On 4/11/2021 7:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:40:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

As I have to emphasize time and time again, I'm not telling people not
to use a DRL, not to wear a helmet, not to wear day-glo clothing and so
on. What troubles me are the claims that "anyone with a brain" will make
those currently fashionable choices. Imposing ever-increasing "safety"
recommendations adds to the perceived danger of bicycling. That's the
opposite of promoting cycling.

Will the sky someday fall, in Jay's words? More realistically, will laws
mandate those measures? Well, helmets are mandatory for essentially
everyone in at least two countries, with fines up near $400 in some
areas. They're mandatory for kids in many U.S. states and for adults in
some areas. Day-glo vests must be carried by cyclists in France and be
worn under certain conditions. Blinking taillights are required by at
least some bike clubs for daytime riding.

The Oregon under 16 MHL is the source of the prohibition on offering evidence of the non-wearing of helmet as evidence of comparative fault. Assuming there were some law mandating a DRL on bicycles (there isn't one for cars in Oregon), it is reasonable to assume that it would protect cyclists from claims of comparative fault based on the using of a DRL.

Your point seems to be that if a law mandating helmets or DRLs (or
day-glo vests or safety flags or electric horns?) has a comparative
fault exception, it's just fine. I disagree strongly. There are many
other detriments to such laws, and even to promotions of those measures.

My point is that every time we add an item to the list of things "you
really need to be safe on a bike" we increase the perception of
bicycling's danger. Not only are most of those things ineffective wastes
of money, they add to the image of bicycling as an extreme activity, one
that normally prudent people should avoid. That imposes all sorts of
societal costs.

Also, what you are proposing is a ban on DRLs to avoid them becoming the "standard of care."

Bull****. I never once proposed banning those things. I said precisely
the opposite. But I'd prefer an (unattainable) ideal world in which
promotional propaganda was actually factual, accurate and given in
proper context.
My defense against getting hit is avoiding skulking in the gutter. I
almost always ride where motorists are looking, as specifically allowed
by state law. I also stay aware of traffic interactions and potential
conflicts. Those tactics have worked perfectly for almost 50 years now,
in dozens of states and nearly a dozen foreign countries.

Gutter bunnies get right hooked and left crossed because they are
inconspicuous, then they buy talismans for protection - DRLs, bike
flags, electric horns, day-glo vests and more.

WTF is "skulking in the gutter"? How do you even ride in the gutter? Are you saying AFRAP is skulking in the gutter -- even though it is required by law?

Get serious. You're a lawyer. You know the "P" stands for "practicable"
not "possible." "Practicable" includes the ability to do it without
endangering oneself.

And unless your riding universe is completely different from mine, you
will have seen plenty of cyclists literally riding in the gutter. You'll
have seen even more skimming the very edge of a 10 foot lane to let an 8
foot truck squeeze by with inches to spare. You'll have seen countless
cyclists riding in the door zone.

None of those behaviors are required by law, and all those are strongly
discouraged in any legitimate cycling education program. Yet I'd bet
dollars to donuts that we have posters here who don't get the idea. They
think they have to never inconvenience a motorist no matter what, so
they ride at the far edge of the lane. In that position they aren't
noticed because they're not where motorists normally look. They're lost
among the background clutter, or (for motorists pulling out from the
right) they're hidden behind parked cars.

This is basic! It's probably covered in this online course:
https://cyclingsavvy.org/courses/ess...-short-course/

People who don't get this seem to have _far_ more close calls. They then
complain about how dangerous bicycling is. They tout their glaring
lights, their flags, their hats that saved their lives three times,
their "protected" lanes that hide them even worse, and they claim that
more and more such garbage is needed every year to be "safe."

As a couple of data points, I've been hit maybe a half-dozen times and never while skulking in the gutter. I was lane center riding the speed of traffic when someone turned in front of me. Nice ride to the hospital in an ambulance. I was doing the same thing when some one pulled out from my right for no reason. I got hooked by a mail truck. I got rear-ended by a bus while in the middle of the f****** lane. People do stupid sh**.

People do stupid ****. But people do less stupid **** to riders who are
positioned so they are visible. You improve your odds when you move away
from the edge - assuming, as on most roads, that there is not room to
safely share the lane.

Can you picture two normal curves? Each one representing the probability
of a rider's car-bike crash. Neither one has absolute zero probability
(the far left tail of the curve). But the curves are shifted laterally
from each other. The rider who hugs the edge has more chance of getting
hit, and the reasons should be obvious to a person who can visualize
lines of sight and lane dimensions.

Picture a van parked just east of a driveway. Picture a cyclist riding
west, skimming along within three feet of the van (and wishing the bike
lane were next to the curb in the passenger side door zone instead of in
the driver side door zone). Can you picture a motorist trying to pull
out of the driveway and hitting the cyclist? That should be easy.

If the van blocked the motorist's view of the cyclist without a DRL, it
would have blocked his view of the cyclist with a DRL. The DRL not only
didn't help, it may give the cyclist false confidence and increase his
danger. It's an ineffective kluge.

--
- Frank Krygowski