Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:22:10 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 25/10/14 11:29, 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.


I don't know that it really matters where you ride if your number is up.
It must be difficult not to see a group of riders, yet...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-i...316-34usd.html

--
JS

They seem to be luckier than the group in Quebec that was run down from
BEHIND. IIRC three of them were killed out of six hit.

Cheers

Yes. The driver fell asleep with cruise control on.
They were doing a double rotation and the three on the outside were killed.
Long straight flat road.
--
duane

Joerg wrote:
Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 25/10/14 11:29, 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.

I don't know that it really matters where you ride if your number is up.
It must be difficult not to see a group of riders, yet...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-i...316-34usd.html

Sad to keep hearing about these cases. At least no one was killed.


But will they all be able to ride and continue life as before? One big
mistake in judging cycling safety is only counting deaths and not
looking at all those with long term health consequences and major
hospital stays.



You're mistaking me for one of the guys you're arguing with. I'm
expressing sympathy for the riders.


I hope the driver's "mandatory checkup" went well. Here they usually day
"the driver was treated for shock."


If car drivers are inebriated the outcome can be much worse:


Ah so medical check up means sobriety test?
I thought they were saying the driver went for a checkup to make sure he
wasn't injured.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingn...oto_stirs.html



--
duane

Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Duane wrote:

[...]


I hope the driver's "mandatory checkup" went well. Here they usually day
"the driver was treated for shock."

If car drivers are inebriated the outcome can be much worse:


Ah so medical check up means sobriety test?
I thought they were saying the driver went for a checkup to make sure he
wasn't injured.


I don't know about Australia but in California they will typically also
check for signs of alcohol.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 27/10/14 10:40, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:22:10 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


I don't know that it really matters where you ride if your number is up.
It must be difficult not to see a group of riders, yet...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-i...316-34usd.html


They seem to be luckier than the group in Quebec that was run down from
BEHIND. IIRC three of them were killed out of six hit.


Yes. The driver fell asleep with cruise control on.
They were doing a double rotation and the three on the outside were killed.
Long straight flat road.


If only they had taken the lane, eh?

It's for this reason I try to keep an eye on what's approaching from
behind, and to note if they've moved away enough to accommodate me -
regardless of my lane position.

Sometimes I move further from the edge of the road, to gauge their
awareness, but be ready to dive away if needs be. I don't generally
leave myself out there without them giving indication they are not about
to crash into me.

--
J "Dodging bullets for fun" S

On 26/10/2014 19:42, Joerg wrote:

In Austria they were taxpayer funded but then the government started
requiring that users pay up and buy a toll token. I think it's called
vignette. In Germany they are now mulling the same idea.

Switzerland have done it for ages. Except you really need one there -
there's not even a half-decent non-motorway alternative.

On 10/26/2014 6:11 PM, Joerg wrote:
Radey Shouman wrote:
... It certainly is possible to die mountain biking, but it doesn't
seem to happen very often.


Happens a lot out here. It's not just death, there are people who are
seriously and often permanently disabled after a major tumble.
...
Biking is dangerous. ...

Then, one should keep in mind that bikes (and human heads ...) don't
have much of a crumple zone, that brakes can fail, that tires can blow
unannounced and with gusto, that chains can break, and so on.

sigh So much fear...

I try to
ride my bike a little bit like the aircraft pilot who at all times keeps
an eye out for a safe emergency landing spot. For example, I no longer
hammer up a hill in high gear standing in the pedals. Anyone who ever
had a chain snap knows why.

When doing all this or at least most of it the dangers become not so
significant and it can be quite safe.

I never thought you'd say that. Progress!

Now if we could get you to expound on the dangers of motoring, we'll be
making real progress. Over 30,000 Americans killed every year! Danger!

--
- Frank Krygowski

James wrote:
On 27/10/14 10:40, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:22:10 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


I don't know that it really matters where you ride if your number is up.
It must be difficult not to see a group of riders, yet...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-i...316-34usd.html


They seem to be luckier than the group in Quebec that was run down from
BEHIND. IIRC three of them were killed out of six hit.


Yes. The driver fell asleep with cruise control on.
They were doing a double rotation and the three on the outside were killed.
Long straight flat road.


If only they had taken the lane, eh?


I expect the ones on the left were probably middle of the lane if they were
riding double. This case was one of the reasons the single rotation is
required now in Quebec.

It's for this reason I try to keep an eye on what's approaching from
behind, and to note if they've moved away enough to accommodate me -
regardless of my lane position.

