Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

Radey Shouman wrote:
Joerg writes:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:04:24 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:00:19 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 07:46:55 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2014 8:18 PM, Joerg wrote:
AFAIU right-hook crashes are the major concern with bike
paths over there. Why do they want to dump the baby out with the bath
water instead of looking for the obvious?
I'd suggest not putting the baby in stinky bath water to begin with.

Worse? Driver are negligent and sometimes dazed out here (drugs, booze,
pills, cell phones) but they sure are a ton more courteous than in
Europe.
Hmm. I've found drivers to be pretty similar in the U.S. and Europe -
IOW, almost all treat me well. I do think that they're a bit more
courteous where there are lots of cyclists, and where there are strict
liability laws. Admittedly, I don't have a ton of experience with the
latter.

I never, not once, got into a critical situation on a US bike
path.
I think I've mentioned that our bike club members have had many more
hospital visits from bike path riding than from road riding, despite far
more miles ridden on roads. The crashes didn't involve cars, but other
cyclists, pedestrians, slippery surfaces, shoulders with sudden
dropoffs, etc. But the broken bones and hospital visits were real.

So why is it that in all my life as a cyclist, and that's decades by
now, there was no critical situation of this kind on a bike path? And
why is it that I got into crashes on the road several times where every
single time the car driver was at fault?

The worst one was where I banged into a car door so bad that the driver
could not open it anymore from the inside.

And why is it that _all_ my friends that were severly hurt were hurt
while cycling on roads? Which serious I mean things like a lost kidney,
ruptured spleen and such.

If bicycling is the dangerous pastime that you have just described it
should be totally banned, and quite obviously cyclists are people who
require local, state, or national, legislation to protect them as you
have just provided proof that they are deliberately engaging in a life
threatening activity as a sport.

At the very minimum insurance, whether life, injury or death, should
be written to negate payment for bicycle injuries as that is a known
danger which would not be engaged in by normally prudent people.
Wityh that kind of argumentation you should also ban the sports of
socccer. It's much more dangerous to the health.
Exactly. Although I never participated on Soccer, I might comment that
I never heard members of a (American) football team or the ice hockey
team sit around the locker room telling each other how dangerous the
sport is.

As I am reading here.

I'll go a little further. I had a couple of friends that were sky
divers, probably the most dangerous sport one can participate in, and
for the several years I knew them I never heard them even mention that
the sport was dangerous.
Then they live a risky live. I did skydiving for many years, in Belgium.
One of the first things our teacher told us was "If you ever loose that
litte knot of afraidness in your stomach before leaving the aircraft,
stop skydiving. Because let's not kid ourselves, it is dangerous".

That sport is very dangerous. And yeah, I did it anyhow. But here is the
rub: _I_ get to decide how much risk I will take. When riding on the
side of a busy road with my bicycle others decide how much risk I will
be exposed to. The guy in the truck back there that just had a few shots
at the saloon, the lady in the sports car that took sleeping pills to be
able to sleep duing the day because if shift work, the kid in the
roaring lowrider who is looking at an incoming text message, and so on.
Whether the sport is dangerous, or not, isn't the point. The point is
that I've never heard anyone who was engaged in any of the more
dangerous sports, or activities, sit around and tell each other "how
dangerous this is".

They do point out dangers to each other just like we do here. For
example, we regularly talked to the "low pullers" who would pull at
1800ft or less. Or about how to approach better in the next formation
jump to reduce the chance of smacking into each other. Mountain bikers
do the same. "If you ride past the curve over yonder don't gain too much
speed on the downhill stretch afterwards because at the end there is ...".

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.


I do:

http://archive.mtbr.com/00/0EFB09F7.php

The Darrington Trail is one of my regular rides. AFAIK several mountain
bikers have died at that same location. Lose your balance and it's over.

The closest local trail to our house is also one of the scarier ones. A
loooong rock garden, most of the rocks are loose and it's pretty steep
downhill. Once I took a neighbor (experienced MTB rider) out there who
intitially said "Nah, there's nothing worth mantioning anywhere close".
I let him ride ahead and partially into this section I heard him scream
"Holy smokes!". He said he came pretty close to a crash.

Mountain bikes are almost like skydivers and base jumpers. Once the
rescue helicopter has left it's back to business.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 24/10/14 13:17, Clive George wrote:
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?


