Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

On 24/10/2014 04:56, James wrote:
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.

According to that report, the trucker at least tried to pass without
ramming the cyclist - no intent to hit. And the fact that it was the
back wheels which did it support that. Death by careless driving here
probably.

Those two videos show people deliberately hitting the cyclist, which is
far worse IMO, even though the consequences weren't.

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

sms wrote:
On 10/23/2014 9:21 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Then best to revert to old school strategy and carry a brick to throw
through their window.

I was hoping to modify a hub dynamo to jam cell phones.

Buy a hub dynamo.
Throw it through the car window at the driver's head.
Mission accomplished.

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'm imagining a lineup of bikes waiting to merge onto the Interstate so
that they can try and make it to the off ramp 2 miles up the road in the
left lane.

"Wet clean up - aisle 3..."

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.

Joy Beeson writes:

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.

While a reasonable test, there is a difference. The outside mirror
on a car doesn't generally block the normal direction of view;
that's the job of the A-pillars.

--
Joe Riel

On 10/24/2014 7:48 AM, Clive George wrote:
On 24/10/2014 04:56, James wrote:


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.

Or according to the lawyer's claim in the article, the trucker was under
"the honest and reasonable belief" there was enough room on the road to
safely overtake him. If so, the trucker was wrong, and his mistake
killed the cyclist.

As I've said before, in such a situation, the cyclist is likely to be a
far better judge of what's safe. Therefore the cyclist should determine
whether or not he can be passed within the lane. He should use a lane
position appropriate to his own decision.


According to that report, the trucker at least tried to pass without
ramming the cyclist - no intent to hit. And the fact that it was the
back wheels which did it support that. Death by careless driving here
probably.

Those two videos show people deliberately hitting the cyclist, which is
far worse IMO, even though the consequences weren't.

I'm curious what James would advise other bicyclists to do as a result
of his videos. I'm also curious what he does himself.

On roads where there's room to safely share the lane and let motorists
pass, I do just that. When there's not sufficient room, I ride near
lane center.

What exactly does James advise?


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 25/10/14 02:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:


What exactly does James advise?



Keep an eye on the pricks and be ready to bail out if necessary, then
chase and confront them at the next set of lights - if possible.

Taking number plate and vehicle details and reporting to police has
proved fruitless thus far.

--
JS

On 10/24/2014 3:47 PM, James wrote:
On 25/10/14 02:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:


What exactly does James advise?



Keep an eye on the pricks and be ready to bail out if necessary, then
chase and confront them at the next set of lights - if possible.

I think all that's fine. But the question, as always, is where do you
ride in a narrow lane? Gutter like Jeorg, or center like me?

Taking number plate and vehicle details and reporting to police has
proved fruitless thus far.

Yes, that can be tough.

Some of my riding buddies are cops. One low-ranking guy, a city cop,
was run off the road by an elderly lady on a quiet residential street,
an act which was either deliberate or extremely incompetent. He
reported it, asking authority to ticket her after the fact (I think that
was the plan) but his superiors denied it. He thought they were afraid
of bad publicity and perhaps taxpayer revolt.

But in another case, a higher ranking guy was deliberately harrassed by
a motorist. He had the authority to decide on his own, and he used it.
In full uniform, he returned to the guys home, said "That was me on
the bike," and arresting him.

I don't recall for sure how the charges worked out in the end; I think
the guy just paid a fine. But I doubt he'll be as aggressive with
cyclists any more.

--
- Frank Krygowski