Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 15, 9:27 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 15, 6:44 pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Dec 15, 6:05 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 15, 5:19 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

FYI for Frank:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHmTo...ayer_embedded#!

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that. How's enforcement going?

That's the hall monitor perspective.
I'd be at least as interested in the civil aspect, which, I would
guess, is also a significant reason for having such a standard.

Jay, are you aware of any civil cases where this came into play?

No, I'm not. I watch the filings, but most of these cases never get
beyond insurance adjusters.

It's a pretty new law, too.

On Dec 15, 4:53*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 15, 4:07*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:





On 12/15/2010 3:43 PM, James wrote:

I tried a bit of lane taking last night. About 8pm, still light thanks
to daylight savings, and we were two abreast on a road with two lanes
each way. Traffic was light. We had stopped at a traffic light, then
rode off, still two abreast. I was furthest from the gutter, about
middle of the lane.

Yup, there you have it. Some utter prick decides to buzz the tower. They
don't make rulers short enough to measure such small distances as he
left between his car mirror and my handlebars.

To top it off, the ass hole beeped his horn as he skimmed passed.

So much for take the lane, it makes them leave bigger gaps!

Or will Frank say, lucky I wasn't skulking in the gutter, he probably
would have hit me - nah, impossible. Fear from the rear doesn't exist,
right Frank?

Oh, I know the fear exists! *James and Duane have stated their fears
quite frequently!

Aren't you happy that you had that extra distance to the right to
maneuver in the split second that this happened?

Vehicles don't pass in "a split second," Duane. *Once again, don't
exaggerate.

I tried to ask for personal opinions about this and Frank jumped in with
his stats and I didn't really get an answer. *

I thought I've answered everything, so I don't know what "this" you're
referring to. *But my opinion generally matches the data quite well,
unless I have good reason to believe there are problem with the data.
When that's true, I try to explain the problems.

To me, it seems that
drivers do exactly what you describe more often when I'm further to the
left and when I'm toward the right they seem to be more cooperative more
often.

Measurements have proven you wrong. *See if you can read this chart:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...2009/04/passin...

Here's more detail:http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/

Or try the video he

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...motorists-with...

Again, this matches my experience. *It matches the experience of my
best cycling friends, and of many other cyclists I know well and ride
with.

It doesn't mean that no close passes will ever happen. *Nothing will
be 100% effective with certain drivers. *But it certainly helps, as
shown by every investigation I've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5pCmUY8SV8 We seem to do just fine
around here, even with bicycles going 50mph. Note the section just
before the tunnel. Rider is on the right (even further over than I
usually ride), and the truck goes way around -- over the double
yellow. That descent, by the way, goes right downtown NW -- on to NW
23rd where you were riding around. On the way up, there are trails
around the tunnels.-- Jay Beattie.

Dan O writes:

On Dec 15, 8:45 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:19 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

this is where the snip mark goes, Frank

.... "Danger! Danger!" scare.

Sorry, that was piling on. I'm done. Thanks, I think ;-)


Me, too ;-). You've got it going on! That's just not my bag, man :-)

Slide on down to the Triple Rock

(oops - TV again)

On Dec 15, 5:57*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 15, 6:11*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:





On Dec 15, 8:01*pm, James wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 15, 4:07 pm, Duane H bert wrote:
On 12/15/2010 3:43 PM, James wrote:

I tried a bit of lane taking last night. About 8pm, still light thanks
to daylight savings, and we were two abreast on a road with two lanes
each way. Traffic was light. We had stopped at a traffic light, then
rode off, still two abreast. I was furthest from the gutter, about
middle of the lane.
Yup, there you have it. Some utter prick decides to buzz the tower. They
don't make rulers short enough to measure such small distances as he
left between his car mirror and my handlebars.
To top it off, the ass hole beeped his horn as he skimmed passed.
So much for take the lane, it makes them leave bigger gaps!
Or will Frank say, lucky I wasn't skulking in the gutter, he probably
would have hit me - nah, impossible. Fear from the rear doesn't exist,
right Frank?

Oh, I know the fear exists! *James and Duane have stated their fears
quite frequently!

Aren't you happy that you had that extra distance to the right to
maneuver in the split second that this happened?

