Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 12, 3:12*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message

...
On Dec 12, 1:32 am, Dan O wrote:

On Dec 11, 9:39 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 7:15 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
So when Duane writes a paragraph saying that Quebec motorist will run
down from behind a cyclist on a pleasant country lane, I paraphrase
that as "Danger! Danger!"

Are you talking about the time that I told you that a motorist bumped me
from behind? *I told you repeatedly that it was no big deal. *My point was,
given a separate bike path parallel to the road, I would prefer to ride
there without traffic to worry about. *To you this is a problem for some
reason. * Of course, I'm a coward for that sentiment.

When James writes a paragraph mentioning his car-bike crash, and
claiming that every bicyclist he knows has frequent near misses, I
paraphrase that as "Danger! Danger!"

How can you argue with James' personal experience? *Just because it's
different than yours, in a city where a motorist only sees 1 cyclist in a
half
hour? *My experience is closer to his than to yours.

And pardon me in advance if I mis-remembered any details just then, or
who exactly said what. *I'm doing all this by memory, not taking
copious notes. The point is both of those posters have contributed a
LOT of warnings to this discussion.

Nonsense.

Furthermore, when I gave data showing the dangers must not be extreme
(data on tremendous numbers ridden before bad events) nobody
acknowledged. *James went on about the terrors of Melbourne. *Duane is
still talking about choosing between the sidewalk and ... well, he
doesn't want me to repeat his words, because they've since become
offensive to him.

snip a lot more needless justification

And I remain astonished that a person can say "Riding properly is
quite safe, and people shouldn't be scared away from cycling," and be
continually attacked for that by other cyclists.

No one to my knowledge has ever criticized you in any way for saying
that. *It's the rest of your patronizing, insulting crap that you start when
someone
disagrees with you that causes that reaction.

+ 1

If Frank had quit after simply saying "Riding is mostly pretty safe"
he probably could have saved everyone at lot of trouble.

But it is his lying, logical fallacies, misstating/misinterpreting
facts and what other people have said, condescension and insults
toward others (real or imaginary "others") and his all his general
smarminess that we (in his words) "attack."

It IS astonishing that he just doesn't get that.
Poor Frank! He's so misunderstood!
But maybe not:

http://anse.rs/gqlwK

DR

On Dec 12, 3:12*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
How can you argue with James' personal experience? *Just because it's
different than yours, in a city where a motorist only sees 1
cyclist in a half hour? *

Duane, I hope you won't mind my correcting your figures but you seem
to have (over) exaggerated the number of cyclists in Frank's area by a
factor of ~48.

What Frank said was:
"The typical motorist around here probably doesn't pass even one
cyclist per day."
See
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...22e961a8c7c8a6

Now that, being Frank's claim, is probably not factually reliable, but
it IS what he said. ;-)

DR

On Dec 12, 4:22*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:22*pm, RobertH wrote:

You get a lot of 'depends' on this question because it does depend.

Frank Krygowski would never let details like details get in the way of
his obsession with taking control. He's that kind of a guy.

I'm constantly on narrow roads where this happens -- like here, which
is convenient to my house: http://www.flickr.com/photos/old_sarge/100926333/
(minus the closure from a mud slide a few years ago -- which we rode
around). Anyway, all you do is hold your line along the right side of
the road, and trucks go around. I would never in a million years pull
OUT if a truck were approaching, unless I were on a bridge or in some
place where a squeeze was inevitable. It also begs the question of
how long you stay out in front of the truck. That section of the
Clackamas River Road is miles long without a turn off -- how long
should I sit in the lane? Ten minutes. Twenty minutes at 12mph
promenade pace? It would be exhausting having some truck sitting
behind me for that long. -- Jay Beattie.

On Dec 12, 10:38*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 12, 4:22*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Dec 12, 1:22*pm, RobertH wrote:

You get a lot of 'depends' on this question because it does depend.

Frank Krygowski would never let details like details get in the way of
his obsession with taking control. He's that kind of a guy.

