Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/10/2010 3:21 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010
08:43:41 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/8/2010 10:56 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay wrote:





On Dec 8, 9:40 am, Frank wrote:

On Dec 8, 11:26 am, wrote:

On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°

How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
traffic.

False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles.
Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
driver.

So, Robert: Of course, I know you'd be ever alert, well prepared,
extremely skillful and always taking responsibility for your own
safety, etc.

But in a 10 foot lane, curb at the right, with an 8.5 foot truck
behind you, where exactly would you ride?

Probably the same place he always rides, being that very few people
shift their position in the lane based on vehicles approaching from
the rear. "Oh, look, its an Escalade, better get left." "No, its
just a Prius, I should ride further right." "But wait, its a
Kenworth, better go down the center." Really, I'm riding a bike, not
a yoyo.

Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
must yield" laws.

Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?

http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-1...ase-revisited/

http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/...aking-with-bob...

AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.

I'm pushing the "where would you ride" question because certain
posters were exaggerating the danger of bicycling, implying that one
can't trust motorists not to smash you. I'm trying to see who really
dives into the gutter or onto the sidewalk whenever a vehicle
approaches. I chose those dimensions because they're common in my
area, and there's no rational way to try to share that lane - at
least, not in my view nor according to any cycling instructional
material I know of.

Based on that, I would control that lane and not try to share the lane
to let the truck squeeze by. Do you agree?

By the way, Frank, I don't necessarily disagree with your proposition
that sometimes the only safe thing to do is take the lane -- or a
larger part of it. I DO take a larger portion of the lane to prevent
busses from passing me in certain places because they will squeeze me
in to the curb, and probably with great satisfaction. There is also a
down hill, off camber turn out of down town where cars tend to hug the
inside curb, and I ride out in the lane there, although I'm usually
going about the speed of traffic. In your truck scenario, I might
ride farther out in the road if I were approaching a turn where the
truck likely would cut the curve, if only innocently. On one lane
roads, I just ride to the right but not in the gutter, and cars and
trucks seem to get by without scaring me too often. I would never
take the whole road just because some people might pass me too
closely. -- Jay Beattie.

Don't you find that people tend to pass you more closely when you take
the whole road and tend to give you more distance when you're somewhat
to the right? That's be my experience for the most part. The maniac
drivers trying to terrorize me are not the norm.

I find the opposite.
If I'm riding close in to the edge, I'm in a position that drivers
don't have to change road position to not hit me, so they don't change
road position at all, even if it means them passing within a couple of
inches of me.
If I move out far enough that they have to make a conscious decision
to either move out or hit me, they will move out, and once they get
out of "just following the road" mode, they generally overtake
properly, and with sufficient clearance.
There is also a benefit in that if I'm not already at the edge of the
road when they come uncomfortably close, I still have somewhere to go
to make more space, without being forced off the road altogether.
So it seems to help both with the otherwise sensible drivers who just
need a slight nudge to provoke them into sensible behaviour (but may
forget otherwise) and the idiots who intentionally cut too close.


I agree with you generally but when I'm in the middle of the lane, the
driver can pass me by moving into the left lane. I've had them come
close and at speed. If I can move to the right I usually do but I'm
usually in this position to avoid doors so I don't move to the right.

I was interested if other had the same impression of the driver being
more ticked off. Though now that I've read our local regs, I see why
they are probably more likely to be ticked off here than elsewhere.

I suspect if you ever encounter a real homicidal maniac, it won't make
much difference either way.

Not talking about homicidal maniacs. Just pricks.

On 12/10/2010 3:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 12:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 3:39 pm, Duane wrote:
You can't drive a car on a road without a license and your license
can be suspended. Drivers don't have a right to the road. They have
a privilege.

You can't ride a bicycle on any road where the authority having
jurisdiction prevents it.

I would suggest you do more reading on this issue, but I realize the
suggestion would be rejected.

Driving a car is a privilege that can be suspended for any number of
reasons and can't even be exercised without the proper licensing. How
is that a right?


And I admit, I know little about the law in Quebec. Maybe it's true
that cyclists in Quebec have no right to the road. That might go a
long way to explaining your timid, deferential attitudes and your
complaints that cycling up there is so much hell.

