|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
This really belongs in RBS and/or RBM, not RBR(ides).
RicodJour wrote: On Aug 20, 2:56 pm, "Papa Tom" wrote: Hey, this has probably been discussed here before, but if I can save one recumbent rider's life with it, it's worth being accused of beating a dead horse.... As someone who rides on the road a lot and is constantly on the look-out for bicyclists when I get behind the wheel of a car, I have to tell you guys that you are just as good as invisible when you pull alongside an automobile of any size. I nearly crushed a bent rider last week when I had to make a quick shift to the right lane to avoid a vehicle stopped in a turn lane. This guy, barely two and a half feet off the ground, came from nowhere. It might have been his last ride across that street had I not miraculously glimpsed the top of his helmet over my right shoulder just in time. That is failure to pay proper attention. The lane change should not be made unless the driver is certain that the lane is clear. I think bents and other low-rider bikes are cool, but I have to say that I don't think they belong on the road any more than an empty hitch does. Yes, I'm for sharing the road with all kinds of vehicles, but only as long as they meet basic requirements designed to maintain the safety of all road users. In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too dangerous for everyone. How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at the same height as an automobile driver. Perhaps those of you who insist on staying on the road should consider some type of safety flags that rise into the air a few feet? Perhaps those who insist in driving steel cages should use more caution. How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van? It is not different. It's entirely the driver's responsibility to insure there's nothing in their way when they change lanes. It's also the driver's responsibility to maintain a suitable following distance so they can stop safely when the vehicle ahead of them does something stupid (which of course it will). Indeed. I understand that you're a rider and you're trying to warn other riders, but half the warning should be lofted in the driver's direction, no? All the warning in this case. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
Tom Sherman wrote:
In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too dangerous for everyone. How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at the same height as an automobile driver. Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"? Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom? How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van? It is not different. It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are. -- Lower, faster... My homebuilt FWD recumbent -- http://piotrowiak.info/poziom jid:live_evil[]jabber.ru gg:6373907 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
live_evil wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote: In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too dangerous for everyone. How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at the same height as an automobile driver. Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"? Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom? Not in the US. More typical is something like a RANS V-Rex or Easy Racers Tour Easy with seat heights in the 45-60 cm range. How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van? It is not different. It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are. From your pictures, it looks like your head is a little bit higher than a NoCom rider's. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
live_evil wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote: In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too dangerous for everyone. How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at the same height as an automobile driver. Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"? Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom? How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van? It is not different. It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are. My car's rear view mirris give me a pretty good view of the tarmac behind the car: you're not lower than the road surface, are you? As a driver, I see rabbits, cats, squirrels, crows etc. on the roads, and they're a lot lower than a NoCom. I even see potholes and surface floods, and they're even lower. #1 FUD point against 'bents is that you're too low to be easily visible. No shortage of low trikes that don't have any trouble getting seen, it's FUD. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message ... live_evil wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too dangerous for everyone. How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at the same height as an automobile driver. Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"? Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom? How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van? It is not different. It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are. My car's rear view mirris give me a pretty good view of the tarmac behind the car: you're not lower than the road surface, are you? As a driver, I see rabbits, cats, squirrels, crows etc. on the roads, and they're a lot lower than a NoCom. I even see potholes and surface floods, and they're even lower. #1 FUD point against 'bents is that you're too low to be easily visible. No shortage of low trikes that don't have any trouble getting seen, it's FUD. Tom Sherman and Peter Clinch are both a couple of crazy loons. The fact is that motorists do not see you as well when you are lower than what they expect to see. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
"Peter Clinch" wrote live_evil wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too dangerous for everyone. How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at the same height as an automobile driver. Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"? Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom? How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van? It is not different. It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are. My car's rear view mirris give me a pretty good view of the tarmac behind the car: you're not lower than the road surface, are you? As a driver, I see rabbits, cats, squirrels, crows etc. on the roads, and they're a lot lower than a NoCom. I even see potholes and surface floods, and they're even lower. #1 FUD point against 'bents is that you're too low to be easily visible. No shortage of low trikes that don't have any trouble getting seen, it's FUD. It never ceases to amaze the kind of stupid arguments people try to mount against those things which for some reason they find objection to. Reason is completely out the window in the face of utter nonsense. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
Peter Clinch wrote:
