On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/24/2019 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/24/2019 2:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 21:44:43 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:45:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 22:08:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 12/23/2019 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:


Thus it would seem to behoove the cyclist, for his own protection, to
avoid, in any way possible, contact with other traffic.

So, ride in your basement on a wind trainer.

Have at it, if that's all you can handle. But I feel sorry for you..

Insult if you chose but a bit more accurate reading would show that:
"I ride on roads where traffic is *normally* moving at speeds
of 100 KPH or faster..."

A _perfectly_ accurate reading would show that I was talking about riding to
church on Sunday morning, and dealing with one rude motorist. Nobody was going
100kph. Yet you advised "avoiding, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, contact with other traffic."

If you meant physical contact, I suppose you might have a case. But in about five decades of riding, that's not been a problem (despite Sir's and you fears.)
If you mean I should not have been on the street I was riding, I'm sorry, but
that's nuts. I'm not going to ride only on segregated bike trails.

Yes, it's conceivable that a motorist could try to murder me. But it's also
conceivable that a car could crash into a house and knock a sleeping person out
of bed. (We had one of those incidents on the news tonight.) It would be
paranoid to give up road riding - or sleeping in bed - because of such a rare
possibility.

Frank, it is perfectly all right to froth at the mouth in fury but
don't get it all over the screen so you can't see what the other guy
said, before you post your insults. (It makes you look like a fool)

Sorry, John, I'm not frothing. I'm not even angry. But I'm quite surprised that
two purportedly avid cyclists think another cyclist should give away his legal
rights if a motorist acts like an ass.

Guys, grow a pair!

- Frank Krygowski

Should give away his legal rights.... Yes, it makes perfect sense. Or
does it?

I came across some data on vehicle - pedestrian collisions and while
it isn't cyclists I suggest that it has some relationship as the
cyclist has about as much protection in a collision as the pedestrian..

Remembering that I was referring in my post of cycling on a highway
with motor vehicle traffic traveling at 100 kph, or faster, while I'm
whizzing along at more or less 25 kph, a difference of about 75kph.
The chart, published by the European Commission for Mobility and
Transport (Road Safety) shows that the chance of death of a
pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling at 75 kph is ~98%. I suggest
that the chances of death in a motor vehicle - bicycle collision at
the same speed is very similar.

Refusing not to give up one's "legal Rights" in conditions that offer
a 98% chance of death hardly seems like a logical idea.

The idea is to avoid the collision. The question is, what's the best way
of avoiding the collision.

Certainly I agree with your first 7 words. The remainder of your post
is simply self justification.

There are several schools of thought. The most common idea is to never
ride a bicycle on a public road. Perhaps that's what you're advocating -
although it's inconsistent with your posting here, and with your claimed
habits. It's certainly incompatible with my life.

As I previously wrote, "Remembering that I was referring in my post of
cycling on a highway with motor vehicle traffic traveling at 100 kph,
or faster, while I'm whizzing along at more or less 25 kph, a
difference of about 75kph."

Does that sound like "never ride a bicycle on a public road"?

The second most common idea is to ride on the extreme edge of the road
and/or its shoulder, even if it has gravel, bumps, broken glass, drain
grates, cracks, etc. and even if doing so encourages motorists to pass
leaving mere inches of clearance. That's the habit of every cyclist who
kowtows to every motorist, and who thinks any toothless moron driving a
beat up pickup deserves higher status than any bicyclist. They trust
such a moron to accurately gauge where his right mirror is as said moron
rushes home to watch Oprah.

Which, I might point out, no one has mentioned except you. Is this
another scare story to bolster your theories?

The third idea is the one actually consistent with most American and
European laws, and is taught in every cycling class curriculum I've
encountered. That's to use one's legal right to the road by claiming the
lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor
vehicle. This is also the technique whose devotees say has changed their
riding experience tremendously for the better. They say it has almost
eliminated dangerously close passes and has added to their safety and
riding pleasure.

So you advocate simply riding out in front of traffic that is
traveling 75 kph faster than you?

No, John, I've never said anyone should "simply ride out in front of
traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster." As in much of your post above,
you are constructing straw man arguments.


But most people can't seem to comprehend the verbiage of the laws, and
almost nobody is interested in actually _learning_ about competent
riding. That's because everyone already "knows" that they are
wonderfully competent and have nothing more to learn. It's
Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

So, again, most people don't ride at all. And most of those who do cower
as far to the edge as physically possible. They put up with vehicles
passing inches from their elbow, and think "Oh, I hope none of those
drivers twitches a couple inches toward the edge; because at their
speed, there's a 98% chance they'll kill me."

If that's how you like to ride, do so. But ISTM that if you want to
argue about it, you should make your way through a proper cycling class
first. Or at least read a good book on competent road cycling.

Ah yes, And of course the class is teaching the correct
information....

The Holy Roman Church taught that the sun rotated around the earth and
justified it by quoting the Bible... until 1822 when The College of
Cardinals state that the "publication of works treating of the motion
of the Earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the
opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted."

That is nearly 2,000 years of teaching the wrong thing.... are your
bicycle schools better?

I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your
argument entirely backwards.

Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the
common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right
to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on
sidewalks, and/or in the gutter.

But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and
science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found
that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they
operate as legal vehicle operators.

You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science
and learning.

Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of
what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you
taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing
based on your own assumptions?


--
- Frank Krygowski

I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement. Up to half a year ago I had the urge sometimes to point out to people what they were doing wrong despite I never got a sensible reply or discussion as a result. I think the natural reaction of people when doing something wrong they blame the other guy. The last time a guy who stopped his car at a dangerous spot and opened his door in front of me. A curse escaped me when I just could go around his door. He came after me and right hooked me into the roadside and almost knocked me off my bike. I came home all ****ed up and it ruined my up to then pleasant ride. I promised myself I won't let that happen again. You can't discuss with idiots and I don't do that anymore.

Lou