Interesting risk differences between two countries.

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:19:02 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:24:49
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:11:58 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:02:25
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:06:35 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:13:52
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:58:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/23/2015 11:27 PM, James wrote:

I helped drag a new looking Ducati out of a ditch on Sunday. Initially
it was pinning the rider's leg. Once we had him out, with suspected
broken or dislocated shoulder, we were able lift and untangle the bike
from a barbed wire fence and rocks to get it back to road level.

It was in the mid-1980s, IIRC, that sport bikes with racing fairings
first started popping up here. I liked the look of them, partly because
I've always been an aerodynamics freak. But I'm certainly not a racer.
On a motorcycle, I'm an extremely careful rider.

Anyway, I'd ridden my old BMW to work and parked in the motorcycle lot,
then looked a little jealously at a new fully-faired sport bike that
appeared there for the first time. Brand new and very sexy looking.

About a week later, I rode my motorcycle in again. That same bike was
parked there, minus its right mirror, and with scratches and gouges all
down the right side.

Going fast on a motorcycle isn't as easy as the ads make it look. And
18-year-olds prove that every day.

Actually "going fast on a motorcycle" is a pretty simple matter - just
twist the throttle :-)

Well, yeah.
It's doing it repeatedly on ordinary roads without breaking stuff or
hurting yourself that's hard.

BTDT, and came out unscathed, owing to learning my limits before
exceeding them.

But I also marshaled races for the guys who's limits are way beyond my
comprehension - and even some of them don't come out of it all that
well.

The ability of a motorcycle to allow the inexperienced to gain access
to more power and speed than they can cope with is well known, and
race replica types only make that worse.

I find the little squatty bikes with the big gas tank and the clip on
bars a bit humorous. I can only assume that they don't ride them very
much. Back when I was riding I found that for trips high bars were the
ideal thing, and they worked pretty well around town too :-)

I can only imagine how stiff one would get hunched over the tank for,
say 8 or ten hours :-)

If you have much wind on your chest, you really need to be leaning
forward pretty steeply so that you don't get sore forearms from
hanging on against the wind.
And of course, there aren't many (if any) bikes with an 8-10 hour
range.

Strange that. I remember a trip from Miami, Florida to Hendersonville,
N. Carolina. Took me two days. Probably 20 hours' or so. On an 80
cubic inch Harley. ~ 1,250 Km.

Non-stop?

My record was on an XBR500S, which is both economical and with a large
tank (a rare combination), which I managed to run from brim-full to
low on reserve without putting a foot on the ground. 5 (imp)
gallons/just under 23 litres (they only claimed 20 litres, but you
could just get 23 in from empty if you dribbled the last couple of
litres in to get right up to the top of the silly little tube that was
supposed to stop the auto-shutoff filler nozzles), 5 hours, 320 miles.
I had a sore backside and was a little stiff, but serviced myself and
refilled the bike, then continued on my way with no problems.
I suspect that bladder capacity may be a limit even if you extended
the fuel range.


Good Lord, don't you have "petrol stations" in your neck of the woods?

Yes, but it's not a non-stop ride if you use one.
And for reasons given in another post, it was inconvenient to stop
more than was absolutely necessary. So that single stop near Dumfries
was the only time my feet touched the ground between Arrington, South
Cambridgeshire, and the ferry queue at Stranraer.


I've never heard of anyone managing any further than 320 miles, or
longer than 5 hours without putting a foot on the ground, so it is
probably some kind of record.
Even if you had the fuel (and bladder) range, there can't be many
routes in the UK where you could achieve that, and even less so now
that the roads are even more congested.

Ah yes. But isn't the usual English distance records set between
Land's End to John o' Groats? A bloke did it with a wheelchair even...
no feet on the ground there :-)

On the other hand, "In June 2001, Wayne Booth made the journey by
motorcycle without stopping; the 37-year-old completed the historic
trip in 14 hours and 52 minutes, averaging 57 mph... The meticulously
researched route of 854 miles (1,374 km) passed through just two sets
of traffic lights and was completed within all highway regulations,
law and speed limits.""
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
same speed?

Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?

Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.

Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
they can.

A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.

Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
the road, and can completely ignored.

So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.


Mike

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:56:02 +0100, Mike Causer
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
same speed?

Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?

Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.


But, that is only half the story.

The other half is that the great majority of people, when they get
their driving license, suddenly start to believe that they are King of
the Road. "Here! Look at Me! I am driving a car!"

Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
they can.

A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.

Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
the road, and can completely ignored.

Well, there you are, nose down, arse up, sweat pouring down you body,
really getting it on. Doing 20 mile an hour. Here comes a bloke in his
car, windows up, stereo blasting, air conditioned comfort, no sweat,
no mess, no bother. Doing 60 miles an hour. What is he going to think?

So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.


Mike
--
cheers,

John B.

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 11:56:26 AM UTC+1, Mike Causer wrote:
So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.

Yes. That's the best summary of the malaise that I've seen. Let's make it comprehensive:

It's not solely about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical size, it's mainly about learned expectations and acquired attitude, both of which can be changed if the will is there.

Thanks, Mike.

Andre Jute

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 11:56:26 AM UTC+1, Mike Causer wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
same speed?

Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?

Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.

Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
they can.

A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.

Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
the road, and can completely ignored.

So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.


Mike

On 6/29/2015 6:56 AM, Mike Causer wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
same speed?

Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?

Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.

Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
they can.

A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.

Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
the road, and can completely ignored.

So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.

There's no doubt that a cyclist and a pedestrian have different
capabilities. That's why since roughly 1900, bicyclists have been
classed as (or with) operators of vehicles, not pedestrians.

My remarks were related to one specific point by SMS, AKA Mr. Scharf.
Regarding Jay's use of a crosswalk at super-low speed while on a bike,
SMS said "Drivers aren't looking for bicycles in pedestrian crosswalks,
even when the cyclist is riding as slowly as a pedestrian walks."

SMS has long held the opinion that one needs strobe lights and flags at
all times to be seen while riding. My contention is that if a motorist
is looking for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, he will be just as likely to
see a super-slow cyclist. The presence of a bicycle doesn't make a human
invisible.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/29/2015 3:56 AM, Mike Causer wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
same speed?

Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?

Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.

Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
they can.

A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.

Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
the road, and can completely ignored.

So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.

Good points.

In San Francisco, where you have a huge number of pedestrians and a lot
of bicyclists, you definitely see a distinct difference in driver
behavior even though both users are often at the same intersections
waiting at the same light.

Cyclists will pace themselves so they don't have to stop and dismount at
a red light and this can be disconcerting to motorists who expect to run
the red light because they will get caught in the middle of an
intersection as the cyclists enter the intersection immediately after
the light changes.

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/29/2015 3:56 AM, Mike Causer wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
same speed?

Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?

Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.

Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
they can.

A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.

Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
the road, and can completely ignored.

So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.

Good points.

In San Francisco, where you have a huge number of pedestrians and a lot
of bicyclists, you definitely see a distinct difference in driver
behavior even though both users are often at the same intersections
waiting at the same light.

Cyclists will pace themselves so they don't have to stop and dismount at
a red light and this can be disconcerting to motorists who expect to run
the red light because they will get caught in the middle of an
intersection as the cyclists enter the intersection immediately after
the light changes.

BTW, I just about rear-ended a car this morning and just about whacked a cyclist because of a cyclist changing to pedestrian status. I've talked about this intersection before -- three lane road, two lanes exit to the right (middle lane can go right or straight); the bike lane ends, and to continue in to town, I have to merge into the middle lane and take the lane until the bike lane starts up again on the other side of the exit. You don't want to ride AFRAP in the middle lane because you'll get hooked by right turning cars. It's heavy, fast moving traffic and some skill is required. There is a bus stop just beyond the exit, and buses stop there frequently -- so you have to be looking down the road.

To add to the mayhem, there is a cross-walk on the right side of the road at the exit -- so timid cyclists can pull off to the right, get off their bikes and walk across the two exiting lanes, cross a narrow median and then saddle up and drop down a curb cut into the NB bike lane. It's hard to see cyclists in the cross walk when you're getting in to traffic. This whimp does it. At 4:25, I'm in the lane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eSoEj0JA

Demonstrating a high degree of compliance, exiting cars slam on their brakes to let the cyclists qua pedestrians across. This morning, I'm sprinting across heavy traffic, getting lined up in the center lane when traffic slams to a halt because some rider has dabbed her toe into the crosswalk. I'm looking ahead because a bus has stopped just beyond the exit; I look back and see that I'm about to go over a hatch-back; I jam on the brakes and do a two wheel skid. Things start to sort out, and I'm getting back up to speed, getting back in to the bike lane when the bicycle-pedestrian drops into the bike lane right in front of me without looking. So I skid again an then sprint around her. Sprint around a bus. It's like taking off on a ski run without looking for uphill traffic. I wanted to slap her.