Apparently no seriously hurt..

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...317-34x4s.html

Here's the other I couldn't be bothered finding for Frank. I remembered
the fella's name, which made the search easier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z4ZIwCPThU

--
JS

On 24/10/2014 03:45, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 13:17, Clive George wrote:
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?


Apparently no seriously hurt..

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...317-34x4s.html


Here's the other I couldn't be bothered finding for Frank. I remembered
the fella's name, which made the search easier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z4ZIwCPThU

And nastier.

Here that would almost certainly get a prosecution. Are your plod really
poor?

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:40:43 -0700, Joe Riel wrote:

I need to make a smaller one to
see if it is acceptable.

Here's a good test: get into the driver's seat of a car and line up
the mirror you are wearing with the outside mirror on the car. You
should be able to see the corners -- and ONLY the corners -- of the
mirror on the car.


--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:53:27 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

I have never left the road on a bicycle or
anything else because I saw someone behind me preparing to run me down.

I once left the road because of something I saw in front of me, moving
away.

A car passed me going honkety honkety honkety and I glared at him in
annoyance, then read the sign on his back and realized that he was
trying to warn me that I was being overtaken by a house.

--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

John B. Slocomb wrote:
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,


Seems like they're implying that she rode badly because of where she rode
under these conditions and she was in violation of local law because of it.



--
duane

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.


--
duane

On 10/23/2014 11:17 PM, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
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,


Seems like they're implying that she rode badly because of where she rode
under these conditions and she was in violation of local law because of it.

I'm pretty familiar with the case. Over the years, I've had a lot of
contact with her lawyer and worked with him on certain projects. And
the case has been thoroughly discussed on some other forums.

The legal problem is an almost unique quirk in Kentucky law. As I
understand it, the UVC and most states' laws say that (under certain
conditions and/or with certain exceptions) a cyclist is to ride as far
right as practicable on the "roadway." Kentucky instead says "highway."
Those sorts of details make a big difference in court.

Legally, the definition of the roadway does not include the shoulder, so
in effect, riding the shoulder is usually permitted, but not required.
The definition of the highway (as in Kentucky's law) includes the
shoulder. That means Kentucky requires a cyclist to be on the shoulder
unless other provisions of the law give an exception.

IIRC, Kentucky does allow using the roadway if the shoulder isn't safe
enough for riding. Ms. Schill says it wasn't, because of debris and
because of motorists tending to right hook her as they rushed to turn
into parking lots, etc. IIRC, the prosecution found videos of other
cyclists riding the shoulder, and said that proved that she could have
done it too.

Based on that, she was convicted. There's talk of an appeal, but I
think the phrasing of the law makes success unlikely. But IANAL.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 24/10/14 14:03, Clive George wrote:
On 24/10/2014 03:45, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 13:17, Clive George wrote:
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?


Apparently no seriously hurt..

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...317-34x4s.html



Here's the other I couldn't be bothered finding for Frank. I remembered
the fella's name, which made the search easier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z4ZIwCPThU

And nastier.

Here that would almost certainly get a prosecution. Are your plod really
poor?



A jury of peers to the accused, being fellow motorists, often find the
cyclist was at least partly to blame for their own downfall.

The plods have a hard time making charges stick, and I think end up not
trying. E.g.;

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226635894242

The trucker tried to pass without leaving the lane. It is narrow, and
for whatever reason, the rider ended up going under the wheels of the truck.

Had he been riding lane centre, perhaps the trucker wouldn't have tried
to pass - but that is not an excuse of course, and the trucker *might*
have been as terrible as those other two drivers in the videos. We'll
never know.

--
JS

On 10/23/2014 5:38 PM, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 11:21, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

Indeed.
Because it is so ridiculous it doesn't even qualify for the
description "study".
It's the regurgitated anecdotes of journalists.
It would be hard to image a less accurate way of collecting data if
you tried.

I do not know what you are commenting on. The link I provided is from
the Transport Accident Commission, a government run org. The
statistics, AFAIK, are collected from police reports. Are you
suggesting police are journalists?

Very odd. Maybe he thinks that the TAC is somehow controlled by reporters.

I've given up trying to decode what several people in this newsgroup are
trying to imply. Either they can't write clearly or they are clueless.
How can you debate someone that can't craft a coherent response? Better
off to just filter them out and move on.