|
|
Ouch. This happened to me once
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html
(I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision. And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 10:21 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision. And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? Not mirror in my case; he pulled right with right blinker on, then suddenly decided on a left U-turn as I passed. Fortunately there were witnesses. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that. Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed on the brake pedal. In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision. And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Baloney. ... Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? I have witnessed a few such accidents. _All_ of them sans bike lane. Most of them were of the kind "Oh, dang! I have to turn right here". I had a close call myself while taking the lane. A Porsche driver thought it was a good idea to speed past me on the lane left of me and then turn right into a parking lot. Luckily I was on the MTB with powerful disc brakes. Maybe the guy didn't think a MTB could be doing north of 20mph. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 11:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2018 10:21 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision. And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? Not mirror in my case; he pulled right with right blinker on, then suddenly decided on a left U-turn as I passed. Fortunately there were witnesses. Ah. Most American drivers don't understand what that stick thing is, the one just past the left side of their steering wheel. You encountered one who was even worse than average. I liked this instructional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFHCyNVBTk I like the "pretty incredible" and "but it may require you to put down your coffee" -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 11:42 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that. Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed on the brake pedal. It depends. The most deadly right hooks occur with large trucks and buses. Those vehicles have huge blind spots, not "may not notice" spots. If your light can't be seen (which is very typical in such situations) it can't help. In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision. And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Baloney. So let me ask again: Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â* ...Â* Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in. I have witnessed a few such accidents. _All_ of them sans bike lane. And doubtlessly, almost all of them edge riders. Most of them were of the kind "Oh, dang! I have to turn right here". I had a close call myself while taking the lane. A Porsche driver thought it was a good idea to speed past me on the lane left of me and then turn right into a parking lot. Luckily I was on the MTB with powerful disc brakes. Maybe the guy didn't think a MTB could be doing north of 20mph. I can recall only two sort-of-close-call attempted right hooks while I was taking the lane. In both cases they started to pass me on my left then realized they couldn't make it as I held my position and glared at them. They both dropped back. One was within a couple blocks of my office at the university. The perpetrator was a young kid trying to cross my path into the right turn lane. (I was in the right "straight ahead" lane.) He was even more confused than the guy described above, because he tried to pass, then dropped back, then tried to pass again, then almost stopped before merging right properly from behind me. We ended up side by side at the light. I looked over at him and said "You're new at this, aren't you?" He just glared straight ahead until the light changed. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 5:42:12 PM UTC+1, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that. That was my first thought also. If you are riding at that speed in traffic you better watch out and prepared for the worst. Lou |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-19 09:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 11:42 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that. Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed on the brake pedal. It depends. The most deadly right hooks occur with large trucks and buses. Those vehicles have huge blind spots, not "may not notice" spots. If your light can't be seen (which is very typical in such situations) it can't help. On poorly equipped trucks, yes. Others, not so much. Check the lower round mirror he https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6qe58RY0k Modern trucks have dual panel mirrors where this is more integrated. Very modern ones have cameras. Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision. And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Baloney. So let me ask again: ... Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in. They generally don't. European ones sometimes do, they have to learn a lot more. This is how it's done right: https://goo.gl/maps/2spLh13Junn If you virtually move along that road you will see that the bike lane switches to the middle, in this case even across two right-turn lanes. I nearly always have to go straight ahead there and despite coming through there during rush hour never had a problem. I have witnessed a few such accidents. _All_ of them sans bike lane. And doubtlessly, almost all of them edge riders. It's the law in most jurisdictions. Whether one of the exemption situations applies is entirely up to the cop. In court the cop is nearly always right. BTDT. Most of them were of the kind "Oh, dang! I have to turn right here". I had a close call myself while taking the lane. A Porsche driver thought it was a good idea to speed past me on the lane left of me and then turn right into a parking lot. Luckily I was on the MTB with powerful disc brakes. Maybe the guy didn't think a MTB could be doing north of 20mph. I can recall only two sort-of-close-call attempted right hooks while I was taking the lane. In both cases they started to pass me on my left then realized they couldn't make it as I held my position and glared at them. They both dropped back. One was within a couple blocks of my office at the university. The perpetrator was a young kid trying to cross my path into the right turn lane. (I was in the right "straight ahead" lane.) He was even more confused than the guy described above, because he tried to pass, then dropped back, then tried to pass again, then almost stopped before merging right properly from behind me. We ended up side by side at the light. I looked over at him and said "You're new at this, aren't you?" He just glared straight ahead until the light changed. I recently had a woman stare straight into my eyes and then turn into my path. Couldn't believe it. Of course I gave her the drill sergeant holler, the one that makes even large dogs cringe. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 1:42 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 09:53, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 11:42 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that. Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed on the brake pedal. It depends. The most deadly right hooks occur with large trucks and buses. Those vehicles have huge blind spots, not "may not notice" spots. If your light can't be seen (which is very typical in such situations) it can't help. On poorly equipped trucks, yes. Others, not so much. Check the lower round mirror he https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6qe58RY0k Modern trucks have dual panel mirrors where this is more integrated. It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London a couple years ago. So let me ask again: Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â* ...Â* Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in. They generally don't. European ones sometimes do, they have to learn a lot more. This is how it's done right: https://goo.gl/maps/2spLh13Junn If you virtually move along that road you will see that the bike lane switches to the middle, in this case even across two right-turn lanes. I nearly always have to go straight ahead there and despite coming through there during rush hour never had a problem. Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on _all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two cities in Ohio that caved into those demands. I have witnessed a few such accidents. _All_ of them sans bike lane. And doubtlessly, almost all of them edge riders. It's the law in most jurisdictions. Whether one of the exemption situations applies is entirely up to the cop. In court the cop is nearly always right. BTDT. I've tried without success to correct your ignorance of the laws. Yes, there are some cops who are also ignorant, but that's why advocacy groups should be working on education instead of demanding more defective facilities. Education of cyclists, education of motorists and education of law enforcement officials. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 1:42 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 09:53, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 11:42 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that. Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed on the brake pedal. It depends. The most deadly right hooks occur with large trucks and buses. Those vehicles have huge blind spots, not "may not notice" spots. If your light can't be seen (which is very typical in such situations) it can't help. On poorly equipped trucks, yes. Others, not so much. Check the lower round mirror he https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6qe58RY0k Modern trucks have dual panel mirrors where this is more integrated. It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a truck in that configuration. b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly. Duh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then. Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London a couple years ago. A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn signal yet he ignored it. This is how most right-hook bike path accidents happen in Germany and other countries. I have seen it personally where people just blow through intersections without as much as a look to the left, assuming they ride in "their" space. I don't, I am always looking out and consequently never had a critical situation or crash with a motor vehicle while on the bike path. I did have numerous on the road and none was my fault. Well, except a minor one where I rear-ended a car because the front brake cable snapped. That can happen. This was over more than 60000 miles, much of that in bike path country (Netherlands). So let me ask again: ... Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in. They generally don't. European ones sometimes do, they have to learn a lot more. This is how it's done right: https://goo.gl/maps/2spLh13Junn If you virtually move along that road you will see that the bike lane switches to the middle, in this case even across two right-turn lanes. I nearly always have to go straight ahead there and despite coming through there during rush hour never had a problem. Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on _all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two cities in Ohio that caved into those demands. Got links for those groups where they explicitly advocate that? [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote: It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a truck in that configuration. b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly. Duh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then. So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense. And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and killed the cyclist. Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London a couple years ago. A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn signal yet he ignored it. You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that. The dominant messages need to change from "Now you have a safe place to ride" and "Always wear your helmet." Cyclists need to hear "Even a 'protected' bike lane won't protect you" and "Learn to anticipate and avoid these hazards..." with right hooks, left crosses and pull-outs being the most important, after road hazards. Those are among the top crash causes, far more than the hits-from-behind feared by bike lane advocates like yourself. Bike lanes do not help any of those crash mechanisms. If anything, they make them worse. Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on _all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two cities in Ohio that caved into those demands. Got links for those groups where they explicitly advocate that? I don't have links for the groups advocating that, but here's a link about one of the results. Read the article, then read the comments, especially the first. http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/in...nes_to_ma.html Lakewood originally planned for sharrows on lots of the narrow streets with parking. "Bike advocates" fought that idea and overturned it, getting the city to instead put in bike lanes even though they were very frequently in door zones. IIRC, it's Lakewood that labeled some of its door zone bike lanes with "Door Zone" painted on the pavement. Their safety guide says only "use caution" there - as if even a 10 mph cyclist can stop before running into a door that popped open. http://blog.centurycycles.com/2017/0...ike-lanes.html -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:32:40 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Again a demonstration that the car always wins. Andy |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 11:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 11:42 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that. Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed on the brake pedal. It depends. The most deadly right hooks occur with large trucks and buses. Those vehicles have huge blind spots, not "may not notice" spots. If your light can't be seen (which is very typical in such situations) it can't help. In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision. And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Baloney. So let me ask again:                                                    ... Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in. I have witnessed a few such accidents. _All_ of them sans bike lane. And doubtlessly, almost all of them edge riders. Most of them were of the kind "Oh, dang! I have to turn right here". I had a close call myself while taking the lane. A Porsche driver thought it was a good idea to speed past me on the lane left of me and then turn right into a parking lot. Luckily I was on the MTB with powerful disc brakes. Maybe the guy didn't think a MTB could be doing north of 20mph. I can recall only two sort-of-close-call attempted right hooks while I was taking the lane. In both cases they started to pass me on my left then realized they couldn't make it as I held my position and glared at them. They both dropped back. One was within a couple blocks of my office at the university. The perpetrator was a young kid trying to cross my path into the right turn lane. (I was in the right "straight ahead" lane.) He was even more confused than the guy described above, because he tried to pass, then dropped back, then tried to pass again, then almost stopped before merging right properly from behind me. We ended up side by side at the light. I looked over at him and said "You're new at this, aren't you?" He just glared straight ahead until the light changed. In the modern world, that ends with a headline, "shots fired in road rage incident" https://www.channel3000.com/news/del...-say/703673624 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 3:34 PM, Andy wrote:
