Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

On 10/23/2014 8:45 PM, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 11:38, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2014 8:13 PM, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 11:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

No. Sorry, but I've never had to do that. And yes, as described, I
have had countless vehicles come up behind me where there was no
room to
pass. None of them have hit me.

Obviously it does not happen often, but it does happen, even when a pair
of riders are two abreast. I know of a few within my circle of friends
who have been hit squarely from behind though they were lane centre.

Some are even caught on camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPJwz6PB0YM

I know of another video, but cannot be bothered searching it out, just
to argue with you. You are not worth my energy.

Has _anybody_ here said it _never_ happens?

Is it a crime to point out that although being hit from behind while
riding lane centre has not happened to you (yet), it has happened to
numerous other people?

It's not a crime, but as it was done ("You are not worth my energy") was
rather rude, considering that I've never, ever claimed that it _never_
happens.

I don't know why you're intent on battling that particular straw man.
As I recall, you've described that you frequently ride lane center when
necessary.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2014 6:23 PM, Joerg wrote:

What I meant was much busier roads
where people are in a hurry, have to get to their shift start and so on.
If you take the lane on those chances are high that someone smacks into
you at full speed because they saw you too late.

Exactly how high do you suppose those chances are?


Too high for me, people have been killed out here that way.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yp32rEpecQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2RZMANlHls


Piece of cake. That's a city in the flatlands, there I ride similarly.
But try that on a windy two-lane road in the country, steep uphill,
where you are pumping out full pedal power and crawl up at 5-7mph. When
you are behind a narrow corner and take the line you can only hope
nobody tears around there in a sportscar or a motorcycle. Because then
you'd either be dead or in an ambulance. Plus probably on the hook for
all damages.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joe Riel writes:

Radey Shouman writes:


On a previous job I worked with a guy that liked to base jump in his
spare time. On one occasion he traveled to, IIRC, Arkansas, to jump off
a bridge in a park that was open for that kind of thing only one day a
year. Midway through the event, somebody made a mistake and died. My
co-worker said that everyone waited around for maybe half an hour, while
the mess was cleaned up. But they all kept their places in line, and
the party did not stop.

I never hear stories like that about bicycling.

Try entering a rainy day cat 4 crit and watch as a few riders crash out
every lap. Not quite the same, but it kind of makes you think. I did
manage to pick up a $20 prime on that one 'cause the chase was less
enthusiastic than it otherwise would have been.

How often does someone actually die? I don't doubt that at the higher
levels competition does go on, even after some competitor cashes it in,
but my co-worker wasn't competing in anything, just doing some hairy
recreation. This wasn't a favorite old tale, at least at the time,
it was a "how did your weekend go?" watercooler conversation.

He's the only base jumper I know. How many cyclists would I have to
befriend to be likely to hear a story like that?

--

Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 21 Oct 2014
16:57:57 -0700 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2014 7:19 PM, Joerg wrote:

Bicycling is far more dangerous on a per mile basis. That's what
ultimately counts. Because if I go to Walmart on the trail with my MTB
or on Highway 50 using my car it's roughly the same number of miles.
Most of the reason that motoring is safer per mile is probably the
common use of limited access roads for distance driving. Motoring on a
freeway is incredibly safe.

Several years ago, the Government Accountability Office (IIRC) came out
with a paper that estimated the fatality rate, per mile, of motoring on
different classes of roads. Their point was that the federal government
is spending far too much to further improve the safety of freeways, when
they should be spending much more on rural roads. Although the relevant
figures are pretty uncertain, it appeared that riding a bike is, on
average, not much more dangerous than driving a car on rural roads. IOW,
cycling's about as safe as a drive in the country.

Not a valid comparison. A valid comparison is like mine above. If I have
to go from here to Walmart taking the freeway is the obvious. Why on
earth would anyone go there via rural roads?

Why on earth would you compare driving on dual carriageway limited
access roads with driving on normal ones, or cycling with any type of
driving other than that on the same type of roads?


I don't know what a carriageway is but there are only three ways to Walmart:

a. Highway (car only, no bicycles allowed on this one).

b. A country road. Very dangerous by bike.

c. A trail. Very safe if you can handle a mountain bike.

One must live with what is there, not with what should or could be there
or one wishes was there.

BTW, in the US we are allowed to use some freeways (like your motorways)
with bicycles. But that's not for the faint of heart. Like he

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/2...ream/lightbox/


If we can learn anything from those statistics, it's that if
governments made the same investment in limited access dual cycleways,
it would be as safe to cycle on them as it is to drive on limited
access dual carriageways.
Of course, the distances wouldn't scale up as far, although if you
based the need for provision on the length of time necessary for the
trip instead of the distance, it could work rather well.


I don't know these UK expressions but out here they are quite busy
building up a nice bicycling infrastructure. We helped a couple seek out
an assisted living place this week and when I peeked out of the window,
tadaaa, a wonderful new bike bath. Yay! So I will be able to visit them
with my road bike, don't need to use the MTB.


