Ineffective Cycling

On 5/9/2019 3:23 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be dead
center of the right most lane.

The most succinct critique of John Franklin's work that I saw was this:

"If John Franklin’s aim was to keep cycling as a niche activity
practised by a tiny minority of confident men, then congratulations!
Success! Well done! You may now stop reading.

If John Franklin’s aim was to help riding a bike become an activity
which is easy for everyone — men and women, from toddlers to pensioners
— then he has failed."

This is what I constantly see in my area. For the experienced cyclist,
both men and women, following at least some of the precepts of
"Vehicular Cycling" make sense, but it doesn't help get more people out
of cars and onto bicycles. The latter requires some level of bicycle
infrastructure, and all of Frank's "danger danger" rhetoric is not going
to convince the majority of people to give cycling a try.

"The problem is that he opposes a type of road design which is proven to
increase cycling rates and safety and which offers a better way of life
for everyone, and not just for “cyclists� either."

Fortunately, there are few places in the world that subscribe to
Franklin's point of view because of the effort to reduce motor vehicle
traffic.

There is a problem with bike lanes, specifically unprotected bike lanes
that are just painted lines. Today is "Bike to Work Day" in my area. As
an elected official I rode around to several "Energizer Stations," two
put on by Apple, one by Kaiser, and one by my city. I saw first hand the
problem with unprotected bike lanes. In Sunnyvale, a Chevy Volt decided
that a bike lane was the perfect place to park. I called the police
non-emergency number and they sent out a "community service officer" to
ticket the vehicle. See oi68.tinypic.com/2ccrplj.jpg. But meanwhile,
cyclists were veering out of the unprotected bike lane into traffic, and
they probably would have been better being part of the normal traffic
flow. In Cupertino, I was in a bike lane where there were vehicles
turning left but there was no turn lane so the cars behind them simply
veered into the bike lane and passed on the right--not some of the cars,
ALL of them. See http://oi64.tinypic.com/adjo0h.jpg I asked our
traffic people if they could at least put up some bollards to prevent this.

The diatribe against Cyclecraft and Franklin is he
https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/****-you-john-franklin/

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:07:20 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/9/2019 3:23 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be dead
center of the right most lane.

The most succinct critique of John Franklin's work that I saw was this:

"If John Franklin’s aim was to keep cycling as a niche activity
practised by a tiny minority of confident men, then congratulations!
Success! Well done! You may now stop reading.

If John Franklin’s aim was to help riding a bike become an activity
which is easy for everyone — men and women, from toddlers to pensioners
— then he has failed."

This is what I constantly see in my area. For the experienced cyclist,
both men and women, following at least some of the precepts of
"Vehicular Cycling" make sense, but it doesn't help get more people out
of cars and onto bicycles. The latter requires some level of bicycle
infrastructure, and all of Frank's "danger danger" rhetoric is not going
to convince the majority of people to give cycling a try.

"The problem is that he opposes a type of road design which is proven to
increase cycling rates and safety and which offers a better way of life
for everyone, and not just for “cyclists� either."

Fortunately, there are few places in the world that subscribe to
Franklin's point of view because of the effort to reduce motor vehicle
traffic.

There is a problem with bike lanes, specifically unprotected bike lanes
that are just painted lines. Today is "Bike to Work Day" in my area. As
an elected official I rode around to several "Energizer Stations," two
put on by Apple, one by Kaiser, and one by my city. I saw first hand the
problem with unprotected bike lanes. In Sunnyvale, a Chevy Volt decided
that a bike lane was the perfect place to park. I called the police
non-emergency number and they sent out a "community service officer" to
ticket the vehicle. See oi68.tinypic.com/2ccrplj.jpg. But meanwhile,
cyclists were veering out of the unprotected bike lane into traffic, and
they probably would have been better being part of the normal traffic
flow. In Cupertino, I was in a bike lane where there were vehicles
turning left but there was no turn lane so the cars behind them simply
veered into the bike lane and passed on the right--not some of the cars,
ALL of them. See http://oi64.tinypic.com/adjo0h.jpg I asked our
traffic people if they could at least put up some bollards to prevent this.