Vehicles don't pass in "a split second," Duane. *Once again, don't
exaggerate.

WTF? *With a passing speed of 30km/h, over 8m/s IINM, which means the
majority of the car has passed in less than half a second. *If that is
not split second enough, what is?

Are you claiming you had no way of knowing he was passing until the
front of the car was immediately next to you?

James, if you're so afraid of being run down from behind, get a rear
view mirror. *You'll be able to see cars when they're 300 meters
behind you. *That will give you plenty of time- far more than half a
second - *to dive into the gutter, should you choose.

We are glad to see that *that you would never ridicule another poster.

But Frank, I think you're setting James up. After all, you have
already told us how dangerous it is to watch behind you. Mirrors only
encourage that.

So when you play hall monitor, how do you know when to do your little
side-to-side dance?

I'm on a YouTube binge. I love this video because it is narrated by
this officious individual who gets out of the bike lane in
anticipation of all this danger and to be seen -- and kind of wanders
in and out of traffic, totally violating my rule of riding
predictably.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iLdwmt6cRA

He gets practically hysterical when some pedestrian on the bridge
makes a move in his direction. He needs a flittle time on the
Alpenrose track to get over fear of close quarters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/damianriehl/3739322289/

On Dec 15, 5:53*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
*See if you can read this chart:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...2009/04/passin...

Here's more detail:http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/

Or try the video he

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...motorists-with...

Frank,
I hope you are not going to try to tell us these illustrate your
hypothetical. Especially in light of your badgering anyone who said
"it depends." These all illustrate roads where there is an adjoining
lane going the same direction fer chrissake!

"Safe" passing is hardly even an issue! The limited details that you
provided and your focus on "safe passing" certainly suggested to me
that the primary issue was the safety issue in a following vehicle
having to cross into an _oncoming_ lane to pass.
And I was thinking of safety for all concerned, not just the hall
monitor cyclist

Where there is an entire lane available without obstructing traffic -
hey, who cares? Take the whole damn thing! AFAIK that is legal is most
circumstances, although I wouldn't consider it wise on a highway.
Speed is still a big issue but the circumstances of the video you link
are not remotely similar to what I (and I believe others) were
discussing. Note that while you added a curb and sidewalk to your weak
original description, you never said squat when Jay posted images of
narrow two lane roads or spoke of impeding traffic.

I think you owe an apology to anyone who refused to take your bait and
correctly answered "it depends" based upon your poorly proffered
example.

DR

On Dec 15, 10:16 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Robert, you just said "... I am certain..." with no citations, no
mention of data, no corroboration but your own belief system. Get
some data and cite it, or don't talk to be about belief systems,
ideology, fantasy or whatever.

Again: What would be needed is good data on hits from directly behind
either in daylight, or at night with properly lit and reflectorized
cyclists. Also needed would be data that accurately counts fatalities
from people passing too closely who do not hit directly from behind.
If you have those numbers, why not give them?

I said I was certain because it is a mathematical certainty based on
available data, not because of my precious beliefs. I'll explain it to
you:

I already mentioned Cross-Fisher, which broke down car-bike collision
types into 37 different types. Car smashes into rear of bicyclist was
Type 13, and accounted for about 24.6% of all cyclist fatalities, _by
far_ the most common of any fatal accident type. Dangerous passes were
Type 16 and accounted for 1.8% of all cyclist fatalities.

Are you getting this so far? 24.6%. 1.8%

According to Cross-Fisher 71% of Type 13 fatal crashes occurred at
night. A whoppping huge number!

Let us assume that ALL of the deceased cyclists smashed into from
behind at night by motorists who didn't see them were improperly lit.
(Of course this is not true, but let's assume that it is.) In that
case, there would still be 29% of Type 13 crashes remaining which
occurred in broad daylight.

Assuming 100 total cyclist fatalities then, ~25 would be Type 13 and
~2 would be Type 16. And there would still be at least 7 well-lit Type
13 fatalities versus maybe 2 from dangerous passes.

IOW, it's not even close, no matter how you slice it.

Ralph Wessels studied police reports in Washington State from
1988-1993 and broke down car-bike collision types with a system
roughly equivalent to Cross-Fisher's.