Fact is, for car travel there exists a nice mix of routes that provide
adequate average safety. For bicycling there doesn't, only scattered
here and there. Like to Walmart where nobody in their right mind would
use Mother Lode Drive (two-lane country road, no bike lanes, high
speeds) on a bicycle. And nobody does.

Well no - you and the helmeteers have probably scared them all off.
Strangely, most of the riding I've done has been on two lane country
roads with 60mph speed limits and no bike lanes or shoulders of any
kind at all, and it's been very enjoyable.
Much better than it is on 4 lane roads, which the drivers seem to have
a greater tendency to think they own.


Have you ever been to the Western US? Not cities, out in the country.


There is now a trail but it's not
for the faint of heart because it requires rider to have at leat basic
mountain biking skills and also not be afraid of heights. I love it but
that doesn't go for most other cyclists. So what do they do? The usual,
hop into their cars.

I'd use the road (if I could still ride).
But then I've taken the time to learn how to do so safely.
Being a gutter bunny always encourages drivers into the belief that
they can squeeze through without slowing or moving over properly.
Taking the lane means that it is immediately obvious to them that they
can't, and will have to wait until there is a suitable gap in oncoming
traffic, or a long enough stretch of straight road that they can be
sure that they can overtake safely without someone coming the opposite
way. So they don't get misled, and don't leave it until the last
moment to throw out the anchor, but slow in sufficient time to judge
their overtake safely.
And of course, by staying away from the edge, I don't get mistaken for
some part of the scenery, and have plenty of space to move into if one
of them does feel like being an idiot.


You may only realize the idiot when a big truck or car is right at your
rear wheel. Like one woman on Blue Ravine Road. She died at the scene.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:23:11 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:37:38 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2014 6:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
Why is it that bike stuff is so short-lived while car stuff is so
vastly superior in quality?.
A car has hundreds of horsepower available to haul itself and its
occupant around. A bike has perhaps 1/4 horsepower available. So bike
equipment is designed with a lower safety factor and lower expected
life, in order to reduce weight or otherwise improve performance. It
works out reasonably well, because bikes typically see far fewer hours
of use than cars.

One can buy a bike whose components will last much longer than those on
typical bikes. But I think few posting here are interested, because
performance suffers pretty significantly.

It is a piece of cake to design brake cables twice as thick for serious
riders and they won't be penalizingly heavy. Same for tires, brake pads
et cetera. I believe the main reason is that cyclists accept inferior stuff.

Sometimes you can buy heavier gear. For example, my bike dealer showed
me a 29" MTB tite that (finally!) has some real tread on it. Then came
the shocker: 79 bucks plus tax! It still won't last much longer than my
previous one (well under 1000 miles). A tire for my SUV cost me less and
easily lasts 70,000 miles.

From a different viewpoint, they will sell, probably, more than a
million SUV tires and bicycle tires counted in the thousands, possibly
in the hundreds.


I'd think a company like Vee Rubber will have bicycle tire sales in the
high six digits. AFAIK they even run their own rubber plantations. I am
trying their 29" Vee Rubber Flying right now. Tread and traction aren't
better than on the previous Hutchinson Cobra but they cost only 1/3rd.


Vee is a Thai company formed in 1977 and states that they make tires
for about everything, from go-carts to large trucks, and claim annual
sales of above 100 million US $.

Whether they own rubber plantations isn't stated in their literature,
here in Thailand, but that isn't really a subject of great importance
as about 95% of the rubber production in Thailand is from small
plantations that sell their rubber through rubber traders. About 90%
of production is exported either as raw rubber or as finished goods.

It might be of interest that I've never sees "Vee" tires advertised or
sold in Thailand and every "sports" bicycle shop is selling imported
tires, not local made, or at least not labeled as local made :-)

SUV drivers don't seem to care what the weight of their tires is while
cyclists demand light weight tires. It would be possible to make
heavy, long lasting, bicycle tires, but who would buy them? You? and
maybe two guys in Idaho?


Actually all folks using the bike for non-pleasure riding. Also all the
bike share organizations should be interested if they are smart about
it. Then police bikes, and so on.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 24/10/14 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2014 8:45 PM, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 11:38, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2014 8:13 PM, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 11:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

No. Sorry, but I've never had to do that. And yes, as described, I
have had countless vehicles come up behind me where there was no
room to
pass. None of them have hit me.

Obviously it does not happen often, but it does happen, even when a
pair
of riders are two abreast. I know of a few within my circle of friends
who have been hit squarely from behind though they were lane centre.

Some are even caught on camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPJwz6PB0YM

I know of another video, but cannot be bothered searching it out, just
to argue with you. You are not worth my energy.

Has _anybody_ here said it _never_ happens?

Is it a crime to point out that although being hit from behind while
riding lane centre has not happened to you (yet), it has happened to
numerous other people?

It's not a crime, but as it was done ("You are not worth my energy") was
rather rude, considering that I've never, ever claimed that it _never_
happens.

I don't know why you're intent on battling that particular straw man. As
I recall, you've described that you frequently ride lane center when
necessary.


No point get all huffy because I cannot be bothered doing something I
know won't have any affect.

