slowing; I was told that Ishould have maintained center lane position and the truck would have to slow before running me over and I was also told that if I was so scared about riding lane center in such instances that perhaps I shouldn't even be riding on the road! I believe what I _actually_ said was that I had maintained a central lane position many times in such situations, and that each time, the truck driver had slowed and passed only when it was safe. -- - Frank Krygowski Well, in regards to your posts to my incident, you believe/recall wrongly. Cheers |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:57:56 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: On Friday, October 24, 2014 8:29:13 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2014 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: As far as I remember there was always, at least as far back when I was 16 years old, a law that required slower traffic to move to the extreme right side of the road. In fact I can remember signs posted saying "Slow traffic keep right". So regardless, a bicycle thundering along at 15 mph would be required to stay on the right so not to impede other traffic. The laws you remember may not be the laws currently in effect. Times have changed, at least in many states. IIRC, the UVC now has statements explaining situations in which bicyclists don't need to be at far right. Some states (like mine) have generous lists of examples of such situations written into law, along with statements indicating there may be other valid reasons. Unfortunately, there are some areas whose laws have not progressed beyond the 1950s. More unfortunately, there are motorists and cyclists whose thinking has not progressed beyond the 1950s. Yes, I know. But the idea of riding out in the middle of the road at less then half the speed of overtaking traffic is not one that I would recommend as it places the responsibility for one's safety completely on the shoulders of others. In fact, I described a case of someone "taking the lane" in which 2 out of the four riders were killed on the spot and the other two taken to the hospital. If I remember, you said something like, "well they shouldn't taken the lane under those conditions." Since "taking the lane" involves riding out in the middle of the road, in traffic traveling perhaps two or three times the speed of the bicycle, it appears that the mind set here is, "Oh, I'm out here where they can see me so they won't hit me". But at the same time we are bombarded with news stories talking about an auto hitting a bicycle while the driver are texting, looking in the mirror to put on lipstick, etc. The fact that the UVC has examples of times when one doesn't have to stay on the right side of the road is, I'm sure, of great comfort to someone who's wife, husband, children, have just been run over by a beautiful; young lady who "just had to" send that text message. -- Cheers, John B. In the instance of the 18 wheeler, me and a very narrow bridge, when I decided to leave tthe road to avoid getting run down by that truck that was gaining on me and not slowing; I was told that Ishould have maintained center lane position and the truck would have to slow before running me over and I was also told that if I was so scared about riding lane center in such instances that perhaps I shouldn't even be riding on the road! Some people don't seem to have heard the saying, "He was right - dead right". Cheers Someone posted a poem some time back about the guy in the grave... but he had the right of way. There is a saying in aviation, "there old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are not any old bold pilots", which pretty much tells the story. -- Cheers, John B. |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 23:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/24/2014 8:29 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: IIRC, the UVC now has statements explaining situations in which bicyclists don't need to be at far right. Some states (like mine) have generous lists of examples of such situations written into law, along with statements indicating there may be other valid reasons. Unfortunately, there are some areas whose laws have not progressed beyond the 1950s. More unfortunately, there are motorists and cyclists whose thinking has not progressed beyond the 1950s. Yes, I know. But the idea of riding out in the middle of the road at less then half the speed of overtaking traffic is not one that I would recommend as it places the responsibility for one's safety completely on the shoulders of others. In fact, I described a case of someone "taking the lane" in which 2 out of the four riders were killed on the spot and the other two taken to the hospital. If I remember, you said something like, "well they shouldn't taken the lane under those conditions." Sorry, I don't remember that discussion. It's true that certain conditions may make a central lane position unwise, but IME those conditions are quite rare. Since "taking the lane" involves riding out in the middle of the road, in traffic traveling perhaps two or three times the speed of the bicycle, it appears that the mind set here is, "Oh, I'm out here where they can see me so they won't hit me". But at the same time we are bombarded with news stories talking about an auto hitting a bicycle while the driver are texting, looking in the mirror to put on lipstick, etc. Are we really "bombarded" with those news stories? Or would it be more accurate to say they sometimes trickle in? Err... Frank, didn't James just post some statistics, from Australia, that showed that something like 40% of bicycle deaths were the result of being struck by a vehicle traveling in the same direction? But the point isn't that it is rare, or common as dirt, the point is that if she doesn't see you are very likely dead. Anyway, ISTM that if a motorist is texting, putting on lipstick or whatever, they are as likely to hit a cyclist a few feet to the right as a cyclist who is more conspicuous, directly in front. They are even more likely to do so if they think "Oh, I can squeeze through there." We do, after all, get a similar trickle of news stories in which bike lane cyclists are hit from behind. Again, the real question is how do we best discourage those incidents. Those who have tried only hiding at the edge are sure that must be the best way. Those who have tried riding more prominently have learned that it's better. Well Frank, you may be all tied up in how to discourage these things but my major interest is in not having it happen to ME.` (and I suspect that, for all your bravado here, when you are out there all alone on the highway, that is your main interest also) -- Cheers, John B. |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:43:51 -0700, Joe Riel wrote:
