Cycling in Gary Indiana

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 7:28:58 PM UTC-4, JoeRiel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 3:16:09 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/5/2015 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 2:01:34 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.wlsam.com/2015/06/05/bicy...and-run-crash/


The last bicyclist killed in our extended metro area was, as it turned out, not
a bicyclist.

When the report came out (last December, I think) he was described as a
bicyclist. But in the intervening months, witnesses came forward. Turns out
the unfortunate guy was walking along the road's edge in the wrong direction
(i.e. not facing traffic) and rolling a bicycle along with him as he walked.

IIRC, it was dark (very early morning) and he had no lights; but lights are
not required for pedestrians. (I never heard whether the bike had any
reflectors.)

The driver has been located and charged with hit-and-run. FWIW, I do think
that it's the responsibility of the driver to drive so as to avoid a
pedestrian on the road. Even one facing the wrong way. We give motorists
too much deference, not enough responsibility.

(A woman I've met has a sign in her yard, "Drive like your kids live here."
http://drivelikeyourkidslivehere.com/ In a residential neighborhood, that
_should_ go without saying.)

- Frank Krygowski


He should have taken the lane, right?

Sorry, wrong. He was a pedestrian, not a vehicle operator.

Aside from the legality, why should that matter? The question of
interest is how to best avoid being hit by cars while in the street. If
being lane-center is best for bicyclists, why is it not recommended for
pedestrians? To simplify matters, let's stipulate that this is a
one-way street and the pedesrian is walking in the direction of traffic.

It matters because pedestrians are, for very good reasons, instructed to
walk _facing_ traffic. Bicyclists are legally required to ride in the
same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bicyclists are also legally
required to use lights and reflectors, while pedestrians (in the U.S.)
are not.

Moving in the same direction as other traffic increases the time available
for driver perception. Using lights and reflectors does the same thing.
I can cite a couple papers on that if you like. This is probably part of the
reason why only 700 cyclists are killed each year, vs. about 4000
pedestrians.

If the time available is a significant factor---and I believe it
is---then a slow moving cyclist, say on a climb, has a similar risk to a
pedestrian. Why is the recommended position in the lane so different?

BTW, one major functional difference for the direction of travel disparity
between bikes and peds is that a typical pedestrian is capable of jumping
up onto a curb or across a ditch if absolutely necessary. A typical
bicyclist can't make those moves.

And if they do they will be lambasted for it 8-).

This is one of many reasons why in 50 states,all Canadian provinces
and (AFAIK) all European countries, bicyclists are supposed to follow
vehicle rules, not pedestrian rules.

--
Joe Riel

On 6/6/2015 10:47 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 7:28:58 PM UTC-4, JoeRiel wrote:
If
being lane-center is best for bicyclists, why is it not recommended for
pedestrians? ...

Moving in the same direction as other traffic increases the time available
for driver perception. Using lights and reflectors does the same thing.
I can cite a couple papers on that if you like. This is probably part of the
reason why only 700 cyclists are killed each year, vs. about 4000
pedestrians.

If the time available is a significant factor---and I believe it
is---then a slow moving cyclist, say on a climb, has a similar risk to a
pedestrian. Why is the recommended position in the lane so different?

Well, consider the alternative.

You seem to agree that motion in the same direction increases the time
available for the motorist to detect the cyclist. On a slow climb (8
mph?) the cyclist is still moving faster than a pedestrian. And if he
were to reverse direction with respect to motor vehicles and ride toward
them, the increase in closing speed would be 16 mph. That's pretty
significant, and pretty disadvantageous.

Furthermore, what system of traffic laws and facilities would allow such
a transition? "Ride with traffic if you're traveling more than 10 mph,
but cross over and ride facing traffic if you're going slower" would be
crazy.

This was all figured out long ago. Again:

This is one of many reasons why in 50 states,all Canadian provinces
and (AFAIK) all European countries, bicyclists are supposed to follow
vehicle rules, not pedestrian rules.



