On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 11:02:16 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 13/03/2018 6:32 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

To millennial snowflakes who have never learned to properly drive or ride,
anyone surviving vehicular cycling as long as Forester has will
automatically look like an a.



Maybe but it's not just millennial snowflakes that find Forester's
penchant to reject out of hand anything but his own solution to be flawed.

Case in point, the idea that adding something to trucks to keep cyclists
and pedestrians from getting under the wheels. We've had several deaths
in Montreal directly related to this.

One can sit on their pompous ass and blame the cyclist or pedestrians
for not reading their book. But putting barriers on trucks isn't a bad
idea. Nor is improved visibility. We have the tech to use cameras and
proximity alerts on my Toyota but not on an 18 wheeler? Doesn't make
much sense to be against these things in my opinion.

Does Forester really reject the idea of putting side guards on trucks? I doubt
it. I believe his logic is more like the following:

Cyclists occasionally get killed when they are right hooked by a large truck.
When that happens, the immediate cause of death is usually that the rear
wheels of the truck or its trailer smash the cyclist. Yes, it's a problem.

So how should a cyclist avoid that fate? One way would be to begin the lobbying
process to create a state law mandating side guards on all such trucks and
trailers. That will be opposed by the trucking industry, so it will involve
a long fight. If we start now, installation may being in, oh, five years if
we're lucky. And it's likely to apply only to new trucks, so old ones will be
running around unguarded for maybe 20 more years.

And the side guards won't be perfect - not even close. Because of the necessary
ground clearance, the guards will still fail some cyclists. In other words, the
cyclists wanting to avoid that fate will not be saved by this strategy for a
long time, if ever.

On the other hand, if a cyclist wants to avoid that fate, he could learn to
avoid getting into a right hook situation. He could drop the fantasy that a
bike lane - even a "protected bike lane" - constitutes an impenetrable barrier.

Neither of these strategies will protect the ignorant cyclists. But when
Forester talks about avoiding these right hooks, he's trying to reduce the
number of ignorant cyclists. The cyclists that really learn this will be much,
much safer.

One way to teach the lesson is to note, after one of these fatalities, that the
cyclist did make a mistake. Of course, many people castigate that as "victim
blaming." So instead of teaching, they promote fantasy solutions.

That's nuts.

I imagine what those people would have done if they'd been math teachers:
"Johnny, you said 2+2=5. I don't want to hurt your self esteem, so I'm going to
do what I can to make two plus two actually equal five. No need to thank me!
I just want to make the world a better place for everyone!"

- Frank Krygowski