On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Are you talking about fatalities among cyclists who are riding in
daytime? Or are you talking about fatalities among cyclists riding at
night with proper lights (including, as I do, with a taillight)? Or
are you including the cyclists killed while riding non-urban roads at
night with no proper lights or reflectors? And how are you counting
those killed at night where lights or reflectors are not included one
way or other in the accident report?

How does this information change your opinion about "controlling
lanes?"

Well, since a) I'm sure the great unlit (and often inebriated) masses
are included in those counts, and b) even if they were not, the "one
quarter" would mean a minimum of 35 million miles ridden, on average,
between those sorts of fatalities, it doesn't change my opinion at
all. I don't expect to get anywhere near 35 million miles before I
die of other causes.

I am certain that even among proper, sober and well-lit bicyclists,
straight up hits from behind accounted for far, far more fatalities
than "dangerous passes." It doesn't matter, does it? What you have
there is a belief system, an ideology, based on fantasy, and rather
than alter or evolve your beliefs in the face of contrary facts, those
contrary facts must instead be actively ignored, attacked and banished
to protect the precious beliefs..

FACT: Even though relatively few American bicyclists "take the lane,"
bicyclists here (even sober, well-lit ones) are far, far more likely
to be killed by a driver who doesn't see them at all and rams into
them from behind than by one who sees them but fails to pass
correctly.

But how about you? In a previous post, you pointed out that you were
largely agreeing with me. Remember? You said "If there is any
oncoming traffic, anybody behind me will just have to travel my speed
for a bit, no matter where I ride in a 10-foot lane."

Meaning, it's physically impossible to pass a cyclist within a 10-foot
lane in an 8.5-foot truck, even if the bicyclist decides to "skulk"
next to the curb. It simply doesn't matter where you ride, not a bit,
if there is any oncoming traffic the dude can't pass without running
you down. In reality, the hardcore "skulker" "controls the lane" just
as effectively as the professor riding right down the middle.

Are we in agreement yet again? I hope so!

So you now agree that:

-- The entire idea of "controlling a lane" is absurd.

-- Five feet is a pathetic and inadequate buffer to right side
hazards, if there are any. In the absence of same-direction traffic,
you should be riding much further left.

-- The concept of Primary Position and Secondary Position is
nonsensical and should be ridiculed, then abandoned.

-- Bicyclists should help drivers pass by moving toward the right,
even on narrow streets.

-- Bicyclists who fixate on close passes and "preventing dangerous
passes" etc. have misplaced fears. Traffic management philosophies
based on such misguided fears should be ridiculed and abandoned at
first opportunity.

Glad we could clear all that up.