The diatribe against Cyclecraft and Franklin is he
https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/****-you-john-franklin/

**** man! If I was to wait until there were protected bicycle lanes going to everywhere I currently ride my bicycle I'd hardly ever be on the bicycle. I've ridden for over 60 years and have yet to see a protected separate from the roadway bicycle path.

Cheers

On 5/9/2019 7:47 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:07:20 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/9/2019 3:23 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be dead
center of the right most lane.

The most succinct critique of John Franklin's work that I saw was this:

"If John Franklin’s aim was to keep cycling as a niche activity
practised by a tiny minority of confident men, then congratulations!
Success! Well done! You may now stop reading.

If John Franklin’s aim was to help riding a bike become an activity
which is easy for everyone — men and women, from toddlers to pensioners
— then he has failed."

This is what I constantly see in my area. For the experienced cyclist,
both men and women, following at least some of the precepts of
"Vehicular Cycling" make sense, but it doesn't help get more people out
of cars and onto bicycles. The latter requires some level of bicycle
infrastructure, and all of Frank's "danger danger" rhetoric is not going
to convince the majority of people to give cycling a try.

"The problem is that he opposes a type of road design which is proven to
increase cycling rates and safety and which offers a better way of life
for everyone, and not just for “cyclists� either."

Fortunately, there are few places in the world that subscribe to
Franklin's point of view because of the effort to reduce motor vehicle
traffic.

There is a problem with bike lanes, specifically unprotected bike lanes
that are just painted lines. Today is "Bike to Work Day" in my area. As
an elected official I rode around to several "Energizer Stations," two
put on by Apple, one by Kaiser, and one by my city. I saw first hand the
problem with unprotected bike lanes. In Sunnyvale, a Chevy Volt decided
that a bike lane was the perfect place to park. I called the police
non-emergency number and they sent out a "community service officer" to
ticket the vehicle. See oi68.tinypic.com/2ccrplj.jpg. But meanwhile,
cyclists were veering out of the unprotected bike lane into traffic, and
they probably would have been better being part of the normal traffic
flow. In Cupertino, I was in a bike lane where there were vehicles
turning left but there was no turn lane so the cars behind them simply
veered into the bike lane and passed on the right--not some of the cars,
ALL of them. See http://oi64.tinypic.com/adjo0h.jpg I asked our
traffic people if they could at least put up some bollards to prevent this.

The diatribe against Cyclecraft and Franklin is he
https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/****-you-john-franklin/

**** man! If I was to wait until there were protected bicycle lanes going to everywhere I currently ride my bicycle I'd hardly ever be on the bicycle. I've ridden for over 60 years and have yet to see a protected separate from the roadway bicycle path.

Cheers


I rode one in 1972.

I left work about 9pm in October, decided to try the new
'bicycle facility' parallel to my usual roadway. The four
foot wide asphalt was smooth and pleasant until I discovered
the tight radius among sturdy oaks, one of which I met suddenly.

I was talked into another 'bicycle facility' excursion by a
cute nurse one Sunday morning in 1994. As we came over a
rise at about 20mph there were four women with baby
carriages across the asphalt with no extra room or shoulder.

I'll take my chances in traffic, where at least I understand
the problem and have a skill set suited to traffic.

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

On Thu, 09 May 2019 20:08:36 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Snipped
I rode one in 1972.

I left work about 9pm in October, decided to try the new
'bicycle facility' parallel to my usual roadway. The four
foot wide asphalt was smooth and pleasant until I discovered
the tight radius among sturdy oaks, one of which I met suddenly.

I was talked into another 'bicycle facility' excursion by a
cute nurse one Sunday morning in 1994. As we came over a
rise at about 20mph there were four women with baby
carriages across the asphalt with no extra room or shoulder.

I'll take my chances in traffic, where at least I understand
the problem and have a skill set suited to traffic.

You must have read the book as I understand that it is unsafe to ride
on the public highways and byways unless you've read the book.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/9/2019 4:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:54:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/9/2019 5:10 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:


Do not (overtly) look at traffic supposed to yield, don't slow down the
cranks, just calculate emergency manoeuvers without showing.

"Don't slow down the cranks" is one technique I learned. When I have the
right of way, I want to make it visibly clear that I'm going to take it.

How come you
have never read a book on how to deal with Portland Euro driver trash?!

I remain astounded that some are arguing so strongly against trying to
learn more about bicycling. What the hell?