On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:32:40 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Again a demonstration that the car always wins. Always? My employee blew a red light at high speed, fixed gear, and smashed into the side of a car with his shoulder. He & bike were fine but he was ticketed and had to pay the car owner's body work bills. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-19 13:42, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2018 3:34 PM, Andy wrote: On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:32:40 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Again a demonstration that the car always wins. Always? My employee blew a red light at high speed, fixed gear, and smashed into the side of a car with his shoulder. He & bike were fine but he was ticketed and had to pay the car owner's body work bills. In the 80's a guy in a Volkswagen Polo (was called Fox in the US) pulled through a stop sign, me on the bike at full bore. Couldn't stop, dropped myself a bit behind the handlebar in an attempt not to sail over the roof ... BAM. My bike was pretzeled and I was bruised but no broken bones. The guy tried to get out but the driver side door into which I had smashed but it could no longer be opened from inside. He was elderly and couldn't climb over the stick. So I pulled hard and then it opened with a crunching sound. I couldn't bring myself to make him pay for the old 2nd hand road bike. He was over 70, had just bought this VW as the first brand-new car in his life and now the left side was smashed in. He was close to crying. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote: It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a truck in that configuration. b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly. Duh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then. So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense. Can you please read more carefully? That is not what I said. Read the thread again, I am not going to repeat it over and over again. And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and killed the cyclist. That would be a serious truck driver mistake. Those things shouldn't happen but do, just like people blowing a red light. I had that a while ago while on the bicycle. Luckily I always look left and right even if I had green for a while. Might have saved my life. Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London a couple years ago. A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn signal yet he ignored it. You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that. Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic. ... The dominant messages need to change from "Now you have a safe place to ride" and "Always wear your helmet." Cyclists need to hear "Even a 'protected' bike lane won't protect you" and "Learn to anticipate and avoid these hazards..." with right hooks, left crosses and pull-outs being the most important, after road hazards. Those are among the top crash causes, far more than the hits-from-behind feared by bike lane advocates like yourself. Bike lanes do not help any of those crash mechanisms. If anything, they make them worse. Bike lanes do not make all mechanisms better but they do make a major one a lot better: Give the cyclist space during normal straight-ahead riding. Very few motorists venture into the bike lane while passing. Wehn in the lane regardless of lane position that is a very different story. So a road with bike lanes is better than one without. Segregated bike paths are way better than any of that but we can't always have them. Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on _all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two cities in Ohio that caved into those demands. Got links for those groups where they explicitly advocate that? I don't have links for the groups advocating that, ... Thought so :-) ... but here's a link about one of the results. Read the article, then read the comments, especially the first. http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/in...nes_to_ma.html Just says "Workers are painting bike lanes along the 2.4-mile stretch of Madison Avenue in Lakewood. Bike lanes were added as part of a resurfacing project". No picture. Lakewood originally planned for sharrows on lots of the narrow streets with parking. "Bike advocates" fought that idea and overturned it, getting the city to instead put in bike lanes even though they were very frequently in door zones. IIRC, it's Lakewood that labeled some of its door zone bike lanes with "Door Zone" painted on the pavement. Their safety guide says only "use caution" there - as if even a 10 mph cyclist can stop before running into a door that popped open. http://blog.centurycycles.com/2017/0...ike-lanes.html Not a smart bike lane design. They could learn from cities such as Folsom. That is not to say that all bike facilities there are perfect but most are well designed. Sometimes they go over the top like he http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/Bikelane1.JPG Yes, that is my two-meter foldable ruler on the pavement. What I found to work well in situations like the right sketch in your 2nd link is to move closer to the left limit of the bike lane. That signals car drivers that I am planning to go straight ahead. Usually only rowdies ignore that and cut me off, on purpose. They do that regardless of whether there is a bike lane of not. The others try to gauge my speed and then either pass and turn or line up behind me. If someone messes up and apologizes, no big deal. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote: It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a truck in that configuration. b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly. Duh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then. So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense. Can you please read more carefully? That is not what I said. Read the thread again, I am not going to repeat it over and over again. And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and killed the cyclist. That would be a serious truck driver mistake. Those things shouldn't happen but do, just like people blowing a red light. I had that a while ago while on the bicycle. Luckily I always look left and right even if I had green for a while. Might have saved my life. Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London a couple years ago. A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn signal yet he ignored it. You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that. Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic. But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic. Instead, the major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated facilities and all will be beautiful. But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a "Surprise!!" direction or location. Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways. And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to reduce 5%. It's nuts. Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc. And all because "If we build it they will come." I remain astonished that public policy is being driven by a feel-good movie. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/19/2018 6:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote: -buncha snip- I remain astonished that public policy is being driven by a feel-good movie. Not just regarding bicycles. Try reading the papers once in a while. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:43:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/19/2018 11:38 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:21 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision. And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Under what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn signal blinking? Not mirror in my case; he pulled right with right blinker on, then suddenly decided on a left U-turn as I passed. Fortunately there were witnesses. Ah. Most American drivers don't understand what that stick thing is, the one just past the left side of their steering wheel. You encountered one who was even worse than average. I liked this instructional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFHCyNVBTk I like the "pretty incredible" and "but it may require you to put down your coffee" But he never mentioned bright, flashing, Daylight Driving Lights. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:42:11 -0800, Joerg
