|
|
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Cheers |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 06:42:05 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. Funny that they never compain about the scofflaw drivers- who are actually the majority of people behind the wheel around here. The drivers who actually obey the law are treated with disdain, get fliped off, yelled at honked at. Double standards make me laugh. |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:35:54 AM UTC-4, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 06:42:05 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. Funny that they never compain about the scofflaw drivers- who are actually the majority of people behind the wheel around here. The drivers who actually obey the law are treated with disdain, get fliped off, yelled at honked at. Double standards make me laugh. +1 |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/3/2015 9:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Paragraphs I found interesting: "“Toronto has located cycle lanes directly in the path of opening car-doors, without the required space allowance, which of course has created a major hazard and fanned a sterile debate about who is to blame when a driver or passenger throws open a door and potentially kills or seriously harms passersby,” adds Sagaris. Case in point, between November 2013 and August 2014, police received 62 reports of dooring. Meanwhile, intersections – where most collisions occur – have received little to no attention." Yet I know of a very energetic cycling advocacy group that's actively lobbying for door-zone bike lanes! And the League of American Bicyclists gives positive "Bike Friendly" points to cities that have door zone bike lanes. Personally, I think a DZBL should blackball a city from "Friendly" status. Also: "Meanwhile, intersections – where most collisions occur – have received little to no attention..." "“(It’s) important progress, things like the Richmond and Adelaide separated cycle tracks..." Someone's not recognizing that cycletracks are a strategy to reduce only the (largely mythical) hits-from-behind between intersections, and that they greatly complicate interactions at intersections. Yes, intersections are where most collisions occur; and cycletracks don't help. They probably hurt. This is why AASHTO has recommended against cycletracks for decades. But those guys are stuffy old engineers. According to some, it's high time that facility design was put in charge of watercolor artists! -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-03 8:44 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. ... I don't have problems with that. Ahead of time I move over to the center of the road and hold out my left hand. Car drivers generally understand and pass me on the right unless they also want to turn left. During rush hour getting to road center can be an issue but the same is true on roads without bike lanes because of an endless row of passing cars. ... As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. ... That is indeed an issue since the bike lanes aren't cleaned well or sometimes not at all. I mounted Gatorskins plus tubes with 0.120" or 3mm wall thickness - problem fixed. When I am on my MTB that is even better equipped, knobby tires, 0.160" or 4mm wall thickness tubes, plus tire liner, plus a regular tube over the tire liner. After I did all that I never again had flats. Ever. ... Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? I just hold out my left hand and slowly move leftward. Many drivers will continue to hurriedly pass me but there nearly always comes one who slows down for me. Maybe another cyclist behind the wheel, or just a friendly person. About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Not around here, they are used by every one including fast road bikers. My favorite are totally segregated paths though. Like the one I am going to use later today, singletrack. About the only chance to be mowed down by anything motorized would be if an alien spaceship had an engine failure right above. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. -- duane |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:39:16 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. -- duane Ontario recently paased a one metre passing law. Maybe that's why they're passing you further. heers |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:39:16 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. -- duane Ontario recently paased a one metre passing law. Maybe that's why they're passing you further. heers Yeah that's what I was saying. Seems like it could be working. -- duane |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/3/2015 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 8:44 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. ... I don't have problems with that. Ahead of time I move over to the center of the road and hold out my left hand. Car drivers generally understand and pass me on the right unless they also want to turn left. During rush hour getting to road center can be an issue but the same is true on roads without bike lanes because of an endless row of passing cars. Here's the problem with your logic, Joerg. You put up an example of a motorist who wants to clear the road of cyclists, and say that because of people like him, more infrastructure is needed. But if a driver actively wants to hit cyclists, no practical infrastructure will prevent it. In any ordinary paint-striped bike lane, you're still vulnerable. When you move left prior to your left turn, you're still vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road without infrastructure, you're still vulnerable. And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at intersections, driveway crossings and the like. No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where motorists expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all but a very, very few do not want to hit you. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/3/2015 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 8:44 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. ... I don't have problems with that. Ahead of time I move over to the center of the road and hold out my left hand. Car drivers generally understand and pass me on the right unless they also want to turn left. During rush hour getting to road center can be an issue but the same is true on roads without bike lanes because of an endless row of passing cars. Here's the problem with your logic, Joerg. You put up an example of a motorist who wants to clear the road of cyclists, and say that because of people like him, more infrastructure is needed. But if a driver actively wants to hit cyclists, no practical infrastructure will prevent it. In any ordinary paint-striped bike lane, you're still vulnerable. When you move left prior to your left turn, you're still vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road without infrastructure, you're still vulnerable. And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at intersections, driveway crossings and the like. No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where motorists expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all but a very, very few do not want to hit you. Well, our bike lanes are clearly marked "no homicidal lunatics allowed." That seems to work -- usually. http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/r...ike-path-85780 That path, BTW, runs down the middle of a highway bridge. I don't even know how a car could get on it. -- Jay Beattie. |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/3/2015 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 8:44 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. ... I don't have problems with that. Ahead of time I move over to the center of the road and hold out my left hand. Car drivers generally understand and pass me on the right unless they also want to turn left. During rush hour getting to road center can be an issue but the same is true on roads without bike lanes because of an endless row of passing cars. Here's the problem with your logic, Joerg. You put up an example of a motorist who wants to clear the road of cyclists, and say that because of people like him, more infrastructure is needed. But if a driver actively wants to hit cyclists, no practical infrastructure will prevent it. In any ordinary paint-striped bike lane, you're still vulnerable. ... Less so if built correctly. Maniacs like in the link can still get you. But the vast majority aren't maniacs. They are people who chat, text, email, put on make-up, shave, eat, haven't fully come off their sleep medication, had way too many cocktails, are under the influence of some "recreational" drug, and so on. The resulting accidents look similar. Except for the booze all things drivers simply did not do in the 70's which is why riding in the lanes was safer back then, and I felt safer back then. There is a simple and cheap improvement for bike lanes: Rumble strips. That wakes up almost any distracted driver. Of course, segregated structures are best. Example from yesterday: I rode up to Placerville on singletrack which requires me to also use a short county road stretch. On the way there everything looked as usual. On the way back just 3h or so later a heavy-gauge steel metal pole _off_ the side of that same road was completely flattened. That must have been at least a heavy pickup truck. ... When you move left prior to your left turn, you're still vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road without infrastructure, you're still vulnerable. And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at intersections, driveway crossings and the like. And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist. No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where motorists expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all but a very, very few do not want to hit you. Well, our bike lanes are clearly marked "no homicidal lunatics allowed." That seems to work -- usually. http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/r...ike-path-85780 That path, BTW, runs down the middle of a highway bridge. I don't even know how a car could get on it. I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The only motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike facilities are dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally. That's why I ride with daytime light even on some trail sections when the vegetation is more dense. Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-03 7:47 PM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:39:16 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. -- duane Ontario recently paased a one metre passing law. Maybe that's why they're passing you further. heers Yeah that's what I was saying. Seems like it could be working. It does. I feel the effect in California after they passed that a few months ago. Except people out here don't know no meidrs so it's three feet :-) Most people now give us those 3ft or even more. But on every ride there are several drivers twho on purpose don't. Plenty of space, nobody coming in the other lane and they don't more even one foot. Those are the scary ones, especially after they had a few cold ones with the guys. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back in even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on some sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways, parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad she wore a helmet. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sion-1.3131405 http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257 -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back in even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on some sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways, parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad she wore a helmet. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sion-1.3131405 http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257 While I don't have anything against DRLs, if the idiot that hit her didn't see a pack of roadies with the usual colours in broad daylight I doubt that lights would have helped. There's not a lot of detail about this crash but being familiar with the area I think the idiot decided to pass a hay truck or some other farm equipment without being able to see around it. I've been in this same situation and we've had to bail off the road into the gravel. It's not the rider's fault for not having laser beam strobe lights. It's the fault of the asshole that passed unsafely. Why people feel that they can endanger someone's life because they don't want to be delayed a few seconds is beyond me. -- duane |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-04 12:15 PM, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back in even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on some sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways, parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad she wore a helmet. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sion-1.3131405 http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257 While I don't have anything against DRLs, if the idiot that hit her didn't see a pack of roadies with the usual colours in broad daylight I doubt that lights would have helped. Inattentive driver often don't. But if something with a bright glow comes at them that gets their attention. Same from behind where my daytime lights flash. It makes me visible from a long distance. There's not a lot of detail about this crash but being familiar with the area I think the idiot decided to pass a hay truck or some other farm equipment without being able to see around it. I've been in this same situation and we've had to bail off the road into the gravel. It's not the rider's fault for not having laser beam strobe lights. It's the fault of the asshole that passed unsafely. Why people feel that they can endanger someone's life because they don't want to be delayed a few seconds is beyond me. Full agreement here. However, I believe in prevention so I always ride with lights now, after experiencing the difference time and again. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:11:48 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Less so if built correctly. Maniacs like in the link can still get you. But the vast majority aren't maniacs. They are people who chat, text, email, put on make-up, shave, eat, haven't fully come off their sleep medication, had way too many cocktails, are under the influence of some "recreational" drug, and so on. The resulting accidents look similar. Except for the booze all things drivers simply did not do in the 70's which is why riding in the lanes was safer back then, and I felt safer back then. There is a simple and cheap improvement for bike lanes: Rumble strips. That wakes up almost any distracted driver. Of course, segregated structures are best. Example from yesterday: I rode up to Placerville on singletrack which requires me to also use a short county road stretch. On the way there everything looked as usual. On the way back just 3h or so later a heavy-gauge steel metal pole _off_ the side of that same road was completely flattened. That must have been at least a heavy pickup truck. ... When you move left prior to your left turn, you're still vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road without infrastructure, you're still vulnerable. And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at intersections, driveway crossings and the like. And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist. No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where motorists expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all but a very, very few do not want to hit you. Well, our bike lanes are clearly marked "no homicidal lunatics allowed." That seems to work -- usually. http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/r...ike-path-85780 That path, BTW, runs down the middle of a highway bridge. I don't even know how a car could get on it. I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The only motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike facilities are dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally. That's why I ride with daytime light even on some trail sections when the vegetation is more dense. Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course. I just returned from like a 1,000 mile ride -- O.K., it was less than 1,000 miles, but still really epic. AND I DIDN'T DIE! (except metaphorically on the last hills getting home). My route even included crossing a water-body, and I didn't wear a life preserver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505xiKnCNDk The first part of the ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted. The remainder of the ride was on shoulderless death roads filled with guys in pick-up trucks flying giant Americun flags and blasting country-western music. There really were a lot of guys flying giant flags and blasting country-western music. I guess it's a holiday thing. I was hit seven times, maybe eight, but I kept riding. I'm that tough. I also noted a larger than usual accumulation of dead cyclists by the side of the road. -- Jay Beattie. |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Here's the problem with your logic, Joerg. You put up an example of a motorist who wants to clear the road of cyclists, and say that because of people like him, more infrastructure is needed. But if a driver actively wants to hit cyclists, no practical infrastructure will prevent it. In any ordinary paint-striped bike lane, you're still vulnerable. ... Less so if built correctly. Maniacs like in the link can still get you. But the vast majority aren't maniacs. They are people who chat, text, email, put on make-up, shave, eat, haven't fully come off their sleep medication, had way too many cocktails, are under the influence of some "recreational" drug, and so on. The resulting accidents look similar. Except for the booze all things drivers simply did not do in the 70's which is why riding in the lanes was safer back then, and I felt safer back then. There are a lot of feelings about danger, and feelings about safety, that don't match reality. Many people feel much safer traveling with a St. Christopher medal. Do you think they work? There is a simple and cheap improvement for bike lanes: Rumble strips. That wakes up almost any distracted driver. Oh good grief. The bike-ignorant superintendent of our local metro park decided to "improve" bike safety by adding rumble strips between a bike lane and an adjoining standard lane. I know of one of my bike club members who crashed because of hitting that rumble strip, and another one who doubted my warnings that it was dangerous until he hit it and nearly crashed. And BTW, the latter guy was on a mountain bike. I think if he'd been on a road bike, it would have been worse. Of course, segregated structures are best. Good grief. And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at intersections, driveway crossings and the like. And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist. "Never, ever rely on my right of way"?? That's advice as useless as "ride as if you are invisible to motorists." If you were to really do what you say, you'd stop and wait at every intersection with any road or driveway, if there were any possibility a car might pull out. Sorry, Joerg, but you're spouting nonsense yet again. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 6:22:27 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:11:48 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Snipped I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The only motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike facilities are dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally. That's why I ride with daytime light even on some trail sections when the vegetation is more dense. Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course. I just returned from like a 1,000 mile ride -- O.K., it was less than 1,000 miles, but still really epic. AND I DIDN'T DIE! (except metaphorically on the last hills getting home). My route even included crossing a water-body, and I didn't wear a life preserver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505xiKnCNDk The first part of the ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted. The remainder of the ride was on shoulderless death roads filled with guys in pick-up trucks flying giant Americun flags and blasting country-western music. There really were a lot of guys flying giant flags and blasting country-western music. I guess it's a holiday thing. I was hit seven times, maybe eight, but I kept riding. I'm that tough. I also noted a larger than usual accumulation of dead cyclists by the side of the road. -- Jay Beattie. I ride may tens of thousands of kilometres each and every year. I ride year round with at least 50kms a day but usually between 75kms and 100kms daily and then longer rides Sayturdays and Sundays. I've never used daylight running lights front or rear. If a driver can't tell thata bicyclist is on the road then that driver should not be driving. Bright clothing is far more visible to me that any flashing lights I've seen on any bicycle. This thing tthat you need all this crap in order to ride the streets of maiming and death is a surefire way to discourage any newbie bicylist or potential bicycle commuter from ever venturing out onto the roads. That's because tthey'll take one look at the cost of the stuff required, like Jeoerg's $100.00 light and say "It's too dangerous out there for me!" Joerg, are you trying to turn people off of bicycling entirely? Same to you SMS? Cheers |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/4/2015 2:24 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back in even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on some sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways, parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad she wore a helmet. Joerg is channeling SMS. Heaven help us. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 12:12:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote: And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist. "Never, ever rely on my right of way"?? That's advice as useless as "ride as if you are invisible to motorists." If you were to really do what you say, you'd stop and wait at every intersection with any road or driveway, if there were any possibility a car might pull out. Sorry, Joerg, but you're spouting nonsense yet again. -- - Frank Krygowski Back in the day when "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was being touted a lot, the intent of that message was "Don't expect motoristss to see you". Around the same time many books were telling bicyclists to make eye contact with motorists. However, experiments proved that even though a bicyclist thought they'd made eye contact with a motorist tthe fact was that the motorist did NOT see the bicyclist. It was tthen taught to watch the car wheels as that was far more accurate in determining if the motorist saw you. In other words "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was a warning that you needed to ride defensively because in reality a lot of motorists did not see bicyclists even though tthe bicyclist thought they were in plain view of the motorist. Add to that the other fact that many motorists can't accurately judge the speed of a bicycle you can see why a bicyclist needs to watch for other vehicles. It's called maintaining situational awareness and is no way a sign tthat the bicyclist is either timid or a scardy cat. Cheers |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 19:15:57 +0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back in even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on some sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways, parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad she wore a helmet. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sion-1.3131405 http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257 While I don't have anything against DRLs, if the idiot that hit her didn't see a pack of roadies with the usual colours in broad daylight I doubt that lights would have helped. Except that looking at the photograph showing all the vehicles with their lights on and the two obvious cyclists standing at the edge of the photo it looks more like it was after dark and the "usual colours' was black. There's not a lot of detail about this crash but being familiar with the area I think the idiot decided to pass a hay truck or some other farm equipment without being able to see around it. I've been in this same situation and we've had to bail off the road into the gravel. It's not the rider's fault for not having laser beam strobe lights. It's the fault of the asshole that passed unsafely. Why people feel that they can endanger someone's life because they don't want to be delayed a few seconds is beyond me. -- cheers, John B. |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 12:15 PM, Duane wrote: Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back in even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on some sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways, parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad she wore a helmet. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sion-1.3131405 http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257 While I don't have anything against DRLs, if the idiot that hit her didn't see a pack of roadies with the usual colours in broad daylight I doubt that lights would have helped. Inattentive driver often don't. But if something with a bright glow comes at them that gets their attention. Same from behind where my daytime lights flash. It makes me visible from a long distance. There's not a lot of detail about this crash but being familiar with the area I think the idiot decided to pass a hay truck or some other farm equipment without being able to see around it. I've been in this same situation and we've had to bail off the road into the gravel. It's not the rider's fault for not having laser beam strobe lights. It's the fault of the asshole that passed unsafely. Why people feel that they can endanger someone's life because they don't want to be delayed a few seconds is beyond me. Full agreement here. However, I believe in prevention so I always ride with lights now, after experiencing the difference time and again. Maybe but I don't think it would have made a difference in this case. I guess we'll know more when she's able to communicate. At the moment she is on a respirator and feeding tube. -- duane |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 19:15:57 +0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of cyclists" like it just happened around he http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into the windshield. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do - rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the direction one wishes to travel? About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists. A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens. Cheers On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to some extent. We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect her to publicize this. I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one. Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back in even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on some sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways, parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad she wore a helmet. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sion-1.3131405 http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257 While I don't have anything against DRLs, if the idiot that hit her didn't see a pack of roadies with the usual colours in broad daylight I doubt that lights would have helped. Except that looking at the photograph showing all the vehicles with their lights on and the two obvious cyclists standing at the edge of the photo it looks more like it was after dark and the "usual colours' was black. Yes it looks like the ambulance was there at 9:15 which is just after dusk this time of year. I'm not sure what time the accident happened but it wasn't dark if it was before 9. And if they were riding in the dark without lights that would have been the headline. There's not a lot of detail about this crash but being familiar with the area I think the idiot decided to pass a hay truck or some other farm equipment without being able to see around it. I've been in this same situation and we've had to bail off the road into the gravel. It's not the rider's fault for not having laser beam strobe lights. It's the fault of the asshole that passed unsafely. Why people feel that they can endanger someone's life because they don't want to be delayed a few seconds is beyond me. -- cheers, John B. -- duane |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 12:12:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote: And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist. "Never, ever rely on my right of way"?? That's advice as useless as "ride as if you are invisible to motorists." If you were to really do what you say, you'd stop and wait at every intersection with any road or driveway, if there were any possibility a car might pull out. Sorry, Joerg, but you're spouting nonsense yet again. -- - Frank Krygowski Back in the day when "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was being touted a lot, the intent of that message was "Don't expect motoristss to see you". Around the same time many books were telling bicyclists to make eye contact with motorists. However, experiments proved that even though a bicyclist thought they'd made eye contact with a motorist tthe fact was that the motorist did NOT see the bicyclist. It was tthen taught to watch the car wheels as that was far more accurate in determining if the motorist saw you. In other words "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was a warning that you needed to ride defensively because in reality a lot of motorists did not see bicyclists even though tthe bicyclist thought they were in plain view of the motorist. Add to that the other fact that many motorists can't accurately judge the speed of a bicycle you can see why a bicyclist needs to watch for other vehicles. It's called maintaining situational awareness and is no way a sign tthat the bicyclist is either timid or a scardy cat. Cheers Exactly. Riding as if you're invisible means riding as if the driver doesn't see you. To ride defensively. It doesn't mean to be somehow inferior. That's just more hyperbole. -- duane |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/5/2015 12:30 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 12:12:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote: And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist. "Never, ever rely on my right of way"?? That's advice as useless as "ride as if you are invisible to motorists." If you were to really do what you say, you'd stop and wait at every intersection with any road or driveway, if there were any possibility a car might pull out. Sorry, Joerg, but you're spouting nonsense yet again. -- - Frank Krygowski Back in the day when "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was being touted a lot, the intent of that message was "Don't expect motoristss to see you". Around the same time many books were telling bicyclists to make eye contact with motorists. However, experiments proved that even though a bicyclist thought they'd made eye contact with a motorist tthe fact was that the motorist did NOT see the bicyclist. It was tthen taught to watch the car wheels as that was far more accurate in determining if the motorist saw you. In other words "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was a warning that you needed to ride defensively because in reality a lot of motorists did not see bicyclists even though tthe bicyclist thought they were in plain view of the motorist. Add to that the other fact that many motorists can't accurately judge the speed of a bicycle you can see why a bicyclist needs to watch for other vehicles. It's called maintaining situational awareness and is no way a sign tt hat the bicyclist is either timid or a scardy cat. I've said this before, but: When you're trying to teach somebody something, it's important to give them easy and _accurate_ catch phrases. IOW, things they can mentally repeat to themselves when needed, and that remind them of their proper proper strategy. "Watch the motorist's wheels" or "Be ready to evade a motorist mistake" are concise and correct. "Ride so as to make yourself visible" is even better. "Ride as if you're invisible" is just wrong. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/5/2015 6:31 AM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 12:12:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote: And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist. "Never, ever rely on my right of way"?? That's advice as useless as "ride as if you are invisible to motorists." If you were to really do what you say, you'd stop and wait at every intersection with any road or driveway, if there were any possibility a car might pull out. Sorry, Joerg, but you're spouting nonsense yet again. -- - Frank Krygowski Back in the day when "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was being touted a lot, the intent of that message was "Don't expect motoristss to see you". Around the same time many books were telling bicyclists to make eye contact with motorists. However, experiments proved that even though a bicyclist thought they'd made eye contact with a motorist tthe fact was that the motorist did NOT see the bicyclist. It was tthen taught to watch the car wheels as that was far more accurate in determining if the motorist saw you. In other words "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was a warning that you needed to ride defensively because in reality a lot of motorists did not see bicyclists even though tthe bicyclist thought they were in plain view of the motorist. Add to that the other fact that many motorists can't accurately judge the speed of a bicycle you can see why a bicyclist needs to watch for other vehicles. It's called maintaining situational awareness and is no way a sign tthat the bicyclist is either timid or a scardy cat. Cheers Exactly. Riding as if you're invisible means riding as if the driver doesn't see you. To ride defensively. It doesn't mean to be somehow inferior. That's just more hyperbole. I know the usual intent of the advice "Ride like you're invisible." Yes, the competent cyclists who spout it generally mean things like "Be ready to evade a crash if a motorist doesn't see you." But a great many cycling crashes seem to happen to cyclists who are afraid to _make_ themselves visible by their lane position. If a novice - or any less competent cyclist - is repeatedly told that motorists will normally look at him and not see him, that novice is very unlikely to ride in a prominent road position. His own fear is likely to generate the problem he fears, and it's caused at least in part by the bad advice. Let's speculate a bit. What do you suppose is the difference between my riding style and that of Scharf and Joerg? I'm the one who's ridden avidly for over 40 years, in 47 states plus about a dozen foreign countries, and never been hit by a car. I've almost never had a close call. Personally, I think it's largely because I tend to ride in a prominent lane position. How about SMS and Joerg? They claim LOTS of near misses from motorists that pull out in front of them; and that they've _greatly_ reduced (they don't say eliminated!) these near misses by using very bright daytime lights. Scharf even uses a horizontal flag to get lateral clearance. Personally, I strongly suspect that they hug the gutter and are afraid to control a lane, and they pay the price with near misses or worse. If you tell a novice "Ride like you're invisible," which of those two strategies are they more likely to adopt? -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/5/2015 6:31 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257 While I don't have anything against DRLs, if the idiot that hit her didn't see a pack of roadies with the usual colours in broad daylight I doubt that lights would have helped. Except that looking at the photograph showing all the vehicles with their lights on and the two obvious cyclists standing at the edge of the photo it looks more like it was after dark and the "usual colours' was black. Yes it looks like the ambulance was there at 9:15 which is just after dusk this time of year. I'm not sure what time the accident happened but it wasn't dark if it was before 9. And if they were riding in the dark without lights that would have been the headline. IME, lack of lights on bicycles never makes headlines, and is seldom mentioned in relevant articles. And locally, the only time the word "helmet" doesn't make it into a bike crash article is when the rider did wear one, but it failed to save his or her life. Maybe that's just the local paper's policy. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-04 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:11:48 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Less so if built correctly. Maniacs like in the link can still get you. But the vast majority aren't maniacs. They are people who chat, text, email, put on make-up, shave, eat, haven't fully come off their sleep medication, had way too many cocktails, are under the influence of some "recreational" drug, and so on. The resulting accidents look similar. Except for the booze all things drivers simply did not do in the 70's which is why riding in the lanes was safer back then, and I felt safer back then. There is a simple and cheap improvement for bike lanes: Rumble strips. That wakes up almost any distracted driver. Of course, segregated structures are best. Example from yesterday: I rode up to Placerville on singletrack which requires me to also use a short county road stretch. On the way there everything looked as usual. On the way back just 3h or so later a heavy-gauge steel metal pole _off_ the side of that same road was completely flattened. That must have been at least a heavy pickup truck. ... When you move left prior to your left turn, you're still vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road without infrastructure, you're still vulnerable. And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at intersections, driveway crossings and the like. And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist. No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where motorists expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all but a very, very few do not want to hit you. Well, our bike lanes are clearly marked "no homicidal lunatics allowed." That seems to work -- usually. http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/r...ike-path-85780 That path, BTW, runs down the middle of a highway bridge. I don't even know how a car could get on it. I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The only motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike facilities are dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally. That's why I ride with daytime light even on some trail sections when the vegetation is more dense. Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course. I just returned from like a 1,000 mile ride -- O.K., it was less than 1,000 miles, but still really epic. AND I DIDN'T DIE! (except metaphorically on the last hills getting home). My route even included crossing a water-body, and I didn't wear a life preserver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505xiKnCNDk That's cheating. This is the real way to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwmRudKii3E And watch your speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtpsG--V3I ... The first part of the ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted. "Grandpa tooled around in his Studebaker and it didn't even have safety belts". The remainder of the ride was on shoulderless death roads filled with guys in pick-up trucks flying giant Americun flags and blasting country-western music. There really were a lot of guys flying giant flags and blasting country-western music. I guess it's a holiday thing. I was hit seven times, maybe eight, but I kept riding. I'm that tough. I also noted a larger than usual accumulation of dead cyclists by the side of the road. See? :-) Wait until the night after many of those pickup truck jockeys had 5-6 pints plus a few shotglasses of the hard stuff. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-04 9:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 6:22:27 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:11:48 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Snipped I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The only motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike facilities are dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally. That's why I ride with daytime light even on some trail sections when the vegetation is more dense. Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course. I just returned from like a 1,000 mile ride -- O.K., it was less than 1,000 miles, but still really epic. AND I DIDN'T DIE! (except metaphorically on the last hills getting home). My route even included crossing a water-body, and I didn't wear a life preserver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505xiKnCNDk The first part of the ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted. The remainder of the ride was on shoulderless death roads filled with guys in pick-up trucks flying giant Americun flags and blasting country-western music. There really were a lot of guys flying giant flags and blasting country-western music. I guess it's a holiday thing. I was hit seven times, maybe eight, but I kept riding. I'm that tough. I also noted a larger than usual accumulation of dead cyclists by the side of the road. -- Jay Beattie. I ride may tens of thousands of kilometres each and every year. I ride year round with at least 50kms a day but usually between 75kms and 100kms daily and then longer rides Sayturdays and Sundays. I've never used daylight running lights front or rear. If a driver can't tell thata bicyclist is on the road then that driver should not be driving. But they do it anyhow. ... Bright clothing is far more visible to me that any flashing lights I've seen on any bicycle. This thing tthat you need all this crap in order to ride the streets of maiming and death is a surefire way to discourage any newbie bicylist or potential bicycle commuter from ever venturing out onto the roads. That's because tthey'll take one look at the cost of the stuff required, like Jeoerg's $100.00 light and say "It's too dangerous out there for me!" Joerg, are you trying to turn people off of bicycling entirely? Same to you SMS? Where did I ever try to do that? I want to make it safer. Bike paths are one way but they don't always exist. Lights are a very cheap and effective method. Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat belts if it wasn't the law? Why do you think motorcycle daytime lights became law on many areas? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:11:48 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Less so if built correctly. Maniacs like in the link can still get you. But the vast majority aren't maniacs. They are people who chat, text, email, put on make-up, shave, eat, haven't fully come off their sleep medication, had way too many cocktails, are under the influence of some "recreational" drug, and so on. The resulting accidents look similar. Except for the booze all things drivers simply did not do in the 70's which is why riding in the lanes was safer back then, and I felt safer back then. There is a simple and cheap improvement for bike lanes: Rumble strips. That wakes up almost any distracted driver. Of course, segregated structures are best. Example from yesterday: I rode up to Placerville on singletrack which requires me to also use a short county road stretch. On the way there everything looked as usual. On the way back just 3h or so later a heavy-gauge steel metal pole _off_ the side of that same road was completely flattened. That must have been at least a heavy pickup truck. ... When you move left prior to your left turn, you're still vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road without infrastructure, you're still vulnerable. And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at intersections, driveway crossings and the like. And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist. No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where motorists expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all but a very, very few do not want to hit you. Well, our bike lanes are clearly marked "no homicidal lunatics allowed." That seems to work -- usually. http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/r...ike-path-85780 That path, BTW, runs down the middle of a highway bridge. I don't even know how a car could get on it. I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The only motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike facilities are dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally. That's why I ride with daytime light even on some trail sections when the vegetation is more dense. Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course. I just returned from like a 1,000 mile ride -- O.K., it was less than 1,000 miles, but still really epic. AND I DIDN'T DIE! (except metaphorically on the last hills getting home). My route even included crossing a water-body, and I didn't wear a life preserver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505xiKnCNDk That's cheating. This is the real way to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwmRudKii3E And watch your speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtpsG--V3I ... The first part of the ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted. "Grandpa tooled around in his Studebaker and it didn't even have safety belts". Grandpa was on a SuperSix along with a bunch of others out for a training ride. I have no problem with people using DRLs -- unless they are super-bright and annoying -- but the assertion that I need a 1000 lumen headlight for riding in the country on a sunny day is bizarre. A little front and rear flasher on a dreary day, maybe, but a blasting headlamp in bright sunlight? I can conceive of places where a flasher would be helpful in dappled sunlight under heavy tree canopy, but so far, I haven't had problems -- and when I encounter cross traffic in those situations, I take the lane and pay attention. With your bleached, rolling hills and lack of tree canopy, I can't imagine why you would need a light. You would stand out like a sore thumb in a fluorescent jersey. -- Jay Beattie. |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/5/2015 11:08 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote: ... The first part of the ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted. "Grandpa tooled around in his Studebaker and it didn't even have safety belts". What's your point? That if ANY device is advertised as a "safety" device, we must use it? We shouldn't exercise judgment about what's really necessary and what's alarmist overkill? Do you have a six foot tall flippy flag on your bike? http://www.gettysburgflag.com/images/BikeFlagChild.jpg Once upon a time, certain bike touring companies made every client use those things. But they seem to have gone the way of Grandpa's Studebaker. Why, oh why?? -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat belts if it wasn't the law? My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc. Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal? -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-05 10:05 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2015-07-04 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote: [...] ... The first part of the ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted. "Grandpa tooled around in his Studebaker and it didn't even have safety belts". Grandpa was on a SuperSix along with a bunch of others out for a training ride. I have no problem with people using DRLs -- unless they are super-bright and annoying -- but the assertion that I need a 1000 lumen headlight for riding in the country on a sunny day is bizarre. ... On roads I switch mine down to the 200-300 lumen level, even at night unless I ride fast and the road is poorly or not lit. On singletrack, different story. At night I need all the lumens I can get in order to be able to ride at a good clip. During the day I sometimes turn it on at treacherous trail sections where there is a chance of a head-on with a dirt biker. Those things often don't even have lights. ... A little front and rear flasher on a dreary day, maybe, but a blasting headlamp in bright sunlight? I can conceive of places where a flasher would be helpful in dappled sunlight under heavy tree canopy, but so far, I haven't had problems -- and when I encounter cross traffic in those situations, I take the lane and pay attention. With your bleached, rolling hills and lack of tree canopy, I can't imagine why you would need a light. You would stand out like a sore thumb in a fluorescent jersey. I don't wear jerseys (allergy against all things plastic) and it would be covered anyhow by my backpack. Even when in my car I find that I see cyclists with daytime lights much earlier than those without. A few days ago I talked with a retired sheriff's deputy about it and he said the same. Those guys know, and they are among the ones who are called out and see the mess first hand when things went wrong. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 2015-07-05 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote: Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat belts if it wasn't the law? My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc. Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal? In California that car would be illegal. A friend has one as well and here they must be equipped with two upgrades if planned for real road use: a. Safety belts. At least lap belts. b. Hydraulic brakes. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/6/2015 9:49 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 05 Jul 2015 14:31:06 -0400 the perfect time to write: On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote: Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat belts if it wasn't the law? My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc. If what I've heard of the model A is accurate, the "braking system" doesn't lock the wheels. On the other hand, it doesn't stop the car, either. Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal? Maybe, maybe not. Which year Model A? See PDF link he http://www.plucks329s.org/brakes.htm -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/6/2015 10:45 AM, Joerg wrote:
Even when in my car I find that I see cyclists with daytime lights much earlier than those without. A few days ago I talked with a retired sheriff's deputy about it and he said the same. Those guys know, and they are among the ones who are called out and see the mess first hand when things went wrong. Several of my riding friends are cops. They ride without daytime flashing lights. And if you're claiming that in bright daylight, someone can see a bike much earlier if it has a flashing light, a) you must be talking about one hell of a bright light; and b) what does it matter? Your objective is to be seen in plenty of time. A few hundred yards is sufficient. Being spotted from a mile away does nothing for your safety. Again, I've driven sag for our annual century for many, many years. Not once has a bicyclist's flashing light made a practical difference, despite bad lighting (e.g. riders starting at dawn), heavy tree cover, etc. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
On 7/6/2015 10:49 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 05 Jul 2015 14:31:06 -0400 the perfect time to write: On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote: Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat belts if it wasn't the law? My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc. If what I've heard of the model A is accurate, the "braking system" doesn't lock the wheels. On the other hand, it doesn't stop the car, either. The original brakes were crap. My friend has installed hydraulic brakes. However, he has not installed anti-lock brakes. And indeed, I don't have anti-lock brakes on my older (1990) car, nor on my motorcycle. According to the "Danger! Danger!" crowd, I should never let those vehicles leave my garage. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
Am 06.07.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Joerg:
On 2015-07-05 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote: Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat belts if it wasn't the law? My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc. Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal? In California that car would be illegal. A friend has one as well and here they must be equipped with two upgrades if planned for real road use: a. Safety belts. At least lap belts. b. Hydraulic brakes. This sounds like the chaos-system we have in Germany for trains. For cars, the simple rule is: each car must comply to the rules valid at the time of approving the vehicle for operation on the road. A friend of mine drives a 1962 VW Beetle, naturally without any seat belts, and he is allowed to continue driving it until it cannot be repaired. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com