Golfers I know watch instructional videos, go to driving ranges to
practice, read books and articles. Fishermen I know are avid readers of
magazine articles that are full of instruction. Ditto for runners I
know, weight lifters I know, etc. etc.

Seems like a lot of people here think there's nothing to learn except
what gruppo to buy next.

Or they are tired of flippy-flag pedants yelling about "primary position" and complaining about improper passing. Personally, I'm tired of the yearly hatch of bike path experts.

Here is the Cyclecraft TOC: https://books.google.com/books?id=Gb...page&q&f=false

Or he https://www.amazon.com/Cyclecraft-Co.../dp/0117064769

I'm sure there is useful information, and even a useful refresher for experienced cyclists, but I doubt there are any epiphanies for a 50 year commuter. I'll eat my peas, get a used copy at Powells and read it in forty minutes and probably realize I've wasted forty minutes.

Moreover, skills based training for cycling comparable to your weight lifting or golfing example is far beyond these books or their intended audiences. I've done skills based training on the track and for CX and for road racing (such as it is), and it has little relevance to the ordinary act of riding a bike. The relevant aspects of collision avoidance for ordinary cyclists can be covered in a few pages. I'll see whether the five or so pages devoted to the subject in Cyclecraft say anything I don't already know.

I also question whether Franklin is right. As Duane pointed out, "primary position" is illegal most places, subject to certain exceptions. From one reader review:

Franklin has developed the concept of the "primary riding position" which is "in the center of the rightmost line of traffic for the direction in which you wish to travel." Why is this the primary position? Because, "here you will be well within the zone of maximum surveillance of both following drivers and those who might cross your path, and you will have the best two-way visibility of side roads and other features along the road. The road surface will usually be flatter here ...". Earlier on the same page he explains the basis: "Motorists primarily give attention to that part of the highway where is risk to themselves: they are not nearly so good at noticing anything outside their path. This zone of maximum surveillance is often very narrow, especially at higher speeds - it does not extend to much ... For you to be safest as a cyclist, you must normally ride within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it." (p 93).

Franklin also introduces the "secondary riding position" which is "about 3 feet to the right of the line of traffic", but recommends using it only when riding there could help others, "so long as your own safety is not thereby impaired." (p. 94). The reason this book is so important to read is because it explains so well why the secondary riding position compromises safety much more, and much more often, than most bicyclists seem to realize.


That's just plain wrong legally, and its wrong practically depending on traffic -- and I'm not talking about mean trucks. Visual clutter (bus graphics, lights, etc), blacked out windows on other cars -- you can be invisible lane center to everyone except the car immediately behind you, including overtaking cars in the outside lane who may drop in on you or following car who always accelerate when the car behind you gets ****ed-off and goes around. In fast moving, dense traffic AFRAP may make you more visible to the entire line of traffic. OTOH, lane center may be the best bet, but its hardly a default position.

Seriously - if you're riding down NW Cornell (I think that's the one I
remember) and there are no cars, where do you ride? Do you _really_ ride
as far right as you reasonably can, i.e. As Far Right As Practicable?
Even coasting at 30+ mph?

I didn't ride that AFRAP, and I don't usually ride AFRAP. It may be
against the law to use lane center - that varies by state, from what I
can tell - but I can't see any benefit to being far right most of the
time, and I find lots of detriments. Around here, it's very common for
the right tire track to be far less smooth than the lane center. Not
_necessarily_ potholed - but why should I ride on rougher pavement if
smooth pavement is three feet away? Because I'll get ticketed? No, I've
seen only one cop even bat an eye; and I was able to educate that one cop.

Based on what I've learned and tried in the last few years (my last
class was 7 years ago) I have no doubt that when I'm at lane center,
motorists coming up behind adjust sooner. It actually makes traffic flow
better. And since I've moved out of the gutter, I've never had a really
close call with a motorist. (My last was a left cross as I rode AFRAP.)

Again, I've known racers and ex-racers who instead of lane center, will
pick the foot of smooth pavement between the right tire track and the
road edge, and say they're proud of their ability to thread that needle.
Fine, skill is nice - but misapplying it isn't admirable. And "fear from
the rear" is at least a bit ignorant.