wrote: On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision! The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that. Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed on the brake pedal. I knew it. If the bike had only had them super powerful daylight driving lights on it they would have been safe. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote: It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a truck in that configuration. b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly. Duh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then. So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense. Can you please read more carefully? That is not what I said. Read the thread again, I am not going to repeat it over and over again. And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and killed the cyclist. That would be a serious truck driver mistake. Those things shouldn't happen but do, just like people blowing a red light. I had that a while ago while on the bicycle. Luckily I always look left and right even if I had green for a while. Might have saved my life. Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London a couple years ago. A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn signal yet he ignored it. You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that. Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic. But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic. Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? My parents tought me that stuff. They taught us just about everything traffic, how to behave as a pedestrian, later as a cyclist, and many years later dad took us to a technical parcours in order to master a car in crtical situations. Like when things get slippery. Drivers ed classes don't teach you that, dad did. And that's how society is supposed to be. ... Instead, the major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated facilities and all will be beautiful. Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride. But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a "Surprise!!" direction or location. I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not. Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways. And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to reduce 5%. It's nuts. Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed. Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc. And all because "If we build it they will come." If built correctly they do come. I remain astonished that public policy is being driven by a feel-good movie. It's usually being driven by voter appeasement, wanton disregard of debt, cronyism, and sometimes worse. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:54:03 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote: It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a truck in that configuration. b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly. Duh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then. So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense.. Can you please read more carefully? That is not what I said. Read the thread again, I am not going to repeat it over and over again. And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and killed the cyclist. That would be a serious truck driver mistake. Those things shouldn't happen but do, just like people blowing a red light. I had that a while ago while on the bicycle. Luckily I always look left and right even if I had green for a while. Might have saved my life. Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London a couple years ago. A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn signal yet he ignored it. You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that. Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic. But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic. Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? My parents tought me that stuff. They taught us just about everything traffic, how to behave as a pedestrian, later as a cyclist, and many years later dad took us to a technical parcours in order to master a car in crtical situations. Like when things get slippery. Drivers ed classes don't teach you that, dad did. And that's how society is supposed to be. And yet you're suggesting massive nanny-state spending on facilities. I don't get it. Is your daddy going to build facilities for you? I look at this slightly differently than Frank. I would do more in driver training to instruct students on the obligation of motorists operating around bicyclists. Many do not understand the bike lane laws, passing laws, etc.. ... Instead, the major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated facilities and all will be beautiful. Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride. You mean balance and go forward? I ride with people every day who don't have much in the way of skills or who are just as distracted as drivers -- earbuds plugged in or even talking on the phone. I passed a bicycle parking cop on a bike who was talking on a flip phone a couple of days ago. Incroyable. But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a "Surprise!!" direction or location. I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not. Seriously, how many other cyclists do you encounter daily on your commute from the front room to the kitchen? Riding in a busy, multi-use facility with two-way cycle tracks, trains, buses, streetcars and pedestrians at rush-hour is not fun. This is where you say, but that is why I live in bucolic Cameron Park! We should build dirt trails through the cities! Right. We'll stipulate that everyone should live in the country and ride on dirt trails -- but they don't. Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to point B. And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a percentage of the commute. I can take the dopey south waterfront cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride over to it. It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day! -- Jay Beattie. |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 3:42:20 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2018 3:34 PM, Andy wrote: On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:32:40 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Again a demonstration that the car always wins. Always? My employee blew a red light at high speed, fixed gear, and smashed into the side of a car with his shoulder. He & bike were fine but he was ticketed and had to pay the car owner's body work bills. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 He ran a red light. He's lucky to have escaped injury/or death. Car won, cyclist lost. |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote: You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that. Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic. But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic. Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists? We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better? You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails. ... Instead, the major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated facilities and all will be beautiful. Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride. Then either you ride with an unusual crew, or your standards are low. Based on your posts here, I strongly suspect the latter. "Knows how to ride" means a LOT more than "can balance, pedal, shift and brake." In fact, the earliest version of the LAB's cycling classes started out with a slide that said "balancing ain't biking." There's much to learn about legal rights, where to ride in a lane, destination positioning, anticipating and avoiding hazards, and much more. I used to teach those classes. I never had a student who claimed they didn't learn a lot. But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a "Surprise!!" direction or location. I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not. OK, two points: First, I've been on bike trails (specifically, in Bismarck ND) that had signs telling pedestrians to walk on the right and bicyclists to ride on the left. That shows how weird your facilities can be. But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067 Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways. And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to reduce 5%. It's nuts. Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed. "A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is: http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc. And all because "If we build it they will come." If built correctly they do come. That's merely your built-in excuse. You ask for facilities everywhere, claiming they will tremendously increase cycling mode share. (All the way up to 2%!!!) And when that hasn't happened, you claim "Well, they weren't built correctly." As in Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, where the entire town was designed with a completely separate and expensive bikeway network that is almost entirely unused. - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-19 15:14, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Frank Krygowski : On 2/19/2018 1:42 PM, Joerg wrote: Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. Or so he believes. In fact, its just the oposite far too often. A cyclist is stopped on a bicycle lane by a traffic sign or a red ligth at an intersection, then a small or large truck catches up, waiting at a point where eye contact is not even possible. Quite often, cyclists _not passing_ but waiting on the right side of a truck have been killed, because they followed that advise above. For the reason, see http://www.bbsoft.de/imgProd/strasse...kurve_04_g.jpg (ractrix curve?) If the green is a bike lane or path that intersection design is completely screwed up. I would never advise anyone to stay next to a truck there. With my comment I meant cycling facilities designed by competent traffic engineers, not by incompetent ones. A few years ago, I documented a severe accident which happended a few hundred meters from my house and my childrens school. It's in German, but the pictures may illustrate the situation. It comments on an article in my local newspaper, which was illustrated by the crushed bike under double tires of a truck - frightening, but not very informative. http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/hausdorffstr/index.html "Truck overruns cyclist on bike path when turning right When he turned right into August-Bier-Strasse, he caught a 34-year-old cyclist who was traveling in the same direction on the Hausdorffstraße. According to the police, the truck dragged the woman a few feet. The 34-year-old suffered severe injuries and was hospitalized after first aid on the spot with a rescue truck." So did anyone report in _detail_ _how_ these accidents started? What precipitated them? Did the cyclists blindly trust their rights? Usually there are tire marks and such when a cyclist hits the brakes hard. Were there? How long? Speed? Et cetera, et cetera. Sure, the motorist is nearly always at fault in such situations. However, I have, especially in Germany, seen cyclists blow through intersections at high speed without as much as even a slight head turn to the left. One guy proudly posted a video in the German NG where someone (might have been he himself) blew through a city at full speed. Just watching it made me cringe. [...] In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in. They generally don't. European ones sometimes do, they have to learn a lot more. This is how it's done right: https://goo.gl/maps/2spLh13Junn It is not. I've cycled to and from work almost my entire professional life. Indeed, it is often painted that way. Unfortunatly, it hasn't worked, and it still doesn't work. So tell us, _why_ does it not work? It works for cyclists in America. Btw. I've never seen working road paintings which need additional fine print on traffic signs on the sidewalk. "BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES". In actuall fact, these are symptoms of a failing construct - too much boilerplate necessary. No, they alert drivers and they usually work. Quite some years ago, on my way to work, such a construct allmost got me killed, exactle here https://goo.gl/wHu6jE. In order to go to my workplace, I had to turn left on that intersection, following the left turn arrow on the road. It looks quite easy on the drawing board. Well, if you turn around and look back, you will see two details. First, the road has a slight curve. Second, its slightly rising. A third fact isnt visible by streetview: on two of three day, a few cars are parked just curve-upwards. In combination, it is very advisable to leave the bike line early, before the curve and arrange to the left. Not doing so is dangerous. Drivers of cars coming around the corder wil see you too late, for example. As a principle, one tries to avoid changing lanes in a curve, especially as a cyclist. 1. Go and measure the remaining width of the straight-ahead and left-turn lane. Sans bike lane. Then you will realize that even a little Isetta would have trouble getting through there without violating the required space to cyclists. Now imagine a big van or truck with the driver being in a hurry (like you were on the bike) barreling through there. 2. The left turn "bike lane" also reduce the left turn lane to way below regulation width. 3. The left turn "bike lane" is way too short. Maybe they only have one bicyclist in that town and figured it suffice for him or her. 4. They didn't even bother to write bike lane or a symbol on either bike lane in the area leading up to this intersection. Has paint become so expensive in Germany that it would have bankrupted the village? 5. If people come around that corner too fast there is a simple solution: 40km/h speed limit or less. Or do you think it's ok if they run over a kid that happens to be in the road? Or crash into the back end of a traffic jam? This is almost the classic case of gross incompetence on the part of whoever designed this "solution" and those who signed off on it. If people are too incompetent to get it done right or if it can't be done correctly because of existing buildings then don't build a bicycle facility at all. Well, on a certain day, some driver, perhaps already angry because of some earlier events, got angry when noticing a cyclist, as they say, in the middle of the road, blocking traffic. So he started to overtake me on the left turn lane, forcing me to the right, while intending to go straight thru the intersection, as I learned later. What could I do? I just slowed down, then turned left again, again overtaking him on the left (to be precise, just following the marked left turn lane, according to my route). What I didn't foresee was the fact that this driver understood that innocent maneuver as an attempted agression against him. So he struck back by ripping the stearing wheel to the left, in an attempt to hit me side by side. You've got such lowlifes everywhere. Unfortunately they keep their driver license until something terrible happens. And even then they sometimes keep it. Most people don't report such incidents and that fuels their "success". Whether it was sheer luck or skill, I don't know, somehow I dotched the murderous attempt by making an almost instant left turn, as well. Fortunately, there was no oncoming traffic. Personally, I was neither angry nor frightened at that moment, just puzzeled. We normally just don't have shootings in the schools. Sure you do. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoklauf_von_Winnenden ... Almost as rare are people who behave like that in traffic. The amount of road rage I have seen on German autobahns is beyond compare. I lived there a few decades. ... I can only assume that road paintings like those blandished by Joerg generate false assumptions and so trigger such behaviour in some people. They don't. If a guy with road rage shows up nothing will stop him, signs don't matter. How did it end? The motorist fled the scene, another motorist stopped behind me, got out of his car quickly, shouting something about him not believing what he saw, then asking in a more quieter tone, whether I'd like to have a witness, even offering his mobile phone to call the police. Unfortunately, I was already somewhat late for an important meeting at the office, so I thanked the man for his offer and went my way. Now that was a serious mistake. If you had a witness and the license plate info then that meeting cannot possibly have been as important as getting such a knucklehead off the road. Why did you not at least exchange names and phone numbers with this witness and got in contact later that day? That takes less than 15 seconds. If you virtually move along that road you will see that the bike lane switches to the middle, in this case even across two right-turn lanes. I nearly always have to go straight ahead there and despite coming through there during rush hour never had a problem. Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on _all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two cities in Ohio that caved into those demands. Have a look at the "Pützchens Chaussee" from the link above. This bike lane is less than 1 m wide and has parking on both sides. Lots of it. Exactly, and the lanes on the road in the intersection area are way to small. An accident waiting to happen. Now look at my link again and you will see that they did not make the mistakes I listed farther above. It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. Fun fact: this road was a model project for bike lanes in Germany, there was a scientific study which was input to what now is now called "Schutzstreifen" in our StVO (Straßenverkehrsordnung), a lane which is too small to meet even the minimal requirements to be used safely and which is not mandatory - in theory. Of course, that study preceded the building and expansion of residential areas left and right of that road. There where almost no junctions, no driveways, no parking on the sidewalks. Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denk (Honi soit qui mal y pense.) Sorry to say but that being a model project confirms my belief that bike infrastructure planners and "infrastructure scientists" in Germany are largely incompetent. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-20 09:04, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:54:03 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London a couple years ago. A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn signal yet he ignored it. You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that. Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic. But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic. Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? My parents tought me that stuff. They taught us just about everything traffic, how to behave as a pedestrian, later as a cyclist, and many years later dad took us to a technical parcours in order to master a car in crtical situations. Like when things get slippery. Drivers ed classes don't teach you that, dad did. And that's how society is supposed to be. And yet you're suggesting massive nanny-state spending on facilities. I don't get it. Is your daddy going to build facilities for you? No. I pay taxes and I want my tax Dollars being spent fairly. Simple. Things my mom and dad could do they did. Such as traffic ed. Mom and dad had no jurisdiction about roads and stuff. I look at this slightly differently than Frank. I would do more in driver training to instruct students on the obligation of motorists operating around bicyclists. Many do not understand the bike lane laws, passing laws, etc. In Germany we learned that in driver's ed. The practical tests could be pretty gruesome. If you only once failed to turn your head to the right to check for a cyclist - out - flunked - try again after x more training hours. Of course, you got to pay for that test regardless. I learned this stuff from dad though. ... Instead, the major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated facilities and all will be beautiful. Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride. You mean balance and go forward? I ride with people every day who don't have much in the way of skills or who are just as distracted as drivers -- earbuds plugged in or even talking on the phone. I passed a bicycle parking cop on a bike who was talking on a flip phone a couple of days ago. Incroyable. So did you report the guy? In California that is a traffic violation. But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a "Surprise!!" direction or location. I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not. Seriously, how many other cyclists do you encounter daily on your commute from the front room to the kitchen? I ride about 4000mi/year, more than half of it non-singletrack. ... Riding in a busy, multi-use facility with two-way cycle tracks, trains, buses, streetcars and pedestrians at rush-hour is not fun. This is where you say, but that is why I live in bucolic Cameron Park! We should build dirt trails through the cities! Right. We'll stipulate that everyone should live in the country and ride on dirt trails -- but they don't. If it hasn't occurred to you yet most of my rides are into the Sacramento valley which has by now become one giant metropolis. Where you can't discern the boundaries between Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento anymore unless you watch for the little signs. Lots of two-way cycle tracks, trains, buses, streetcars and pedestrians. On my way back I sometimes hit rush hour. Can't always avoid it because of too many clients east of here so in the mornings I have to work. Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to point B. Well, many of ours do. ... And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a percentage of the commute. The one along the American River is heavily used by commuters. To the point that I always try to leave it behind me by 4pm. ... I can take the dopey south waterfront cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride over to it. I do that a lot, using a singletrack to get to Folsom or Rancho Cordova. Yes, it's almost 10mi more and the average speed there drops to 8mph but absolute fun. Must carry carrots or a pear for Cotton, my horse friend. That "costs" another 10mins but worth every minute. Life is not supposed to be all nose-to-the-grindstone. If you are in a hurry a lot get a Porsche or a Kawasaki. ... It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day! Yeah, first tracks is always fun. Less so when there are already numerous tracks and they have iced up overnight. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote: You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that. Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic. But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic. Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists? Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving school teachers if the family uses that avenue. We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better? Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah. You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails. Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I show up on a bulldozer and do it myself. ... Instead, the major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated facilities and all will be beautiful. Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride. Then either you ride with an unusual crew, or your standards are low. Based on your posts here, I strongly suspect the latter. "Knows how to ride" means a LOT more than "can balance, pedal, shift and brake." In fact, the earliest version of the LAB's cycling classes started out with a slide that said "balancing ain't biking." There's much to learn about legal rights, where to ride in a lane, destination positioning, anticipating and avoiding hazards, and much more. I used to teach those classes. I never had a student who claimed they didn't learn a lot. You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff. But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a "Surprise!!" direction or location. I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not. OK, two points: First, I've been on bike trails (specifically, in Bismarck ND) that had signs telling pedestrians to walk on the right and bicyclists to ride on the left. That shows how weird your facilities can be. Even in America we have incompetent traffic engineers. But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067 In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no. Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways. And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to reduce 5%. It's nuts. Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed. "A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is: http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news. Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc. And all because "If we build it they will come." If built correctly they do come. That's merely your built-in excuse. You ask for facilities everywhere, claiming they will tremendously increase cycling mode share. (All the way up to 2%!!!) As I said numerous times 2% is a lot for America. And when that hasn't happened, you claim "Well, they weren't built correctly." As in Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, where the entire town was designed with a completely separate and expensive bikeway network that is almost entirely unused. We have discussed ad nauseam where they messed up and I won't repeat everything over and over again. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It makes no sense. We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists? Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving school teachers if the family uses that avenue. Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense. We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better? Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah. You're apparently in favor of ignorance. Campaigns like that should use far more than prints and posters. We have mass media - radio that people listen to while driving, TVs that people watch at home. There are billboards along almost every roadside. There are magazines and newspapers, both in print and online. This country has education efforts about everything from "don't drive drunk" to "vaccinate your kids" to "stay in school" to "take your dogs inside in cold weather." None of them have had 100% success, but many have helped significantly. Yet you don't want to educate motorists about bicyclists. Instead, you want to spend billions of dollars to build separate paths. You make no sense. You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails. Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I show up on a bulldozer and do it myself. You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies, while ignoring much less costly improvements. You're not making sense. And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to learn about those complications. You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff. Don't pretend it's just _my_ "taking the lane" stuff. It's taught by every nationally recognized cycling education course. It's written into most state laws, including yours. Your failure to understand does not invalidate the principles - both legal principles and traffic principles. But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067 In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no. OK, let's start from that statement. So we should NOT do those cycle tracks in a dense city, despite all the bike advocates who claim we need them precisely there? Fine. So instead, you want to do these million dollar per mile facilities out in rural areas, where there are countless more miles to cover, and only 1/100 the number of cyclists who will ever use them? Yet again, Joerg, you're not making sense. And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to reduce 5%. It's nuts. Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed. "A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is: http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news. sigh I've run across your mindset regarding other issues too. "It doesn't matter what national data says. It doesn't matter what the largest and most disciplined studies say. It doesn't matter what competent engineers say. I've got a few anecdotes - but I won't say how many! - and my anecdotes trump any and all science." I honestly don't know how to respond to such deep ignorance except to say: You're Not Making Sense. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote:
It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6 car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago. Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/20/2018 9:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to learn about those complications. Speaking of educations: Here's a video, over four minutes long, to try to teach people how to use a new two-way "protected" cycle track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ii...ature=youtu.be Got that? It requires four minutes of explanation plus a bunch of counter-intuitive moves. Yet crap like this is supposed to be "safe for everybody 8 to 80." It makes no sense. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote: It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6 car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago. Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions. +1 As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and say, "Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note that there's never an omelette. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course. Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to drive is no longer necessary? And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It makes no sense. We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists? Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving school teachers if the family uses that avenue. Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense. We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better? Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah. You're apparently in favor of ignorance. Campaigns like that should use far more than prints and posters. We have mass media - radio that people listen to while driving, TVs that people watch at home. There are billboards along almost every roadside. There are magazines and newspapers, both in print and online. This country has education efforts about everything from "don't drive drunk" to "vaccinate your kids" to "stay in school" to "take your dogs inside in cold weather." None of them have had 100% success, but many have helped significantly. Yet you don't want to educate motorists about bicyclists. Instead, you want to spend billions of dollars to build separate paths. You make no sense. You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails. Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I show up on a bulldozer and do it myself. You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies, while ignoring much less costly improvements. You're not making sense. And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to learn about those complications. You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff. Don't pretend it's just _my_ "taking the lane" stuff. It's taught by every nationally recognized cycling education course. It's written into most state laws, including yours. Your failure to understand does not invalidate the principles - both legal principles and traffic principles. But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067 In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no. OK, let's start from that statement. So we should NOT do those cycle tracks in a dense city, despite all the bike advocates who claim we need them precisely there? Fine. So instead, you want to do these million dollar per mile facilities out in rural areas, where there are countless more miles to cover, and only 1/100 the number of cyclists who will ever use them? Yet again, Joerg, you're not making sense. And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to reduce 5%. It's nuts. Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed. "A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is: http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news. sigh I've run across your mindset regarding other issues too. "It doesn't matter what national data says. It doesn't matter what the largest and most disciplined studies say. It doesn't matter what competent engineers say. I've got a few anecdotes - but I won't say how many! - and my anecdotes trump any and all science." I honestly don't know how to respond to such deep ignorance except to say: You're Not Making Sense. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:00:40 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote: It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6 car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago. Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions. +1 As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and say, "Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note that there's never an omelette. The Communists, if they said that, were Johnny-come-lately as the phrase seems to have originally been attributed François de Charette in reference to the fatalities caused by his troops during the Vendee war (revolt against the French First Republic). "on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des oeufs" (1742 or earlier), -- Cheers, John B. |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state. And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It makes no sense. To you it may not. To the vast majority of cyclists it does. Come here and ask them. We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists? Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving school teachers if the family uses that avenue. Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense. Can you try to think a bit harder and more logically? A parent teaching a kid will be fully concentrated on the task at hand. When that same parent is on the way to work, daily grind, same old same old, he or she will become ever more complacent, glance over who just might have texted them ... OH DANG ... a cyclist ... I didn't see him! [...] You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails. Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I show up on a bulldozer and do it myself. You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies, while ignoring much less costly improvements. _My_ tax Dollars, _not_ other people's money. You're not making sense. Well, obviously you don't get it or don't want to so I'll end it here. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-20 19:00, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote: It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6 car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago. Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions. +1 Andrew, you are in the perfect position because you run a bike shop and undoubtedly 95% of people coming through the door are cyclists (discount the grandparents buying a tricycle for li'l Joey). What if you'd ask every one of them for a week or so whether they prefer riding on bike paths or on roads? As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and say, "Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note that there's never an omelette. Oh there is but it's always being eaten by the politically connected. Regular people must stand in line to get one, only one per family, and when it's their turn all omelettes are already gone. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/21/2018 10:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 19:00, AMuzi wrote: On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote: It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups. By far. We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6 car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago. Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions. +1 Andrew, you are in the perfect position because you run a bike shop and undoubtedly 95% of people coming through the door are cyclists (discount the grandparents buying a tricycle for li'l Joey). What if you'd ask every one of them for a week or so whether they prefer riding on bike paths or on roads? What a nonsense response. Even if every one said "I'd prefer riding on a bike path," what would that prove? That we must build bike paths absolutely everywhere so they never have to ride on a road? It should be obvious that such a thing is impossible. And if you build the typical American bike path for them, it will probably increase the amount of driving, because most path users drive to and from the paths in their cars. Your question, Joerg, is like asking people in a grocery store "Would you rather taste this ice cream, or these mashed potatoes?" We know how the majority would answer. But basing dietary policy on it would result in a grossly fat and unhealthy population, increasing societal medical expense. Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous, don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path." -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/20/2018 10:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course. Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to drive is no longer necessary? I think that public school driver's education classes are far less common than they used to be. I took such a class as a summer option, but that was over 50 years ago. AFAIK it's not available around here at all. It's been replaced by for-profit driving schools and/or online classes. And those ignore interactions with bicyclists. I know a smart and dedicated bike advocate who has worked a long time trying to influence them to teach respect for cyclists, care when passing cyclists, etc. She's also lobbied to get appropriate questions into the official driver's license exams. She's been repeatedly rebuffed, but she keeps trying. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2/21/2018 10:29 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state. Here's the problem: I've stopped kids riding facing traffic (because they were headed directly at me) and was told "My parents told me to ride on this side." I've seen two parents and their three kids riding facing traffic (all wearing pretty helmets, so I guess they were "safe.") I've ridden alongside other adults, me riding on the right, they riding on the left, and had conversations about which side of the road is proper. Heck, I had one conversation with a bike cop who asked _me_ which side of the road was really legal! It makes no sense to say the ignorant should do the educating. And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It makes no sense. To you it may not. To the vast majority of cyclists it does. Come here and ask them. Joerg, most bike trails might as well be paved circles in a big field, for all the good they do. You should just lobby for those. The "vast majority" of cyclists would like them just as well. Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense. Can you try to think a bit harder and more logically? A parent teaching a kid will be fully concentrated on the task at hand. I suspect you have no kids. You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies, while ignoring much less costly improvements. _My_ tax Dollars, _not_ other people's money. If _your_ tax dollars can pay for even one mile of a segregated bike facility, you must be paying millions in taxes. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:29:53 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state. I understand that you're not from this country, so FYI, US schools have traditionally offered driver's education, sometimes as a free class along with health education (my generation in California) and then as a privately provided class, paid for by the student -- current practice in Oregon. Driver training is not required, but it makes it easier to get a regular license. It's also a good idea, and it lowers accident and insurance rates for young drivers. Professional instructors know more than parents, sorry to say. Most parents know how to drive, but don't know the vehicle code except for what they read on signs. Many parents have no idea of the laws applicable to bicycles.. Many parents are poor drivers themselves, talk on cellphones and are the people about whom you constantly complain and fear. BTW, the "nanny state" is building all the roads and facilities you use. It is providing you with water, fire and police protection -- even in your CSD. You have a hard-on for the nanny state and yet you live in a development where you you have to select a house paint color from an approved pallet.. http://www.cameronpark.org/ccrs/ccrs...-9785b252-af54 It's self-imposed super-nanny wet-nurse state. -- Jay Beattie. |
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-21 09:52, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:29:53 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES! We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic? There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed world there. But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles properly in traffic? As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state. I understand that you're not from this country, so FYI, US schools have traditionally offered driver's education, sometimes as a free class along with health education (my generation in California) and then as a privately provided class, paid for by the student -- current practice in Oregon. I know but AFAIK schools around here do not have such free service a anymore. ... Driver training is not required, but it makes it easier to get a regular license. It's also a good idea, and it lowers accident and insurance rates for young drivers. It is a good idea but should not be on the taxpayer dime. Besides, driving is a privilege, not a right. When I was young I paid my driving school fees myself. Every penny of it. Professional instructors know more than parents, sorry to say. Most parents know how to drive, but don't know the vehicle code except for what they read on signs. Many parents have no idea of the laws applicable to bicycles. Many parents are poor drivers themselves, talk on cellphones and are the people about whom you constantly complain and fear. Sure, just like there are parents who are abusive or have next to nothing in social skills. It still does not warrant the state to barge in and take over unless it's really bad and dangerous. BTW, the "nanny state" is building all the roads and facilities you use. It is providing you with water, fire and police protection -- even in your CSD. As I said that is because I do not have the right to hop on an excavator and tear up some turf in the wilderness. In the old days people could do that but not anymore. For example, just a few miles from here people pump their own water and operate septic tanks. We live in a more urban area where that right is not afforded to residents. ... You have a hard-on for the nanny state and yet you live in a development where you you have to select a house paint color from an approved pallet. They do not. We went to Sherwin-Williams, picked a color and painted the house. http://www.cameronpark.org/ccrs/ccrs...-9785b252-af54 It's self-imposed super-nanny wet-nurse state. The reason we live in California was job-related and we stayed (so far). We don't like moving. However, if we ever want to downsize while getting older my sights are on the southern parts of Utah. Good weather, conservative area, pristine mountain biking. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com