|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
https://nypost.com/video/bicyclist-p...in-the-street/
Raise your middle finger in solidarity, my brothers! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/video/bicyclist-p...in-the-street/ Raise your middle finger in solidarity, my brothers! So New Jersey and Iowa are subtly different then... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
On 2/6/2020 10:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/video/bicyclist-p...in-the-street/ Raise your middle finger in solidarity, my brothers! He's right on almost all of that. I don't react to motorist negativity with his loud aggression, but I get far less negativity than he does when I ride lane center. I'm curious about his four crashes. From what I've seen, bike crashes have a wide variety of causes. Without knowing details of his four causes, we can't comment on what measures might have helped to mitigate them. But I'm very skeptical of the closing push for "protected" bike lanes. A few months ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a study of so-called "protected" bike lanes and found that except for spots like bridges (with no possibility of crossing conflicts), the "protected" bike lanes causes something like a dozen times as many car-bike crashes as a major street with no bike lanes. A few years ago, Columbus Ohio put in an up-to-date "parking protected" bike lane and saw car bike crashes jump over 600%. Columbus also tried a different "protected" lane in the 1970s and removed it within a year or two due to increased crash counts. Davis, CA installed one in the 1960s and pulled it within about a year for the same reason. But boy, are they fashionable! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:57:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/6/2020 10:27 AM, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/video/bicyclist-p...in-the-street/ Raise your middle finger in solidarity, my brothers! He's right on almost all of that. I don't react to motorist negativity with his loud aggression, but I get far less negativity than he does when I ride lane center. I'm curious about his four crashes. From what I've seen, bike crashes have a wide variety of causes. Without knowing details of his four causes, we can't comment on what measures might have helped to mitigate them. But I'm very skeptical of the closing push for "protected" bike lanes. A few months ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a study of so-called "protected" bike lanes and found that except for spots like bridges (with no possibility of crossing conflicts), the "protected" bike lanes causes something like a dozen times as many car-bike crashes as a major street with no bike lanes. A few years ago, Columbus Ohio put in an up-to-date "parking protected" bike lane and saw car bike crashes jump over 600%. Columbus also tried a different "protected" lane in the 1970s and removed it within a year or two due to increased crash counts. Davis, CA installed one in the 1960s and pulled it within about a year for the same reason. But boy, are they fashionable! I wonder... Various studies of bicycle/auto collisions have shown that, in some cases, as many as 60 percent of the collisions are the fault of the bicycle. Is the increased crashes in protected bike lanes simply added evidence that cyclists are their own worse enemy? That by segregating them you simply eliminate the bike/auto collision factor leaving only added evidence that so many of the collisions are the fault of the cyclist? -- cheers, John B. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:37:30 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:57:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/6/2020 10:27 AM, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/video/bicyclist-p...in-the-street/ Raise your middle finger in solidarity, my brothers! He's right on almost all of that. I don't react to motorist negativity with his loud aggression, but I get far less negativity than he does when I ride lane center. I'm curious about his four crashes. From what I've seen, bike crashes have a wide variety of causes. Without knowing details of his four causes, we can't comment on what measures might have helped to mitigate them. But I'm very skeptical of the closing push for "protected" bike lanes. A few months ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a study of so-called "protected" bike lanes and found that except for spots like bridges (with no possibility of crossing conflicts), the "protected" bike lanes causes something like a dozen times as many car-bike crashes as a major street with no bike lanes. A few years ago, Columbus Ohio put in an up-to-date "parking protected" bike lane and saw car bike crashes jump over 600%. Columbus also tried a different "protected" lane in the 1970s and removed it within a year or two due to increased crash counts. Davis, CA installed one in the 1960s and pulled it within about a year for the same reason. But boy, are they fashionable! I wonder... Various studies of bicycle/auto collisions have shown that, in some cases, as many as 60 percent of the collisions are the fault of the bicycle. Is the increased crashes in protected bike lanes simply added evidence that cyclists are their own worse enemy? That by segregating them you simply eliminate the bike/auto collision factor leaving only added evidence that so many of the collisions are the fault of the cyclist? I think you have to look at the causes of individual crashes. One is the Right Hook that happens when a bicyclist rides up in a bike lane on the right of a motorist who is turning right. Assigning fault is tricky and maybe random. Some investigators might say it's the motorist's fault, for not craning his neck and checking his mirrors and peering into a place where the cyclist is invisible before making his turn. Another might say it's foolish for the cyclist to ride into the blind spot in the first place. I'd say it's stupid of the designer to lure a cyclist into