Yes, go to Powell's. (I'm jealous.) Maybe you'll already know everything
in whatever book you choose. Maybe you'll learn something. Maybe you'll
reject it all and try none of what's in that book because you disagree.
And similarly, maybe a Cycling Savvy class will teach you nothing.

I admit that after long experience _and_ long study, a person enters
into diminishing returns. But I still manage to learn. Why would you not
want to learn?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/9/2019 7:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2019 17:49:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/9/2019 5:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 05:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 09/05/2019 7:31 a.m., Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 12:23 schrieb Duane:
No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book
that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be
dead
center of the right most lane.

In some jurisdictions, the law forces the cyclist either to live
dangerous or to break the law. One example is the mandatory use of
"Bicycle sidewalks" in Germany.

If I wish to minimize my chances of being run over, I

1) need to be aware of the dangers
2) need to recognize the dangers
3) need to ignore the law in dangerous situations
4) need to think of a good excuse

More than 95% of untrained cyclists use the bicycle sidewalk even in
dangerous situations because they are not aware of the specific dangers
that would be most easily avoided by using the lane rather than the
bicycle sidewalk. Most of the cyclists run over by right-turning trucks
are children and OAPs.


What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane. Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand. I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

Here's the bridge where a number of years ago I bailed onto the shoulder of the road before getting onto the bridge because three 18 wheelers were coming up fast behind me and were showing no signs of slowing down. As you can see once you're on that bridge there's no way out of the lane except at the far end. I was told i should have stayed lance center and the trucks would have to have slowed down.

I figure that in push come to shove a 22 pound bicycle will lose against an 18 wheeler every time.

Cheers

I think that is a forgone conclusion. In any collision between a
bicycle and almost anything else on the roads the bicycle comes off
worse.

Generally, except for the ill-starred Mr Hui in a crosswalk:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matie...th-4680814.php

Well, you have to say that the courts treated the bicyclists well. Hit
someone and they die and you don't go to jail.

That is absolutely normal for motorists, of course. There are tens of
thousands of examples each year.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/9/2019 7:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 12:22:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/8/2019 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 14:17:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/8/2019 1:59 PM, Duane wrote:
On 08/05/2019 1:52 p.m., wrote:


Same here. I was riding along yesterday and a woman in a car wanted to
drive onto the road from the right. I saw it coming and shook my head
trying to say don't do that in a nice way. She nodded her head trying
to 'yes I will' and yelling at me she is coming from the right and
have right of way. I said you coming from a parking lot and have to
give right of way to anybody on the road. You have to deal with this
kind of situations at least once every ride.


Funny how these things seem common to some of us but apparently there's
a book you can read to solve it all.

That statement is very similar to "Ya don't need to know algebra. All ya
need is add and subtract."

Funny, you know. My wife doesn't know algebra and is now in her 70's
and hasn't yet seemed to need it. Would you care to elaborate why an
elderly woman like her needs to know advanced math?

Wow. Sometimes it's necessary to spell out the analogies in painstaking detail!

I'm talking about math skills as a parallel to cycling skills. So does your wife
need algebra? Does she need multiplication and division? Not if she's never
going to do anything beyond shopping, balancing a check book, following a recipe
book.

How in the world are math skills a parallel to bicycle skills?

Hmm. Note to self: John doesn't understand the concept of "analogy."

Does knowing the square root of -1 equate to riding a bicycle?

Please re-read above, where I used multiplication and division as well
as algebra. I didn't get into irrational numbers, conic sections,
trigonometry, differential equations, etc.

But, as you say, it was an analogy. Don't you understand the concept
of "analogy"?

But I'm saying basic bike riding like my seven year old buddy does is
one thing. Perhaps it's what you do, since you've mentioned riding only
on highways with super-wide separated shoulders. Likewise, it's easy to
ride just on bike paths or streets with near zero traffic.

But Frank, over here there are hoards of people who use a bicycle for
transportation. Ride early in the morning near any "open market" and
you'll see them going and returning from their daily trip to buy the
day's food. Why, I even see guys riding to work in the morning.

My guess is that there are more (on a per capita basis) people riding
bicycles in Thailand than there are in the U.S.

And not a one of them have read your recommended book.

If that's all one does and all one aspires to do, that's fine. They may
be able to say they have no problems. But they shouldn't pretend to be
expert.