--
JS

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:17:00 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:06:35 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:38:03 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2014 23:37, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2014 17:20, Joerg wrote:

Most people simply do
not feel safe on a bike when big trucks rumble by at 3ft or less
distance.
IME big trucks don't do that to me. They're driven by more experienced,
better trained drivers, and give me more room.

Of course I do do one thing which helps them do this : My riding
position means they have to make an explicit overtaking move, they can't
just come by staying in lane.

Then you must live in an area where truckers are never paid by the mile
and barely get by.
It sounds like you used to, then moved to the US.

Yep. But it's not much different in Europe. What is done a lot over in
Europe is shipping companies recruiting drivers but employing them as
"independent" contractors. Then they get paid by deliveries, not per
hour. I've seen them hammering those delivery vans and truck down the roads.


Lorry drivers here get paid more than minimum wage - it's seen as a
skilled job. Having a reliable competent driver is worth more than
having one who might crash on the way.

http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/...Trailer/Salary

That doesn't strike me as a very generous pay.

It depends on what kind of "trucker" one is. U.S. long distance (cross
country) truckers averaged according to the U.S.Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), an average of $40,360 per year as of May 2012,

In addition, I believe, that a great many long distance truckers are
driving their own equipment and while contracted to haul for, XYZ Van
Lines, they are driving their own truck and paid accordingly.

Yeah, at best by the mile and at worst by the load. The latter often
meaning they get nothing for empty rides and so they tend to "get it
over with" fast, by stepping on it.

[...]

Way back when.. I was in the Service and my household goods were
shipped at government expense. On one move the tractor trailer rig
came in driven by a guy with his wife riding "shotgun". They told me
that he had just gotten out of the Army and they had bought this truck
and gotten a contracted to drive for the furniture moving company.
They said that they were paid by the trip. so much for hauling from
point A to point B, regardless of the actual size of the load.

They said that the guy had gotten some form of "GI loan" and the
company had guaranteed the loan, in some manner, and that they lived
in the truck. The wife told my wife that "it is really fun" and that
they had been "all over the U.S."

From what they said, they never had to "dead head", that the company
was large enough that they always had a load, but not necessarily to
where THEY wanted to go :-)


California suffer a slow exodus and it was a serious exodus at the start
about 10-15 years ago. A moving truck driver told me that deadheading
was a major problem for his company. Like on that day where he headed
from our neighbor's house to WA state where they move to but there was
not yet any confirmed load back and he was fairly sure there wouldn't
be. In his case the large company owned the truck but he said it's
really hard on "independent" owner-operators.

Life in the cab can be nice. I did an electronics project once for
trucks and when I stood in one of those cabs I could not even touch the
roof when I stretched. One older guy I met had logged over three million
miles in the cab. But isn't a life I envy even if I could carry my MTB.

I don't remember the name of the moving company that made that move
but it apparently had offices all over the U.S. or perhaps sub
contracted with other companies, or used agents, as the couple that
lived in the truck were picking up my load in Ohio and moving it to
California and said that there wouldn't be any problem in getting a
load from there. I gathered that they weren't operating from a fixed
base but were sort of gypsy's, pick up a load here and take it to
there, get a load there and take it somewhere else.

I remember that they specifically said that they owned the "truck"
although they may have meant the "tractor" but the tractor and trailer
were painted with company colors and logos.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 24/10/2014 01:13, James wrote:
Obviously it does not happen often, but it does happen, even when a pair
of riders are two abreast. I know of a few within my circle of friends
who have been hit squarely from behind though they were lane centre.

Some are even caught on camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPJwz6PB0YM

Yeech. That's a deliberate ramming though, not a SMIDSY. Any more news
on that incident?

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:33:51 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/23/2014 3:26 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Nah, I won't do that. Because even if I'd win taking the lane sets one
up for getting killed or severely maimed out here.

I prefer bush roads and trails where the are no or very few motorized
vehicles. That is why I invested into a new MTB and not a new road bike.

There's a case going on now.

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Jessamine-County-bicylcist-back-in-court-277712781.html

Based on the actual law, she should win. However judges and politician
rule however they want despite the the law and the evidence.

It only takes one angry jerk for things to turn out bad for her on the road.

Take the lane only when it is more unsafe to not take the lane.

The case seems to be more about how she rode rather then where.

Comments from one article:

The officer responding to a report of a cyclist riding on U.S. 27 saw
the cyclist traveling north in the center of the right lane near
Kohl's Drive.

The report says the officer "observed several vehicles braking hard
and switching lanes erratically in an attempt to dodge the violator.


After hearing testimony during a one-day trial Friday, District Judge
Bill Oliver found that Schill had violated three counts of careless
driving and that she had violated three counts of a law requiring
slow-moving vehicles to move as far to the right "as practicable."
Oliver imposed fines and court costs of $433, which Schill has a year
to pay.

Oliver had warned Schill on Friday: "You want to avoid any further
violations of the law. I'm not telling you that you can't have your
bicycle out there. We've established that bicycles have some rights
out there."
--
Cheers,

John B.