On Jun 26, 9:19*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
:

Yes, it did not. *It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next
lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't
going to mow you down in any case.

He would probably have attempted to pass had I squeezed over and ridden
near the gutter.

That is the normal procedure to encourage someone following to pass.
One should only do this if one is prepared to stop as it gives the
rider no room to maneuver.

*In doing so, he would have given me far less than
three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if
unenforced) minimum. *By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
him from doing that. *It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. *Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl

(Are you saying there *was* room
for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?)

I _was_ as far right as practicable. *In my state, "practicable" does
not mean "so far right as to endanger yourself by possible sideswipes."
* Specifically, the law says a cyclist is allowed to ride further left
if the lane is too narrow to share.

So he waited a few seconds, then went around completely in the other
lane when it cleared. *No problem, no hassle.

When there is another lane, there is no need to pull over, but it
might be wise if one is holding up a following road-user for a
considerable time. Consider whether the elapsed time is getting
excessive and pull over and stop if necessary.


So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
seconds? *Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
cyclists' rights to the road?

Okay, here's the criticism: *Your brand of cycling education is about
indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of
Vehicular Cycling.

Dan, I was a college professor for many years. *Part of that job was to
tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
correctly. *I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. *It's called
teaching.

That's lecturing. Teaching helps learning. They are different.

I suppose there may be teachers that accept any work as good enough, or
teachers that never tell about better ways of doing things. *(My
students did tell me of one prof who gave an A to anyone who attended
his class. *Fortunately, it was a far-less-than-essential liberal arts
class.) *Personally, I think that's irresponsible and counterproductive,
and especially so when it involves the possibility of personal injury.

So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to endorse the riding style you've
espoused - riding drunk, riding at night without lights, riding
wrong-way, zooming at random on and off sidewalks, doing stunts in
traffic and purposely angering motorists.









* You can still continue to
work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would
really help, or improvements to laws and justice. *But if you learn to
ride with real competence, things become better right now.

As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867once you learn the simple
techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden,
the motorists seem to get much smarter.

Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is
that they check their hostility for reasonableness.

And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle
operator"? *Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are
they doing on the road if they don't??

"Who doesn't know how to do that?" *It's apparent you've never taught a
class. *It's apparent you've never looked at crash data. *You've never
been asked "So what side of the road are bikes supposed to ride on?"

I know exactly how to play
Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* contraining. *I want to Ride Bike!

Right. *We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. *Lots of
14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.

You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted
bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go.

The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville
Father Knows Best days of yore.

Dan, you're losing track of the discussion. *I'm the guy who's
comfortable riding in the world of today.

Pleasantville exists (I live there),
but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's
going to be more (and more) bike facilities. *Learn to deal with it
and ride with *real* competence.

There are very serious discussions taking place as we speak among
cycling instructors. *They are discussing exactly that problem: *What
are we to teach students about weird bike facilities, now that they're
popping up and grossly complicating traffic interactions? *What if the
bike lane is in the door zone, and the cops are waiting to give tickets
for leaving that lane? *What if the supposedly protected cycle track has
them riding downhill toward an intersection where they'll be hidden from
motorists until too late? *What if the bike lane is to the right of the
right turn only lane, and motorists are getting hostile because they've
merged out of it to go straight?

Yep, it's a problem. *Of course, the "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility" crowd doesn't even recognize there is a problem. *They think
as long as it's painted green (or is it blue?) it must be safe.

And here you are, defending their work.

--
- Frank Krygowski