MV operators have no right to the road either unless they license their
vehicle, have a valid operators license, carry insurance and then they
can drive where the AHJ tells them that they can drive.
Currently in the Town of Beaconsfield where I live, I'm required to
license my bikes. Same thing when I lived in Albany NY. In New Orleans
where I grew up, there were no requirements for licensing but it
wasn't unusual to see signs where bikes were prohibited. Typically
long windy roads with high speed limits. (Think Jayne Mansfield - dead
man's curve)

Ohio is very much better than that, in many ways. For example, here,
we actually do have a right to the road. We also have a law stating
that municipalities cannot enforce laws that fundamentally differ from
the state laws regarding cycling. They are specifically forbidden to
prohibit cyclists from non-freeway roads.

You should realize how lucky you are then. Based on some other
discussion here that Jay is responding to, (don't remember where
exactly) this doesn't seem to be the case everywhere in the US.
"Think Jayne Mansfield"

No decapitated cyclists I hope!

No but that's possibly because they don't allow cyclists along Highway
11 in NOLA.

On 12/10/2010 3:45 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010
12:11:31 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/9/2010 11:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 1:55 am, wrote:


Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.

Nope, that's a lie. We've been over this repeatedly.

If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
techniques.

I was curious about what the Quebec Highway code says about your
controlling the lane so I looked it up.

--First your idea about having a right to be on the road is relative:

295. The person responsible for the maintenance of a public highway may,
by means of the proper signs or signals,

(1) indicate traffic stops;
(2) prohibit U-turns at such locations as may be determined by him;
(3) lay out pedestrian walkways;
(4) reserve traffic lanes for certain manoeuvres or for the exclusive
use of bicycles, certain classes of road vehicles or road vehicles
carrying the number of passengers indicated by proper signs;
(4.1) regulate bicycle traffic in a cycle lane;
(4.2) prohibit, limit or otherwise regulate bicycle traffic in lanes
used by road vehicles or in places used by pedestrians;


-- 4.2 should be of note as far as your right to the road.

--Second, a car is not allowed to pass a bike in the same lane unless
it's safe to do so (not sure who determines safe...) and if he has to
cross a solid line he can:

341. No driver of a road vehicle may pass a bicycle within the same
traffic lane unless there is sufficient space to allow him to do so in
safety.
--snip
Exceptions.
344. The driver of a road vehicle may cross a line described in section
326.1 providing that he can do so in safety, to pass a farm tractor or
other farm machine, a road vehicle carrying a slow-moving vehicle sign,
a horse-drawn vehicle or a bicycle.



--And specific to your riding in the middle of the lane, it doesn't look
like it's going to get big support he

487. Subject to section 492, every person on a bicycle must ride on the
extreme right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic,
except where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left
turn.

491. Subject to section 479, no person may ride a bicycle on a public
highway on which the maximum speed allowed is over 50 km/h unless


(1) he uses a cycle lane separated from the roadway and specially laid
out to prevent vehicles from crossing over from the roadway to the cycle
lane or vice versa, or having that effect
(2) he is 12 years of age or over; or
(3) he is taking part in an excursion led by a person of full age.

Cycle lane.
492. Where the public highway includes a cycle lane, persons riding a
bicycle other than a power-assisted bicycle must use the cycle lane.

--I've trimmed things that didn't pertain to bikes so here's the link if
you want to read the whole thing:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gou...2/C24_2_A.html


I doubt that Quebec is the only place in North America that has these
laws but will you now claim that everyone riding legally in Quebec is
skulking on the "Extreme" right of the road?

If I were ever to ride there, I would ride the safe way in preference
to the legal way.
And if that gets me a ticket, fine - I'll go home without paying it
anyway, and they are hardly likely to make an extradition case of it.

If they don't want cyclists, they needn't have them. And the
legislation you have posted is a strong indication that they don't
want cyclists.
Not sure what they plan on doing when the oil runs out though.

Quebec probably has more cyclists than most places in North America.
And you can look at some links that Frank posted to see that there
are also less injuries.
I don't have a problem keeping to the right as long as there are no
hazards, even though I just found out that this was required.

On Dec 10, 11:00*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Read the first two chapters of Mionske's _Bicycling& *The Law_ for
discussion of rights to the road.

He doesn't seem to be offering a free copy at his website so why don't
you tell me what it says?

Um... You mean, explain the content of the two chapters? Seriously?

If you give me your address, I can help you find a library. You'll
find they're wonderful places.

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/10/2010 3:47 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Fri, 10 Dec 2010
08:54:36 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/10/2010 12:54 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Duane wrote:
On 12/9/2010 11:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 9, 1:55 am, wrote:

Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.

Nope, that's a lie. We've been over this repeatedly.

If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
techniques.