such a dangerous space. Would you ever put a straight-ahead car lane to the right of a right turn lane? Another one is a bi-directional "protected" lane that sends half the bicyclists into an intersection going the wrong way - that is, riding on the left side of the road. That is a serious, serious violation of normal road rules; and resulting crashes are quite common. But that weird design is one of the things most requested by bike advocates. But do we blame the bicyclist for doing what the designer told him to do? There are other problems, like motorists trying to exit side streets or driveways and not being able to see if traffic is coming, until they pull partly out into the bike lane. Cyclists don't expect that and may be hidden from view. Another crash. In summary, it's fashionable to design crap that violates common sense and then tell bicyclists they are now "protected." The results should not surprise. - Frank Krygowski |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:11:21 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:37:30 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:57:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/6/2020 10:27 AM, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/video/bicyclist-p...in-the-street/ Raise your middle finger in solidarity, my brothers! He's right on almost all of that. I don't react to motorist negativity with his loud aggression, but I get far less negativity than he does when I ride lane center. I'm curious about his four crashes. From what I've seen, bike crashes have a wide variety of causes. Without knowing details of his four causes, we can't comment on what measures might have helped to mitigate them. But I'm very skeptical of the closing push for "protected" bike lanes. A few months ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a study of so-called "protected" bike lanes and found that except for spots like bridges (with no possibility of crossing conflicts), the "protected" bike lanes causes something like a dozen times as many car-bike crashes as a major street with no bike lanes. A few years ago, Columbus Ohio put in an up-to-date "parking protected" bike lane and saw car bike crashes jump over 600%. Columbus also tried a different "protected" lane in the 1970s and removed it within a year or two due to increased crash counts. Davis, CA installed one in the 1960s and pulled it within about a year for the same reason. But boy, are they fashionable! I wonder... Various studies of bicycle/auto collisions have shown that, in some cases, as many as 60 percent of the collisions are the fault of the bicycle. Is the increased crashes in protected bike lanes simply added evidence that cyclists are their own worse enemy? That by segregating them you simply eliminate the bike/auto collision factor leaving only added evidence that so many of the collisions are the fault of the cyclist? I think you have to look at the causes of individual crashes. One is the Right Hook that happens when a bicyclist rides up in a bike lane on the right of a motorist who is turning right. Assigning fault is tricky and maybe random. Some investigators might say it's the motorist's fault, for not craning his neck and checking his mirrors and peering into a place where the cyclist is invisible before making his turn. Another might say it's foolish for the cyclist to ride into the blind spot in the first place. I'd say it's stupid of the designer to lure a cyclist into such a dangerous space. Would you ever put a straight-ahead car lane to the right of a right turn lane? Here, of course, it is the left hook, and I have experienced it. When stopping it is often sort of easy to run up almost to the edge of the road and rest your foot on the edge of the raised sidewalk and just sit there on the bike waiting for the light to change. Along comes a bus that is going to turn left (right in your case) and of course he moves to the side of the road and when he turns there won't be room enough for both the bicycle and the bus so, logically, the bicycle must wait for the bus. And, I say logically as anyone with any sense at all can undoubtedly figure out what is going to happen in the case of a bus/bicycle collision... The thing that makes me wonder is, if I can figure this out, can't others? Am I so blindly intelligent that only I can perceive the results of a bicycle/bus collision? I don't think so. Another one is a bi-directional "protected" lane that sends half the bicyclists into an intersection going the wrong way - that is, riding on the left side of the road. That is a serious, serious violation of normal road rules; and resulting crashes are quite common. But that weird design is one of the things most requested by bike advocates. But do we blame the bicyclist for doing what the designer told him to do? There are other problems, like motorists trying to exit side streets or driveways and not being able to see if traffic is coming, until they pull partly out into the bike lane. Cyclists don't expect that and may be hidden from view. Another crash. In summary, it's fashionable to design crap that violates common sense and then tell bicyclists they are now "protected." The results should not surprise. - Frank Krygowski I find it interesting that student pilots are told repeatedly to keep their head moving... to be looking up down and sideways to see if anything is there. Think of it. Way up there in the air and you keep a constant lookout for other objects while cyclists riding in traffic apparently don't bother with all that sort of foolishness. -- cheers, John B. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 9:27:49 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/video/bicyclist-p...in-the-street/ Raise your middle finger in solidarity, my brothers! I haven't seen that level of hostility, but I'm only commuting to and from work, not cycling around all day. I'm in Chocago, BTW. When I started bike commuting about 18 years ago, I would get honked or yelled at a couple times a week; that hasn't happened in years. What I *do* complain about is the "protected" bike lanes. The bollards may provide some level of protection from cars, but they also prevent the bike lanes from being plowed. Sometimes the bike lane isn't plowed even when there are no bollards (only painted lines, the so-called "buffered" bike lane).. When the bike lane isn't clear, I am forced to take the car lane because there's not enough space for a car and bike to occupy the car lane at the same time (one of the times when, according to municipal code, a bike may legally take the entire lane). The car drivers mostly seem to understand why I'm in their way, though once in a while a hot-dog will blast by in the opposing lane. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