--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/6/2015 10:47 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 7:28:58 PM UTC-4, JoeRiel wrote:
If
being lane-center is best for bicyclists, why is it not recommended for
pedestrians? ...

Moving in the same direction as other traffic increases the time available
for driver perception. Using lights and reflectors does the same thing.
I can cite a couple papers on that if you like. This is probably part of the
reason why only 700 cyclists are killed each year, vs. about 4000
pedestrians.

If the time available is a significant factor---and I believe it
is---then a slow moving cyclist, say on a climb, has a similar risk to a
pedestrian. Why is the recommended position in the lane so different?

Well, consider the alternative.

You seem to agree that motion in the same direction increases the time
available for the motorist to detect the cyclist. On a slow climb (8
mph?) the cyclist is still moving faster than a pedestrian. And if he
were to reverse direction with respect to motor vehicles and ride
toward them, the increase in closing speed would be 16 mph. That's
pretty significant, and pretty disadvantageous.

I stipulated that this is a one way road and the pedestrian is moving in
the direction of traffic. Should he be in the middle of the
lane---because it increases his visibility---or should he be walking
near the edge of the road?

--
Joe Riel

On 6/6/2015 12:22 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/6/2015 10:47 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 7:28:58 PM UTC-4, JoeRiel wrote:
If
being lane-center is best for bicyclists, why is it not recommended for
pedestrians? ...

Moving in the same direction as other traffic increases the time available
for driver perception. Using lights and reflectors does the same thing.
I can cite a couple papers on that if you like. This is probably part of the
reason why only 700 cyclists are killed each year, vs. about 4000
pedestrians.

If the time available is a significant factor---and I believe it
is---then a slow moving cyclist, say on a climb, has a similar risk to a
pedestrian. Why is the recommended position in the lane so different?

Well, consider the alternative.

You seem to agree that motion in the same direction increases the time
available for the motorist to detect the cyclist. On a slow climb (8
mph?) the cyclist is still moving faster than a pedestrian. And if he
were to reverse direction with respect to motor vehicles and ride
toward them, the increase in closing speed would be 16 mph. That's
pretty significant, and pretty disadvantageous.

I stipulated that this is a one way road and the pedestrian is moving in
the direction of traffic. Should he be in the middle of the
lane---because it increases his visibility---or should he be walking
near the edge of the road?

I think that since he's a pedestrian, he should follow the laws for
pedestrians. Here's the applicable section for Ohio:

"4511.50 Pedestrian walking in roadway.

(A) Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall be
unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.

(B) Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and
upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from
the edge of the roadway.

(C) Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian
walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an
outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-way roadway, shall walk
only on the left side of the roadway."

Note that the important word "practicable" has been analyzed very
thoroughly for bicyclists. As a result every adult cycling education
program that I know of agrees that it does not include endangering
oneself, and that cyclists may frequently need to be away from the edge.

So (since you're wanting to play with carefully constructed hypothetical
cases) I assume that a road-edge yawning chasm with a slippery drop-off
- or other hazard - would give a pedestrian permission to move away from
that outside edge.

Of course, as a result of efforts to clarify "practicable," Ohio law has
a long and non-exhaustive list of reasons a cyclist may move further
left in the lane. Many other states have similar provisions. I'm not
aware of pedestrian statutes that do the same, so their legal position
might be weaker than that of cyclists.

Now if you like, we can further discuss the differences between
pedestrians and bicyclists. We can also discuss any reasons people have
for thinking bicyclists should ride other than how the law permits and
how cycling education programs instruct.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/6/2015 12:22 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/6/2015 10:47 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 7:28:58 PM UTC-4, JoeRiel wrote:
If
being lane-center is best for bicyclists, why is it not recommended for
pedestrians? ...