I don't pretend to be an expert. I have only commented that I've been
riding a bike for about 20 years without an accident, or even an
incident, and much of that time has been in a city with such chaotic
traffic that most foreigners are literally afraid to drive here and in
a country that usually leads the pack, or comes in second, as the
country with the most traffic deaths in the world.

See:
http://driving-in-thailand.com/thai-...-in-the-world/
But we did better
https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/tha...t-world-atlas/

There are also bike riders around here who creep along on the sidewalk,
stopping frequently. If they take to the street at all, they stop each
time a car comes by. I suppose that's fine too, if they are willing to
put up with snail's pace transportation. Maybe you're like them, I don't
know. But again, such a person may never have been in a crash. But they
shouldn't pretend they know all there is to know.

If you want to do more - explore cities by bike, or bike for real
transportation, or travel on multi-day trips by bike, etc. - then more
knowledge is valuable. And as with mathematics beyond first grade,
nobody gets it by being a hubristic genius.

In the second site I mention, above, the lead photo is entitled
"Bangkok Traffic". Does your book tell me something I haven't already
learned (after 20 years) about how to ride in "Bangkok Traffic"?

Earlier, you talked about riding the six-foot shoulders or not riding at
all. I don't see six foot shoulders in that photo.

Maybe you can tell me more about the conditions where you actually do ride.

And why would someone dedicated to bicycling adamantly refuse to even
read a book on the subject? If you'd saved the time you spent arguing
here, you could have finished the book by now.

Again I will mention the above "Bangkok Traffic" and ask, does your
book tell me any secrets about how to cope with Bangkok Traffic?

The book I'm talking the most about, _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin, is
aimed at cycling in "westernized" countries, like Britain, the U.S.,
Australia, Canada, France, Austria, Italy, Ireland, etc. I'll admit that
rules, conditions and best practices in Thailand may be different.

However, that doesn't mean the best way to learn to become a highly
competent rider in Thailand is to bumble about by trial and error. If
there are resources there, I would use them.

The bumbling alternative is like trying to learn Ohm's Law by
disassembling a microchip.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/9/2019 9:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2019 20:08:36 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Snipped
I rode one in 1972.

I left work about 9pm in October, decided to try the new
'bicycle facility' parallel to my usual roadway. The four
foot wide asphalt was smooth and pleasant until I discovered
the tight radius among sturdy oaks, one of which I met suddenly.

I was talked into another 'bicycle facility' excursion by a
cute nurse one Sunday morning in 1994. As we came over a
rise at about 20mph there were four women with baby
carriages across the asphalt with no extra room or shoulder.

I'll take my chances in traffic, where at least I understand
the problem and have a skill set suited to traffic.

You must have read the book as I understand that it is unsafe to ride
on the public highways and byways unless you've read the book.

You don't understand it. That should have been clear by now.

.... which actually means you don't understand that you don't understand
it. It's meta!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/9/2019 8:07 PM, sms wrote:

The most succinct critique of John Franklin's work that I saw was this:

"If John Franklin’s aim was to keep cycling as a niche activity
practised by a tiny minority of confident men, then congratulations!
Success! Well done! You may now stop reading.

If John Franklin’s aim was to help riding a bike become an activity
which is easy for everyone — men and women, from toddlers to pensioners
— then he has failed."

Yes, I've seen the same diatribe hurled at others. The boors who do that
are setting up a false premise.

Franklin and others who educate about best riding practices don't have
the objective of getting 25% of Americans or Brits to give up their
cars. That daydream is confined to a completely different pack of
dewey-eyed do-gooders.

Instead, these educators are trying to help people ride competently and
safely in the real world as it exists. Why? Because if you wait for the
daydreams, you'll never ride much of anywhere.

Here's a concrete example, using (shudder!) numbers. The dreamers are
now saying "We need 'protected' bike lanes everywhere! Painted bike
lanes don't work!" And BTW, they say that after decades of saying "We
need painted bike lanes everywhere!"

OK, there are over four million miles of roadway in America. At last
count, there were less than 300 miles of "protected" bike lane in the
entire country. So according to those fools, you can ride safely on only
0.01% of America's roads.