I was curious about what the Quebec Highway code says about your
controlling the lane so I looked it up.

--First your idea about having a right to be on the road is relative:

295. The person responsible for the maintenance of a public highway may,
by means of the proper signs or signals,

(1) indicate traffic stops;
(2) prohibit U-turns at such locations as may be determined by him;
(3) lay out pedestrian walkways;
(4) reserve traffic lanes for certain manoeuvres or for the exclusive
use of bicycles, certain classes of road vehicles or road vehicles
carrying the number of passengers indicated by proper signs;
(4.1) regulate bicycle traffic in a cycle lane;
(4.2) prohibit, limit or otherwise regulate bicycle traffic in lanes
used by road vehicles or in places used by pedestrians;

-- 4.2 should be of note as far as your right to the road.

--Second, a car is not allowed to pass a bike in the same lane unless
it's safe to do so (not sure who determines safe...) and if he has to
cross a solid line he can:

341. No driver of a road vehicle may pass a bicycle within the same
traffic lane unless there is sufficient space to allow him to do so in
safety.
--snip
Exceptions.
344. The driver of a road vehicle may cross a line described in section
326.1 providing that he can do so in safety, to pass a farm tractor or
other farm machine, a road vehicle carrying a slow-moving vehicle sign,
a horse-drawn vehicle or a bicycle.

--And specific to your riding in the middle of the lane, it doesn't look
like it's going to get big support he

487. Subject to section 492, every person on a bicycle must ride on the
extreme right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic,
except where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left
turn.

491. Subject to section 479, no person may ride a bicycle on a public
highway on which the maximum speed allowed is over 50 km/h unless

(1) he uses a cycle lane separated from the roadway and specially laid
out to prevent vehicles from crossing over from the roadway to the cycle
lane or vice versa, or having that effect
(2) he is 12 years of age or over; or
(3) he is taking part in an excursion led by a person of full age.

Cycle lane.
492. Where the public highway includes a cycle lane, persons riding a
bicycle other than a power-assisted bicycle must use the cycle lane.

--I've trimmed things that didn't pertain to bikes so here's the link if
you want to read the whole thing:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gou...rch/telecharge....

I doubt that Quebec is the only place in North America that has these
laws but will you now claim that everyone riding legally in Quebec is
skulking on the "Extreme" right of the road?

If those are the laws in Quebec, then (as I just said in another post)
you have my sympathy. Things are _far_ better in most US states,
including mine. A few states I've ridden in have mandatory sidepath
laws, and I've experienced the stupidity they produce, but most do
not.

So again: my sympathy to you.

I don't really need your sympathy. Whether it's a guaranteed right or
not, is not that important. No one is hiding in the bushes waiting to
take away my privilege of riding a bike.

No, just your legal ability to do so safely.

That's one opinion. How do you explain the fact that cycling seems
safer here? See Frank's post.


Where it bothers me a little is the bit about being forced to ride in a
bike lane when one exists. I typically ride faster than the traffic in
the bike lanes so if they're crowded, I don't use them.

Like I said, at least now I know why that truck was on my ass. I was in
the wrong.

No, the law is in the wrong, you were in the right.
If enough people follow your example, the place may even become
civilised.

Maybe I was in the right but I see why the truck driver was ****ed.
It's not just that I'm required to stay to the right, he's also required
to not pass me without leaving enough space. As long as we're both
following the rules, I'm fine.

I expect that if enough people ride like I was that day, the traffic
jams resulting would probably have the wrong result. Maybe when you
have a guaranteed inalienable right to the road, then you don't have to
worry about causing traffic jams.

On Dec 10, 11:18*am, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:43 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them..

Nope, that's a lie. *We've been over this repeatedly.

If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
techniques.

Anticipation and crash avoidance (eg swerving and panic stops) are two
completely different animals.

If you're swerving or panic stopping, your anticipation has failed
you.

What does VC have to say about anticipating the mistakes of other road
users?

As with Duane, I can help you find a library if you like.

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/10/2010 4:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:00 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/10/2010 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Read the first two chapters of Mionske's _Bicycling& The Law_ for
discussion of rights to the road.

He doesn't seem to be offering a free copy at his website so why don't
you tell me what it says?

Um... You mean, explain the content of the two chapters? Seriously?

You seem to have had a point to make. Make it without requiring me to
read the book then.

If you give me your address, I can help you find a library. You'll
find they're wonderful places.

I've only told a poster to get ****ed once and I am not proud of that so
if you can just assume that I'm closing every post to you with the same
message...

