On 4/13/2021 11:48 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 9:15:56 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

Endangering oneself how? Riding toward the right? If there are no obstacles, why not let traffic flow around? One does not need to be in the middle of the road all the time. If cars can pass safely, I let them pass -- why not?

You should be careful to argue against what I've actually said, not what
you've imagined I've said. (Admittedly, that's a common problem here.)

When a lane is wide enough to safely share, I share that lane. I've said
so many times. Please check your notes.

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.

Take the lane when you need it -- and be careful if you are riding in the door zone. Pre-plague, I did that all the time to avoid stopped traffic. It's harder these days with blacked-out windows, but I'm not going to sit around behind a line of stopped traffic.

I disagree strongly with "be careful if you are riding in the door
zone." It's much better to just stay out of the door zone. Because what
does "be careful" mean? Hit the brakes and swerve if the driver's door
opens when you're at the taillight? Sorry, physics makes that impossible.

As I've mentioned, Chicago began keeping track of doorings, whereas most
areas don't record them since they are not collisions "between vehicles
in transport." Chicago found something like a quarter of its car-bike
collisions were doorings.

BTW, the gutter is like 8" wide with a curb. Try actually riding in a gutter. Most of our roads don't even have gutters. There is just a curb or nothing. The only times I see cyclists in actual gutters is when they're trying to squeeze around cars and other obstacles.

Of course it's necessary to strictly use exactly proper language when in
a discussion with a lawyer! But:

Most of our gutters (actually "gutter pans," cast in one piece with the
curb) are closer to a foot wide. But yes, I actually do see cyclists
riding in them. And generalizing the concept, I see many cyclists riding
at the very edge of a paved road that lacks curbs or (by your
definition) well-defined gutters. On certain roads I see people riding
dirt tracks they've worn in the grass just a few inches off the
pavement. And a few years ago I described the incident where a road
bicyclist in full kit on a rural road rode off onto the grass rather
than obstruct a pickup approaching behind him.

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

I learned that stuff when I was seven years old in a mandatory education class after being busted for riding my bike the wrong way down the road in front of the police station. Even at the time, I knew I was breaking the law, and I learned an important lesson. Don't break the law in front of the police station.

You know this stuff. Would you say your level of intelligence and
expertise is typical?

Keep in mind that half the people in America are of below average
intelligence.

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.

Hit how? If I had been hugging the edge of the road and riding in the door-handle zone, that bus may have missed me. Riding lane center may increase the chance of getting hit depending on the road and type of collision. I ascend to the far right on this road because it is the other side of a blind turn and being far right makes me more visible...

??? What? I'd say the opposite is true.

-- and I can bail out if some idiot comes drifting around the corner
from either direction.

How often do they run into an oncoming car in the lane you ride in?
They're idiots, but they're even less likely to run into you. Try to not
let your imagination run away.

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.

Not that I'm a big DRL fan, but in that scenario, you're concerned about being conspicuous. Why not be even more conspicuous with a DRL? Or a flippy flag or a fluorescent vomit jersey?

.... and a pool noodle! And a siren! And a car leading you, with flashing
lights and horn blaring! Why not?

Here's why not: Because it's not necessary, it's a distraction from
adopting better measures, it inspires false confidence and risk
compensation, it wastes money, it implies that bicycling is
hyper-dangerous thus dissuading others from riding...

The main point about "safety inflation" is, where does it stop? Your
simplistic "why not?" can be used to justify all sorts of weirdness.

--
- Frank Krygowski