Sometimes I move further from the edge of the road, to gauge their
awareness, but be ready to dive away if needs be. I don't generally
leave myself out there without them giving indication they are not about to crash into me.

There are some bridges here that are one lane and traffic from either side
take turns. There, turning left and to avoid door zones are pretty much
the only places I arbitrarily take the lane. Any other time it would
depend. If I have the drivers attention and want to make sure he knows he
can't pass maybe I will. Otherwise I'm either on the shoulder of the
highway or 3 feet from the curb on the roads.

If I don't think the approaching car is giving me room I'll decide what to
do but I'm not likely to move in front of him. I've seen too many people
hit by some clown with a cell phone.

--
duane

On 27/10/14 10:46, Duane wrote:


Ah so medical check up means sobriety test?
I thought they were saying the driver went for a checkup to make sure he
wasn't injured.


Here they get drug and alcohol tested. I suspect it's why we so often
hear of hit & run offences.

What they don't realise (yet) is that the ramifications of running and
later being caught are often worse than staying, even if they are
intoxicated.

--
JS

On 27/10/14 11:10, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 27/10/14 10:40, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:22:10 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


I don't know that it really matters where you ride if your number is up.
It must be difficult not to see a group of riders, yet...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-i...316-34usd.html


They seem to be luckier than the group in Quebec that was run down from
BEHIND. IIRC three of them were killed out of six hit.


Yes. The driver fell asleep with cruise control on.
They were doing a double rotation and the three on the outside were killed.
Long straight flat road.


If only they had taken the lane, eh?


I expect the ones on the left were probably middle of the lane if they were
riding double. This case was one of the reasons the single rotation is
required now in Quebec.


Ah, they left half the lane clear - inviting a close pass! Danger!
Danger! #sarcasm


It's for this reason I try to keep an eye on what's approaching from
behind, and to note if they've moved away enough to accommodate me -
regardless of my lane position.

Sometimes I move further from the edge of the road, to gauge their
awareness, but be ready to dive away if needs be. I don't generally
leave myself out there without them giving indication they are not about to crash into me.

There are some bridges here that are one lane and traffic from either side
take turns. There, turning left and to avoid door zones are pretty much
the only places I arbitrarily take the lane. Any other time it would
depend. If I have the drivers attention and want to make sure he knows he
can't pass maybe I will. Otherwise I'm either on the shoulder of the
highway or 3 feet from the curb on the roads.

If I don't think the approaching car is giving me room I'll decide what to
do but I'm not likely to move in front of him. I've seen too many people
hit by some clown with a cell phone.


Sounds sensible.

--
JS

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/26/2014 6:11 PM, Joerg wrote:
Radey Shouman wrote:
... It certainly is possible to die mountain biking, but it doesn't
seem to happen very often.


Happens a lot out here. It's not just death, there are people who are
seriously and often permanently disabled after a major tumble.
...
Biking is dangerous. ...

Then, one should keep in mind that bikes (and human heads ...) don't
have much of a crumple zone, that brakes can fail, that tires can blow
unannounced and with gusto, that chains can break, and so on.

sigh So much fear...


Nope, reality and experience. Also that of others whom I listen to, like
a friend whose left crank snapped while he was hammering up a hill. He
took a spill smack dab into the middle of the road. Luckily he was not
"taking a lane" so he did not get run over by oncoming traffic.


I try to
ride my bike a little bit like the aircraft pilot who at all times keeps
an eye out for a safe emergency landing spot. For example, I no longer
hammer up a hill in high gear standing in the pedals. Anyone who ever
had a chain snap knows why.

When doing all this or at least most of it the dangers become not so
significant and it can be quite safe.

I never thought you'd say that. Progress!


I've never said bicycling is unsafe everywhere. It can be very safe on
trails, bike paths and bike lanes. Also some not too busy or
sufficiently wide roads. With your riding style in the middle of a lane
if would be rather unsafe out here but the sheriff deputies would pick
you out of the road anyhow.


Now if we could get you to expound on the dangers of motoring, we'll be
making real progress. Over 30,000 Americans killed every year! Danger!


A does of reality for ya:

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

Quote "784 cyclists died in 2005 (p. 86). That would make the death rate
0.37 to 1.26 deaths per 10 million miles".

Here they assume a mileage between 6.2 billion and 21 billion miles
traveled because estimates vary for bicycles.

Then , quote "33,041 motorists/passengers died (p. 86) from 3 trillion
miles traveled (p. 15), making their death rate 0.11 per 10 million
miles traveled.

So cyclists are either 3.4x or 11.5x as likely to die as motorists, per
passenger mile. Neither conclusion is very happy".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/