Duane writes: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:42:04 -0400, Duane wrote: On 10/24/2014 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:17:06 +0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:55:09 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: Joerg considered Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:32:31 -0700 the perfect time to write: Clive George wrote: On 22/10/2014 17:59, Joerg wrote: In many areas you cannot. Riding too far into the lane can trigger numerous nasty things. Most of all drivers getting angry and eventually passing you at very close range, to "show you who is king of the road". Also a costly ticket from the local sheriff/police for impeding traffic. In some legislations it's even illegal to ride anywhere than the far right. What are you doing about that? Insisting that paths are the only safe places to ride isn't going to give them any incentive to change that law - rather the opposite in fact, and you're still going to have to ride on the road at some point. Those laws won't change no matter what. They did here. See the Daniel Cadden case, where it had to be appealed to the House of Lords to get a firm legal decision that cyclists are traffic, have a right of way on the roads, and have the right to choose their own positioning on the road. That was after the police attempted to prosecute him for "causing an obstruction" because he had the temerity to use the road on a bicycle in front of them. Set your self up as a test case if you like - fight it all the way to the highest court in your country, and you can win too, as Daniel did. I believe that in the U.S. most, if not all states, specify in their traffic codes that a bicycle is a vehicle and has the right to use public highways and apparently have had since the middle or late 1800's. -- He's talking about bikes with unrestricted lane position. I think you'll find in most states bikes are required to keep to the right either specifically or implicitly due to the slow moving vehicle specification. I think you'll find very few states that don't restrict the lane position. Jay can probably offer more info here though. John B. As far as I remember there was always, at least as far back when I was 16 years old, a law that required slower traffic to move to the extreme right side of the road. In fact I can remember signs posted saying "Slow traffic keep right". So regardless, a bicycle thundering along at 15 mph would be required to stay on the right so not to impede other traffic. I remember when there were still a couple of old fellows left that were still driving a horse and buggy to town to do the Saturday shopping and they certainly stayed pretty close to the edge of the roads. Right. It seems that many of us remember this and think that it hasn't changed. Some of us apparently don't believe it though. My final and all encompassing "traffic" law is "Don't get hit!" -- Cheers, Defensive riding succinctly stated. Works for me. Yo're confusing results with methods. No, I distinctly remember, way back in high school, a class in "defensive driving" that was part of the new "Driver Training" course that the school set up. -- Cheers, John B. |
#349
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
Joe Riel wrote:
Duane writes: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:42:04 -0400, Duane wrote: On 10/24/2014 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:17:06 +0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:55:09 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: Joerg considered Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:32:31 -0700 the perfect time to write: Clive George wrote: On 22/10/2014 17:59, Joerg wrote: In many areas you cannot. Riding too far into the lane can trigger numerous nasty things. Most of all drivers getting angry and eventually passing you at very close range, to "show you who is king of the road". Also a costly ticket from the local sheriff/police for impeding traffic. In some legislations it's even illegal to ride anywhere than the far right. What are you doing about that? Insisting that paths are the only safe places to ride isn't going to give them any incentive to change that law - rather the opposite in fact, and you're still going to have to ride on the road at some point. Those laws won't change no matter what. They did here. See the Daniel Cadden case, where it had to be appealed to the House of Lords to get a firm legal decision that cyclists are traffic, have a right of way on the roads, and have the right to choose their own positioning on the road. That was after the police attempted to prosecute him for "causing an obstruction" because he had the temerity to use the road on a bicycle in front of them. Set your self up as a test case if you like - fight it all the way to the highest court in your country, and you can win too, as Daniel did. I believe that in the U.S. most, if not all states, specify in their traffic codes that a bicycle is a vehicle and has the right to use public highways and apparently have had since the middle or late 1800's. -- He's talking about bikes with unrestricted lane position. I think you'll find in most states bikes are required to keep to the right either specifically or implicitly due to the slow moving vehicle specification. I think you'll find very few states that don't restrict the lane position. Jay can probably offer more info here though. John B. As far as I remember there was always, at least as far back when I was 16 years old, a law that required slower traffic to move to the extreme right side of the road. In fact I can remember signs posted saying "Slow traffic keep right". So regardless, a bicycle thundering along at 15 mph would be required to stay on the right so not to impede other traffic. I remember when there were still a couple of old fellows left that were still driving a horse and buggy to town to do the Saturday shopping and they certainly stayed pretty close to the edge of the roads. Right. It seems that many of us remember this and think that it hasn't changed. Some of us apparently don't believe it though. My final and all encompassing "traffic" law is "Don't get hit!" -- Cheers, Defensive riding succinctly stated. Works for me. Yo're confusing results with methods. The thing is that if you don't have several methods in your arsenal you'll be in trouble. In sir's example it doesn't sound like taking the lane would have helped. -- duane |
#350
|
|||
|
|||
Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light
On 10/25/2014 2:26 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, October 24, 2014 11:27:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/24/2014 8:57 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: In the instance of the 18 wheeler, me and a very narrow bridge, when I decided to leave tthe road to avoid getting run down by that truck that was gaining on me and not slowing; I was told that Ishould have maintained center lane position and the truck would have to slow before running me over and I was also told that if I was so scared about riding lane center in such instances that perhaps I shouldn't even be riding on the road! I believe what I _actually_ said was that I had maintained a central lane position many times in such situations, and that each time, the truck driver had slowed and passed only when it was safe. -- - Frank Krygowski Well, in regards to your posts to my incident, you believe/recall wrongly. Ah. IOW, you recall differently. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Busch & Mueller "Big Bang"---the ultimate bike light? | Gooserider | General | 23 | February 9th 07 05:04 PM |
24hr rider needed for "Sleepless in the Saddle" (12/13th August, Catton Hall, UK) | steve.colligan | Unicycling | 3 | July 3rd 06 10:32 PM |
Cable Disc brakes - rear one keeps "fading". Advice needed. | al Mossah | UK | 1 | June 30th 06 10:12 AM |
High-end Single Speed Mt. Bike - Ventana "El Toro" - Super Light! | ClimbTheMtns | Marketplace | 0 | April 30th 06 05:02 PM |