On 2/6/2020 8:55 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:11:21 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote: I think you have to look at the causes of individual crashes. One is the Right Hook that happens when a bicyclist rides up in a bike lane on the right of a motorist who is turning right. Assigning fault is tricky and maybe random. Some investigators might say it's the motorist's fault, for not craning his neck and checking his mirrors and peering into a place where the cyclist is invisible before making his turn. Another might say it's foolish for the cyclist to ride into the blind spot in the first place. I'd say it's stupid of the designer to lure a cyclist into such a dangerous space. Would you ever put a straight-ahead car lane to the right of a right turn lane? Here, of course, it is the left hook, and I have experienced it. When stopping it is often sort of easy to run up almost to the edge of the road and rest your foot on the edge of the raised sidewalk and just sit there on the bike waiting for the light to change. Along comes a bus that is going to turn left (right in your case) and of course he moves to the side of the road and when he turns there won't be room enough for both the bicycle and the bus so, logically, the bicycle must wait for the bus. And, I say logically as anyone with any sense at all can undoubtedly figure out what is going to happen in the case of a bus/bicycle collision... The thing that makes me wonder is, if I can figure this out, can't others? Am I so blindly intelligent that only I can perceive the results of a bicycle/bus collision? I don't think so. I think we in this group sometimes forget that we're much different from average. That's both in knowledge of riding techiques and in knowledge of mechanical techniques. Several years ago when London had a sudden cluster of bike fatalities, the situation you describe was a very common cause, mostly affecting women, and made worse by curbside barriers meant to dissuade "jay walkers." The women were enticed by green paint to be at the curb side of turning vehicles, and the barriers prevented fleeing. I can't imagine the terror they must have felt in their last moments. Another one is a bi-directional "protected" lane that sends half the bicyclists into an intersection going the wrong way - that is, riding on the left side of the road. That is a serious, serious violation of normal road rules; and resulting crashes are quite common. But that weird design is one of the things most requested by bike advocates. But do we blame the bicyclist for doing what the designer told him to do? There are other problems, like motorists trying to exit side streets or driveways and not being able to see if traffic is coming, until they pull partly out into the bike lane. Cyclists don't expect that and may be hidden from view. Another crash. In summary, it's fashionable to design crap that violates common sense and then tell bicyclists they are now "protected." The results should not surprise. - Frank Krygowski I find it interesting that student pilots are told repeatedly to keep their head moving... to be looking up down and sideways to see if anything is there. Think of it. Way up there in the air and you keep a constant lookout for other objects while cyclists riding in traffic apparently don't bother with all that sort of foolishness. Interestingly, I once did an article for our bike club's newsletter, titled something like "Advice for the Timid." I know there are riders who are afraid enough of traffic that they'll sneak through parking lots, etc. One of my points was that parking lots are "No Rules!" areas, with cars and pedestrians coming from any direction at all. And just as you said, I advised them to keep their heads on a swivel "just like a fighter pilot." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
On 2/7/2020 10:45 AM, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 9:27:49 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/video/bicyclist-p...in-the-street/ Raise your middle finger in solidarity, my brothers! I haven't seen that level of hostility, but I'm only commuting to and from work, not cycling around all day. I'm in Chocago, BTW. When I started bike commuting about 18 years ago, I would get honked or yelled at a couple times a week; that hasn't happened in years. I remember the same improvement some time after I began (near) daily commuting back in the 1970s. I think the motorists begin to recognize you as a legitimate road user after they become familiar with you. At least, if you're riding like a legitimate road user. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling in NJ video
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 12:39:37 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
At least, if you're riding like a legitimate road user. Yes, I am one of those. :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best cycling video ever | Simon Jester | UK | 10 | February 26th 18 11:15 PM |
Cycling video | Mr Pounder | UK | 31 | March 11th 14 10:17 AM |
Cycling Video to End all Cycling Videos | Paul B. Anders | Racing | 7 | August 20th 09 08:16 PM |
Old cycling video | wafflycat | UK | 7 | May 24th 06 12:15 AM |
NY cycling video | Graeme | UK | 21 | August 5th 04 09:26 PM |