I'm constantly on narrow roads where this happens -- like here, which
is convenient to my house:http://www.flickr.com/photos/old_sarge/100926333/
(minus the closure from a mud slide a few years ago -- which we rode
around). *Anyway, all you do is hold your line along the right side of
the road, and trucks go around. *I would never in a million years pull
OUT if a truck were approaching, unless I were on a bridge or in some
place where a squeeze was inevitable. *It also begs the question of
how long you stay out in front of the truck. *That section of the
Clackamas River Road is miles long without a turn off -- how long
should I sit in the lane? *Ten minutes. Twenty minutes at 12mph
promenade pace? * It would be exhausting having some truck sitting
behind me for that long. -- Jay Beattie.

(Love the closure!)

In the realm of "it depends" another scenario that I am familiar with
may be, at best, a remote possibility for someone who lives where "The
typical motorist around here probably doesn't pass even one cyclist
per day" as one "Frank Krygowski" describes.

It is the situation involving (1) "Cyclist A," (2) an 8.5 foot truck
traveling the same direction and (3) "Cyclist B" traveling the
OPPOSITE direction.
If Cyclists A and B are both riding competently, legally, and safely
to their right (USA) there may be room for the truck to pass
competently, legally and safely between them, especially if the speeds
involved are not high. (not to say that cyclist B will like it) But
if cyclist A (let's assume his initials are "FK") decides that he is
going to "control his lane," he may (1) force the truck farther into
Cyclist B's lane or (2) be impeding the following "traffic."

No question, "it depends."
DR

On Dec 10, 7:08*am, Duane Hébert wrote:

+1
And for the record, while I do not "support" Duane, I do agree with

Man. *And I was just working on the newsletter for my new cult!

Not to worry! I never said I wouldn't subscribe to a worthy
publication.
DR

On 12/11/2010 4:23 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/11/2010 12:29 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"T�m Sherm�nT " wrote in
message ...
On 12/11/2010 8:29 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"T?m Sherm?n? " wrote in
message ...
On 12/10/2010 11:28 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:

Hmm. Given your fears, I suppose Quebec must have special Ground
Meat
Crews to scrape away all the dead cyclists!

- Frank Krygowski

**** you.

+1
DR

Good to see the maturity and civility of the group being preserved.

/sarcasm

Calling me a coward is bad enough but making light
of the dead cyclists here, some of which were friends
and all of which were persons, was a bit much.

And lying/libel is not a bit much?

Are you talking to me?


No, it is a different Frank-Basherâ„¢ who hides behind a pseudonym while
lying and committing libel by falsifying quotations. However, for some
reason, this immoral behavior draws much less ire than Frank Krygowski's
above board argumentation.


Sorry Tom but just because Frank hasn't used profanity doesn't make
his personal attacks any less irksome. As to your reference to DR,
I'm not exactly sure which of his comments you're referring to.

On 12/12/2010 12:26 AM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/11/2010 6:13 PM, DirtRoadie Who?:
On Dec 11, 4:50 pm, Phil W wrote:
considered Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:17:20
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 11, 9:39 am, Frank wrote:
On Dec 11, 2:14 am, Phil W wrote:

But there IS a clear distinction between the use of "vehicles" which
is all encompassing, and "motor vehicles" which is not.
The statute you quote says you must conform to the requirements for
vehicles, but does not say that you must conform to those
requirements
for motor vehicles.
Sadly, (and maybe not surprisingly) English is a foreign language to
Americans, so maybe that's why their lawyers have difficulties in
understanding it.

It is amazing that such a simple point causes confusion, isn't it?

Only for those who have no grasp of how law is written and
interpreted. You would do well to do some reading about statutory
interpretation and how the result of an appellate decision
interpreting a term forecloses rehashing arguments about what the term
means.

Simple example:
Older laws are often referred to as "motor vehicle codes" and
contained references to "motor vehicles." As those evolved typically
they dropped the title "motor vehicle code" in favor of the more
complete and/or accurate "vehicle code" or "traffic code."

But sometimes the older term "motor vehicle" still lingers in sections
of law that were not completely revised or rewritten. But, as we have
seen, the newer laws typically provide that bicycles are subject to
the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. So that,
and an appellate court saying "yes, the term 'motor vehicle' in that
section means bicycles, too," that's the end of it. "Motor vehicle"
means bicycles too.

You can legislate that horses are dogs, but it still doesn't make it
correct.

One does not find typically legislation that dictates the equivalent
of "horses are dogs." But much legislation says the equivalent of
"wherever the term 'dog' appears it shall be understood to include all
four legged animals, including horses."