On 12/10/2010 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:18 am, wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:43 am, Frank wrote:

Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.

Nope, that's a lie. We've been over this repeatedly.

If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
techniques.

Anticipation and crash avoidance (eg swerving and panic stops) are two
completely different animals.

If you're swerving or panic stopping, your anticipation has failed
you.

What does VC have to say about anticipating the mistakes of other road
users?

As with Duane, I can help you find a library if you like.

Your an idiot.

On 12/10/2010 4:26 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010
09:11:39 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/8/2010 9:53 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:01 pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:02 pm, Duane wrote:

What is there to clarify about that statement anyway? You say that you
ride in the middle of the lane regardless of any circumstances because
you control the lane.

And Frank wrote:
No, I didn't say that! (If you think I did, find a quote.)

Dear Frank: See below.

Frank continued:
I've
mentioned dozens of times over the years that I share the lane
whenever it's safe to do so. And you guys claim I misrepresent you!

"Guys" is what he said. Plural right?
Yeah, thats right. A WHOLE bunch of people find Frank to be a liar.

But Frank then continued:
OK, fine. You're going to bail out and shake your fist.
(and here comes the good part)
I'm going to continue to ride in the center of the lane,
and I'm not going to cede
my legal right to the road out of fear the trucker is really a
murderer.

We rest our case.

Yeah but that's not really a quote. Besides, in my
example, it isn't the trucker that's going to hit me. He's
just being a prick. It's the passing cars that can't see me.
My point was that this idea of controlling the road is an
illusion. I can't control the cars that can't see me.

But you can move out even further, to a point where they WILL see you
as they pass the truck.
If the truck can't pass anyway, it makes no difference to him if
you're in front on the left or in front on the right.
Doing this will also give you dodging space to your kerb-side.

This is only one example. We all have others. We deal with
them and ride our bikes. But we probably don't feel a need
to wave the VC flag above anything else.

I don't give a flying "£$% what you call it, I just try to ride in
positions that allow me to see and be seen and give me space to avoid
the myopic and those who don't bother looking.
Vehicular seems as good a description as any.
It is almost exactly what I always did on a motorcycle (and trained
others to do), but with more provision for vehicles overtaking.

Of course there are details and nuances that vary with road, weather
and traffic conditions, and it's almost impossible to create a single
rigid rule set which encompasses all of those.
In training riders (motorised or not), all you can do is get the
basics across, and give them some idea of the things they need to
consider in order to adjust the basic rules to suit the circumstances.
Only experience will tell them how much to allow for these things in
each situation.


If there is one rule above all others, it's never to let your body
arrive somewhere your mind hadn't been at least five seconds earlier.
If that's followed, you will have a plan for dealing with the driver
that doesn't see you, whichever direction he is coming from.
And sometimes you have to weigh up risks of different courses of
action, and it's sensible to know the actual risks rather than the
perceived ones if you don't want to make the wrong choices.

And this is all that I said that started this whole long line of
nonsense.

On Dec 10, 7:53*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:50*am, James wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:47*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:19*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On the twisting climbs through the West Hills, I
always just pull way over and let cars pass and do not attempt to
control traffic by riding in the middle of the road on a 10% climb at
8mph. On any narrow road downtown, I'm travelling at or above the
speed of traffic.

Speed does make a difference, both absolute speed and relative
speed.

I don't recall mention of speed in your hypothetical. *Did I miss
that?

That case was constructed so it didn't matter. *There is no safe speed
for an 8.5 foot truck to pass a moving bicyclist in a ten foot wide
lane.

Speed of the truck makes a difference because it bears on the duty to
yield (under our statute).

Another headache producing feature of our statute is the statement
that you can take the lane

". . . to avoid unsafe
operation in a lane on the roadway that is
too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel
safely side by side."

It is only unsafe operation if an on-coming truck fails to cross the
center line and pass at a safe distance. There is nothing "unsafe"
about passing a bike in the usual way. It is only unsafe if the truck
refuses to cross the center-line, stays in the lane and attempts to
squeeze by "unsafely."

Our statute is also unique in its direct reference to the slow-moving
vehicle law. The UVC model statute simply says:

11-1205.Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the
conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the
right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the
following situations:

When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
the same direction.
When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
road or driveway.
When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width
lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or
edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a
lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely
side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a one-way highway
with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand
curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

This means you have to check on a state-by-state basis to determine if
the obstructing/yielding laws apply to bicycles. -- Jay Beattie.