Moving in the same direction as other traffic increases the time available
for driver perception. Using lights and reflectors does the same thing.
I can cite a couple papers on that if you like. This is probably part of the
reason why only 700 cyclists are killed each year, vs. about 4000
pedestrians.

If the time available is a significant factor---and I believe it
is---then a slow moving cyclist, say on a climb, has a similar risk to a
pedestrian. Why is the recommended position in the lane so different?

Well, consider the alternative.

You seem to agree that motion in the same direction increases the time
available for the motorist to detect the cyclist. On a slow climb (8
mph?) the cyclist is still moving faster than a pedestrian. And if he
were to reverse direction with respect to motor vehicles and ride
toward them, the increase in closing speed would be 16 mph. That's
pretty significant, and pretty disadvantageous.

I stipulated that this is a one way road and the pedestrian is moving in
the direction of traffic. Should he be in the middle of the
lane---because it increases his visibility---or should he be walking
near the edge of the road?

I think that since he's a pedestrian, he should follow the laws for
pedestrians. Here's the applicable section for Ohio:

"4511.50 Pedestrian walking in roadway.

(A) Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall
be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent
roadway.

(B) Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along
and upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as
practicable from the edge of the roadway.

(C) Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any
pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as
practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-way
roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway."

Note that the important word "practicable" has been analyzed very
thoroughly for bicyclists. As a result every adult cycling education
program that I know of agrees that it does not include endangering
oneself, and that cyclists may frequently need to be away from the
edge.

So (since you're wanting to play with carefully constructed
hypothetical cases) I assume that a road-edge yawning chasm with a
slippery drop-off - or other hazard - would give a pedestrian
permission to move away from that outside edge.

I'll take it that you agree that any increase in visibility afforded by
taking the lane by a pedestrian does not typically compensate for the
increased exposure. Presumably this trade-off is a function of the
relative speed of pedestrian and the vehicles. Clearly, a pedestrian
could safely take the lane in heavy traffic that was moving at his
speed; this is done all the time in parking lots. The question then
becomes, at what relative speed is it no longer safe to do so.

--
Joe Riel

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 8:41:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
it was a warm summer night. Have you read classic southern novels ?

it was a warm summer night. I was standing at the kitchen window looking down at the residential city intersection of the 19th and 20th century staring a fresh iced tea when a

http://www.fotosdecarros.com/wp-cont...Blue-Paint.jpg

came round the hotel steps burning some rubber heading down 10th.

https://goo.gl/RNU58s I'm in the window above 503. Buikding next door was an early 20th Century 3 story school house with brick courtyard and a belfry filled with

GIANT BATS !

30 minutes later I noticed some activity down a block,flashing lights...

the road runner had run his last corner...

ahead https://goo.gl/c3Xrie an 80 year old woman pushing a grocery cart crossed from right to left...

the roadrunner cut her into 3-4 pieces head rolling under a parked car and innards all over the street.

0

the roadrunner ran the Buttonwood stop sign.

The ancient Italian woman took the lane.

took the lane took the lane
the AIW took the lane
so who was to blame ?

If she were riding a bike....

the roadrunner wudda gotten off.

THE EVENT is commemorated and my witless in the 503 photo where you will see the STOP SIGN was turned toward the blue truck.

The man walking by is known but in reality is Mr. Nowak's ghost. Burly carpenter and nice guy lived with family below us at 503.

On 6/6/2015 7:39 PM, Joe Riel wrote:


I'll take it that you agree that any increase in visibility afforded by
taking the lane by a pedestrian does not typically compensate for the
increased exposure.

I'd say it varies. My neighborhood has no sidewalks, but a fair amount
of traffic due to the parents dropping off or picking up suburban
princes and princesses at the local school. There have been times I've
controlled a lane while walking, for safety reasons.

Presumably this trade-off is a function of the
relative speed of pedestrian and the vehicles. Clearly, a pedestrian
could safely take the lane in heavy traffic that was moving at his
speed; this is done all the time in parking lots. The question then
becomes, at what relative speed is it no longer safe to do so.

