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
truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these
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.
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
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. 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.
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.
Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just
the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car
doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them
and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways.
And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are
increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to
reduce 5%. It's nuts.
Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even
barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high
vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed
within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc.
And all because "If we build it they will come."
I remain astonished that public policy is being driven by a feel-good movie.
- Frank Krygowski