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.