There are differences in how a competent cyclist handles various
relative speeds. Like most issues argued endlessly here, these points
are discussed in detail in books like _Effective Cycling_, _Cyclecraft_
and in the adult cycling courses that I sometimes mention. People
arguing here (and perhaps pretending that I invented these concepts) are
very unlikely to come up with some salient point that is really new.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 10:34:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2015 7:39 PM, Joe Riel wrote:


I'll take it that you agree that any increase in visibility afforded by
taking the lane by a pedestrian does not typically compensate for the
increased exposure.

I'd say it varies. My neighborhood has no sidewalks, but a fair amount
of traffic due to the parents dropping off or picking up suburban
princes and princesses at the local school. There have been times I've
controlled a lane while walking, for safety reasons.

Presumably this trade-off is a function of the
relative speed of pedestrian and the vehicles. Clearly, a pedestrian
could safely take the lane in heavy traffic that was moving at his
speed; this is done all the time in parking lots. The question then
becomes, at what relative speed is it no longer safe to do so.

There are differences in how a competent cyclist handles various
relative speeds. Like most issues argued endlessly here, these points
are discussed in detail in books like _Effective Cycling_, _Cyclecraft_
and in the adult cycling courses that I sometimes mention. People
arguing here (and perhaps pretending that I invented these concepts) are
very unlikely to come up with some salient point that is really new.

--
- Frank Krygowski

VARY ? the old woman took the lane, roadrunner ran the stop sign killed her.

what vary ? school bus drivers texting ?

On 6/7/2015 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 10:34:14 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2015 7:39 PM, Joe Riel wrote:


I'll take it that you agree that any increase in visibility afforded by
taking the lane by a pedestrian does not typically compensate for the
increased exposure.

I'd say it varies. My neighborhood has no sidewalks, but a fair amount
of traffic due to the parents dropping off or picking up suburban
princes and princesses at the local school. There have been times I've
controlled a lane while walking, for safety reasons.

Presumably this trade-off is a function of the
relative speed of pedestrian and the vehicles. Clearly, a pedestrian
could safely take the lane in heavy traffic that was moving at his
speed; this is done all the time in parking lots. The question then
becomes, at what relative speed is it no longer safe to do so.

There are differences in how a competent cyclist handles various
relative speeds. Like most issues argued endlessly here, these points
are discussed in detail in books like _Effective Cycling_, _Cyclecraft_
and in the adult cycling courses that I sometimes mention. People
arguing here (and perhaps pretending that I invented these concepts) are
very unlikely to come up with some salient point that is really new.

--
- Frank Krygowski

VARY ? the old woman took the lane, roadrunner ran the stop sign killed her.

what vary ? school bus drivers texting ?


Like train operators and mommyvan pilots, that seems common
now. Addled is the baseline state:

http://www.wcnc.com/story/news/local...ting/22234673/

http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/sto...C0iLTPP_JF8uCw

http://www.wbir.com/story/news/2015/...ting/28526759/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxomNl0r7ds


Gene Daniels, ahead of the news again

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

hello Andrew...I wuz thinkin of you hoping traffic was your way...after all who doesn't have a car right. Even the ....have cars.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Bliss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_accidents

John Burch,

See my headline ?:

IS HASTERT SNOWDEN ?

yeyeyeyyhahhhahhahwuhwuhwuh


On the roadrunner, the scoop I had was that yes, the old Italian woman with her groceries did walk in front of the speeding roadrunner.

Grnated, she would not know but you and I would know and not ...do what ?

[ Ima an old woman FU}

AS for Frank, he and his twisted friends have a death wish fersure.

A texting school bus driver...is this culture shock or what ? a hiring problem.

You have witnessed Jay's electric ? No Dayglo !

No dayglo on Henry either

I wonder if that was a Colliers street car ?