Wessels counted 405 Type 13-style collisions in the records, versus 70
Type 16 dangerous pass-caused collisions. He found 10 fatal Type 13
wrecks and 1 fatal dangerous pass. 10-1.

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com...ton_88to93.pdf

You said before that you thought dangerous passes accounted for more
fatalities than drivers' completely failing to notice the bicyclist in
front of them. Clearly, you were very, very wrong about that.

Again I'll ask -- in the face of these contrary facts, how will you
change your strongly-held beliefs?

On 12/15/2010 11:55 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
[...]
He needs a []little time on the
Alpenrose track to get over fear of close quarters.
[...]

Do you know this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rsGhnbmxMI?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

It is absurd to consider oneself "controlling the lane" in front of
approaching drivers who, for all you know, might just be 90 years old
and almost completely blind, 16 years old and sexting, fiddling with
the CD player or otherwise not looking at the road at all, etc.

A vigilant eye in the mirror and curb jumping ability at 25 mph - that
means a mountain bike.

If you can't control the lane, it is best to be able to clear it.

On 12/15/2010 7:50 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/15/2010 8:06 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:55 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:40 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
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.

Look in this thread, and you will find multiple occasions where
"DirtRoadie" altered quotations - I pointed out several of them in
responses. No one else objects to this behavior, except for Phil W. Lee.


Don't think that he altered anything without saying so.

No, DR presented altered material as direct quotes.

But anyway,
how is that different from telling me that I skulk in the gutter like a
coward because I don't ride exactly in the middle of the lane and then
20 posts later telling someone else that they are just as afraid of
cycling as I am because they also don't agree with him?

Those are opinions, not fabricated lies.


Sorry but when the presumption is based on his interpretation of
something that I didn't actually say or imply, then it's a fabrication.

On 12/15/2010 7:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 15, 4:07 pm, Duane wrote:
On 12/15/2010 3:43 PM, James wrote:


I tried a bit of lane taking last night. About 8pm, still light thanks
to daylight savings, and we were two abreast on a road with two lanes
each way. Traffic was light. We had stopped at a traffic light, then
rode off, still two abreast. I was furthest from the gutter, about
middle of the lane.

Yup, there you have it. Some utter prick decides to buzz the tower. They
don't make rulers short enough to measure such small distances as he
left between his car mirror and my handlebars.

To top it off, the ass hole beeped his horn as he skimmed passed.

So much for take the lane, it makes them leave bigger gaps!

Or will Frank say, lucky I wasn't skulking in the gutter, he probably
would have hit me - nah, impossible. Fear from the rear doesn't exist,
right Frank?

Oh, I know the fear exists! James and Duane have stated their fears
quite frequently!

So now we're at the petulant stage of your endless diatribe?

Every time someone mentions cyclists being hit from the rear you bring
up inadequate lighting or even drunk cyclists. Even in the face of
reports that they are killed in broad daylight on a flat road in the
middle of a training ride where they are absolutely not drunk. You stop
at no end to justify your religious belief.

Aren't you happy that you had that extra distance to the right to
maneuver in the split second that this happened?

Vehicles don't pass in "a split second," Duane. Once again, don't
exaggerate.

Nonsense.

I tried to ask for personal opinions about this and Frank jumped in with
his stats and I didn't really get an answer.

I thought I've answered everything, so I don't know what "this" you're
referring to. But my opinion generally matches the data quite well,
unless I have good reason to believe there are problem with the data.
When that's true, I try to explain the problems.

Your opinion matches your data quite well. I asked for a personal
opinion from Jay. I value personal experience. I don't value your
opinion in the least.


To me, it seems that
drivers do exactly what you describe more often when I'm further to the
left and when I'm toward the right they seem to be more cooperative more
often.

Measurements have proven you wrong. See if you can read this chart:

Statistics are not proofs.

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg

Here's more detail:
http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/

Or try the video he

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/

Again, this matches my experience. It matches the experience of my
best cycling friends, and of many other cyclists I know well and ride
with.

It doesn't mean that no close passes will ever happen. Nothing will
be 100% effective with certain drivers. But it certainly helps, as
shown by every investigation I've seen.

And you are an authority based on what?