Wrong is wrong, no matter what seniority of judge said it.

Yes, wrong is wrong and you are wrong.
YANAL. And have proven it.

Legal does not mean moral. Legal means what the authorities impose on
the people.


Laws are intended to be regulations agreed on by the majority with
respect for the rights of the minority, at least based on high school
civics class. When we start trying to legislate morality, things don't
usually work out very well. First issue being who gets to define morality?

Anyway, we're talking about riding a bike here, not the separation of
church and state.

On 12/12/2010 1:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:07 pm, wrote:

I'll give you until tomorrow morning to come up with a link.
And, no, something similar doesn't count.

Turns out Hebert originated and you immediately piled on.
From
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...9df3afaded37c4
======================
Duane Hebert wrote: ...
**** you.

+1
DR

=====================

I suppose we'll hear now that "+1" means something different than what
I thought.

But it goes well with the month-long steady stream of content-free
abuse you've spewed whenever I post. I'm talking about your grade-
school-bully insults, and your threats to attack me professionally.
Also it's incredibly stupid of you to pretend I misrepresented your
statement, after the countless times you've deliberately forged or
falsified what I've said.

Do you ever wonder why you generate such response? Maybe it's because
all of these guys are my minions following blindly in a crusade against
St. Francis (as you seem to have also applied with your comment about my
supporters) or maybe there's something about your style that ****es them
off. Using Occam's razor, I'd check out number 2 if I was you.

Maybe look back at whatever you consider abuse and see what you said to
that poster immediately before.

On 12/13/2010 1:24 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 12, 10:38 pm, Jay wrote:
On Dec 12, 4:22 pm, wrote:

On Dec 12, 1:22 pm, wrote:

You get a lot of 'depends' on this question because it does depend.

Frank Krygowski would never let details like details get in the way of
his obsession with taking control. He's that kind of a guy.

I'm constantly on narrow roads where this happens -- like here, which
is convenient to my house:http://www.flickr.com/photos/old_sarge/100926333/
(minus the closure from a mud slide a few years ago -- which we rode
around). Anyway, all you do is hold your line along the right side of
the road, and trucks go around. I would never in a million years pull
OUT if a truck were approaching, unless I were on a bridge or in some
place where a squeeze was inevitable. It also begs the question of
how long you stay out in front of the truck. That section of the
Clackamas River Road is miles long without a turn off -- how long
should I sit in the lane? Ten minutes. Twenty minutes at 12mph
promenade pace? It would be exhausting having some truck sitting
behind me for that long. -- Jay Beattie.

(Love the closure!)

In the realm of "it depends" another scenario that I am familiar with
may be, at best, a remote possibility for someone who lives where "The
typical motorist around here probably doesn't pass even one cyclist
per day" as one "Frank Krygowski" describes.

It is the situation involving (1) "Cyclist A," (2) an 8.5 foot truck
traveling the same direction and (3) "Cyclist B" traveling the
OPPOSITE direction.
If Cyclists A and B are both riding competently, legally, and safely
to their right (USA) there may be room for the truck to pass
competently, legally and safely between them, especially if the speeds
involved are not high. (not to say that cyclist B will like it) But
if cyclist A (let's assume his initials are "FK") decides that he is
going to "control his lane," he may (1) force the truck farther into
Cyclist B's lane or (2) be impeding the following "traffic."

No question, "it depends."

But to me the correct answer is almost always that it depends.

On 12/11/2010 8:08 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:58 pm, Phil W wrote:
considered Sat, 11 Dec 2010 08:17:17
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 11, 8:59 am, Phil W wrote:

That's almost all roads here.
But can you explain how a driver is more inconvenienced by a cyclist
using the lane properly,

Properly? This is a trick question right? Properly means keeping to
the right (on this side of the Atlantic.

Properly means using as much of the lane as necessary to ensure their
own safety. As advised by almost all cycle safety training schemes.

Almost all? So even they do not agree?
In any case, the _legal_ obligation is to ride to the side except as
may be "reasonably necessary" for reasons of safety etc. "
"Reasonably necessary" does include "I am Frank Krygowski and _I_ am
the only one who decides whether the vehicle behind is ENTITLED to
pass me."

So where you are the law is the same as here in Quebec? So
why do I get to hear how much sympathy I receive to live in
such a place?