In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too dangerous for everyone. How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at the same height as an automobile driver. Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"? Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom? How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van? It is not different. It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much lower than usual car's rear view mirrors are. My car's rear view mirrors give me a pretty good view of the tarmac behind the car: you're not lower than the road surface, are you? As a driver, I see rabbits, cats, squirrels, crows etc. on the roads, and they're a lot lower than a NoCom. I even see potholes and surface floods, and they're even lower. #1 FUD point against 'bents is that you're too low to be easily visible. No shortage of low trikes that don't have any trouble getting seen, it's FUD. I suppose we are all in the "too low to be seen" category for the drivers of jacked up SUV's and huge pickup trucks, not to mention large commercial vehicles. http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg I found drivers and bicyclists in London conspicuously more skilled than ones I meet locally, they being able to pass and accept bicyclists who respond to traffic signs and signals pragmatically. The large double decked buses did well with riders in the bus lane (that is also marked as bicycle lane). I saw no riders with rear view mirrors, probably because they offer no useful information in dense traffic other than to terrorize riders who believe they have an affect on traffic with that knowledge. Jobst Brandt |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
On Aug 20, 6:40*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote: This really belongs in RBS and/or RBM, not RBR(ides). RicodJour wrote: On Aug 20, 2:56 pm, "Papa Tom" wrote: Hey, this has probably been discussed here before, but if I can save one recumbent rider's life with it, it's worth being accused of beating a dead horse.... As someone who rides on the road a lot and is constantly on the look-out for bicyclists when I get behind the wheel of a car, I have to tell you guys that you are just as good as invisible when you pull alongside an automobile of any size. *I nearly crushed a bent rider last week when I had to make a quick shift to the right lane to avoid a vehicle stopped in a turn lane. This guy, barely two and a half feet off the ground, came from nowhere.. *It might have been his last ride across that street had I not miraculously glimpsed the top of his helmet over my right shoulder just in time. That is failure to pay proper attention. The lane change should not be made unless the driver is certain that the lane is clear. I think bents and other low-rider bikes are cool, but I have to say that I don't think they belong on the road any more than an empty hitch does. *Yes, I'm for sharing the road with all kinds of vehicles, but only as long as they meet basic requirements designed to maintain the safety of all road users. *In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window level of an automobile do not belong on the road. *They are just too dangerous for everyone. How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at the same height as an automobile driver. Perhaps those of you who insist on staying on the road should consider some type of safety flags that rise into the air a few feet? Perhaps those who insist in driving steel cages should use more caution. How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van? It is not different. It's entirely the driver's responsibility to insure there's nothing in their way when they change lanes. *It's also the driver's responsibility to maintain a suitable following distance so they can stop safely when the vehicle ahead of them does something stupid (which of course it will). Indeed. I understand that you're a rider and you're trying to warn other riders, but half the warning should be lofted in the driver's direction, no? All the warning in this case. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” It seems to me that If a driver can see the white lines on the road, they should be able to see a person on a 'bent. That, of course, presupposes that the driver is not drinking coffee, smoking a cigarette and sending a text message. :-) Lewis. ***** |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... [...] It never ceases to amaze the kind of stupid arguments people try to mount against those things which for some reason they find objection to. Reason is completely out the window in the face of utter nonsense. Stupid people make stupid arguments. So what else is new? Anyone who thinks you are going to be seen when you are low as opposed to being high is stupid. But why do folks think like this? Because they have low bikes which they have spent thousands of dollars on and don't want to be thought stupid. Hey, if I can see you, then you can see me ... right? Wrong! Seeing has everything to do with perception and not much to do with physical reality. Small animals are constantly being run over by morotorists because they are not looking that low. However, it is interesting to see how Tom Sherman and Peter Clinch seek to justify their stupidity for getting low to the ground bikes. I have several myself, but I do not fool myself that I am well seen by motorists when I am on them. Jeff Grippe of ARBR is the poster child for the kind of accident that can easily happen when you are riding a low bike (trike in his case) in heavy traffic. But until you are hit and run over by a motorist, you think you are safe - when you are anything but! Yea, that sure does define stupidity in my book. Regrads, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A Word to Recumbent Riders
Once again, a motorist - a member of a large class of people that have
a demonstrated propensity to run over and kill 44,000 people each year (most of whom are other motorists) is claiming that the people that they are running over and killing are somehow producing the element of danger by being in a place where a motorist might wish to motor. There is coffee brewing, wake up and smell it you ****ing morons: cars are dangerous; cars are dangerous to pedestrians, cars are dangerous to bicyclists, cars are dangerous to motorists most of all. The situation is that either these 44,000 deaths in the US each year are merely accidents and no one is at fault (it could have happened to anyone), in which case everyone that operates a motor vehicle is equally culpable for these deaths whether they were involved in such an incident or not (because it could have happened to anyone that was driving one of these murderous contraptions). Or these incidents are situations in which a motor vehicle operator was negligent and should be held accountable for their actions (hang 'em!). Neither of these situations involve the idea of blaming the non-motoring public for being run over by these reckless, mindless idiots. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Word to Recumbent Riders | Papa Tom | Rides | 16 | August 23rd 08 12:15 AM |
The technical truth of Recumbent Riders | Dr. 4 Eyes | Techniques | 4 | November 16th 05 11:09 PM |
Recumbent riders defined at last! | Dr. 4 Eyes | Social Issues | 2 | November 16th 05 06:31 PM |
Finally the truth about Recumbent Riders | Dr. 4 Eyes | General | 1 | November 16th 05 06:39 AM |
Recumbent/trike riders in/near Cardiff? | D.M. Procida | UK | 0 | September 24th 05 06:56 PM |