It is a real problem when you start mixing up facilities like that. Cyclists should just ride down the road like the UVC anticipates. The signage suggest that cyclists must walk across -- but that violates the Oregon UVC which specifically states that cyclists can take the lane under these exact circumstances (road turns right, bike lane ends). Very rarely do you get a non-cyclist pedestrian.


-- Jay Beattie.



Well, PDX in its wisdom

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:11:18 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/29/2015 3:56 AM, Mike Causer wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
same speed?

Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?

Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.

Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
they can.

A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.

Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
the road, and can completely ignored.

So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.

Good points.

In San Francisco, where you have a huge number of pedestrians and a lot
of bicyclists, you definitely see a distinct difference in driver
behavior even though both users are often at the same intersections
waiting at the same light.

Cyclists will pace themselves so they don't have to stop and dismount at
a red light and this can be disconcerting to motorists who expect to run
the red light because they will get caught in the middle of an
intersection as the cyclists enter the intersection immediately after
the light changes.

BTW, I just about rear-ended a car this morning and just about whacked a cyclist because of a cyclist changing to pedestrian status. I've talked about this intersection before -- three lane road, two lanes exit to the right (middle lane can go right or straight); the bike lane ends, and to continue in to town, I have to merge into the middle lane and take the lane until the bike lane starts up again on the other side of the exit. You don't want to ride AFRAP in the middle lane because you'll get hooked by right turning cars. It's heavy, fast moving traffic and some skill is required. There is a bus stop just beyond the exit, and buses stop there frequently -- so you have to be looking down the road.

To add to the mayhem, there is a cross-walk on the right side of the road at the exit -- so timid cyclists can pull off to the right, get off their bikes and walk across the two exiting lanes, cross a narrow median and then saddle up and drop down a curb cut into the NB bike lane. It's hard to see cyclists in the cross walk when you're getting in to traffic. This whimp does it. At 4:25, I'm in the lane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eSoEj0JA

Demonstrating a high degree of compliance, exiting cars slam on their brakes to let the cyclists qua pedestrians across. This morning, I'm sprinting across heavy traffic, getting lined up in the center lane when traffic slams to a halt because some rider has dabbed her toe into the crosswalk. I'm looking ahead because a bus has stopped just beyond the exit; I look back and see that I'm about to go over a hatch-back; I jam on the brakes and do a two wheel skid. Things start to sort out, and I'm getting back up to speed, getting back in to the bike lane when the bicycle-pedestrian drops into the bike lane right in front of me without looking. So I skid again an then sprint around her. Sprint around a bus. It's like taking off on a ski run without looking for uphill traffic. I wanted to slap her.

It is a real problem when you start mixing up facilities like that. Cyclists should just ride down the road like the UVC anticipates. The signage suggest that cyclists must walk across -- but that violates the Oregon UVC which specifically states that cyclists can take the lane under these exact circumstances (road turns right, bike lane ends). Very rarely do you get a non-cyclist pedestrian.


-- Jay Beattie.



Well, PDX in its wisdom

There's definitely a case to be made for the police shooting jaywalkers on sight.

Andre Jute

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Andre Jute wrote:

There's definitely a case to be made for the police shooting
jaywalkers on sight.

First place I can find a crosswalk on the road I live on is over a
kilometer away. So that's a 20 minute walk there & back to visit my
neighbours on the other side of the road. Or get to the bus-stop.
Oh, and after going over the crosswalk there's the busiest junction
in town to negotiate -- with no crosswalk. The layout, traffic volume
and speed means I would *never* try to walk across it. No lights at
all at all.

BTW the nearest traffic light is a 25 minute bicycle ride away on a
road I rarely use, so I don't shoot it on red too often.


Mike

On 6/29/2015 11:11 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

BTW, I just about rear-ended a car this morning and just about whacked a cyclist because of a cyclist changing to pedestrian status. I've talked about this intersection before -- three lane road, two lanes exit to the right (middle lane can go right or straight); the bike lane ends, and to continue in to town, I have to merge into the middle lane and take the lane until the bike lane starts up again on the other side of the exit. You don't want to ride AFRAP in the middle lane because you'll get hooked by right turning cars. It's heavy, fast moving traffic and some skill is required. There is a bus stop just beyond the exit, and buses stop there frequently -- so you have to be looking down the road.

Turning from a cyclist into a pedestrian is usually a bad idea though
sometimes convenient or necessary. I do it often in one place because
it's safer in that specific situation.