In other words, their message is: "Bicycling is too dangerous." And the
obvious corollary is "Bicycling will be too dangerous until well after
you have died of natural causes; and your children have died; and their
children have died." IOW, we might as well crush all bikes for the scrap
metal. (Too bad about the carbon fiber.)

This is what I constantly see in my area. For the experienced cyclist,
both men and women, following at least some of the precepts of
"Vehicular Cycling" make sense, but it doesn't help get more people out
of cars and onto bicycles. The latter requires some level of bicycle
infrastructure, and all of Frank's "danger danger" rhetoric is not going
to convince the majority of people to give cycling a try.

Don't claim "Danger! Danger!" is MY rhetoric! You've been the one
claiming we MUST have head protection, wear day-glo clothing, use
daytime running lights, use horizontal flags on our bikes, install
electric horns, build "protected" cattle chutes, etc.

I'm the one who has pointed out that there are over ten million miles
ridden between bike fatalities; that cyclists comprise only 0.6% of
America's brain injury deaths; that every study on the subject has found
that the benefits of bicycling outweigh its risks many times over.

"The problem is that he opposes a type of road design which is proven to
increase cycling rates and safety and which offers a better way of life
for everyone, and not just for “cyclists� either."

The type of road design Franklin opposes was installed on Summit Street
in Columbus, Ohio. Car-bike crashes jumped from an average of two per
year or less, to well over 12 per year.

The type of road design Franklin opposes was studied carefully in
Copenhagen, comparing the same roads before and after (unlike some
propaganda papers that compared extremely dissimilar roads). The
researchers found "protected" cycle tracks increased crashes markedly.

Why the above results? Because forcing cyclists to ride far right and
out of sight greatly complicates intersection interactions. Cyclists pop
out into the path of motorists, yet still feel "protected." But the
dewey-eyed, innumerate daydreamers can't understand this.

Fortunately, there are few places in the world that subscribe to
Franklin's point of view because of the effort to reduce motor vehicle
traffic.

You _cannot_ point to a place where segregated bike facilities have
significantly reduced motor vehicle traffic, Scharf. After decades of
stripes, bike boxes, green paint, bollards and rail-trails the American
bike commuting mode fraction is the same as it always was.

The best you can do is find places where motoring is strongly
discouraged and dissuaded, but also (and incidentally) has bike
facilities. Bike tracks alone simply don't get a significant number of
people to stop driving.

There is a problem with bike lanes, specifically unprotected bike lanes
that are just painted lines. Today is "Bike to Work Day" in my area. As
an elected official I rode around to several "Energizer Stations," two
put on by Apple, one by Kaiser, and one by my city. I saw first hand the
problem with unprotected bike lanes. In Sunnyvale, a Chevy Volt decided
that a bike lane was the perfect place to park.

But gosh, for dozens of years you've portrayed bike lanes as just
wonderful!

I'd suggest you get your act straight and develop some consistency. But
I know that's not going to happen.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 9 May 2019 21:33:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/9/2019 7:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2019 17:49:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/9/2019 5:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 05:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 09/05/2019 7:31 a.m., Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 12:23 schrieb Duane:
No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book
that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be
dead
center of the right most lane.

In some jurisdictions, the law forces the cyclist either to live
dangerous or to break the law. One example is the mandatory use of
"Bicycle sidewalks" in Germany.

If I wish to minimize my chances of being run over, I

1) need to be aware of the dangers
2) need to recognize the dangers
3) need to ignore the law in dangerous situations
4) need to think of a good excuse

More than 95% of untrained cyclists use the bicycle sidewalk even in
dangerous situations because they are not aware of the specific dangers
that would be most easily avoided by using the lane rather than the
bicycle sidewalk. Most of the cyclists run over by right-turning trucks
are children and OAPs.


What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane. Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand. I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

Here's the bridge where a number of years ago I bailed onto the shoulder of the road before getting onto the bridge because three 18 wheelers were coming up fast behind me and were showing no signs of slowing down. As you can see once you're on that bridge there's no way out of the lane except at the far end. I was told i should have stayed lance center and the trucks would have to have slowed down.

I figure that in push come to shove a 22 pound bicycle will lose against an 18 wheeler every time.

Cheers

I think that is a forgone conclusion. In any collision between a
bicycle and almost anything else on the roads the bicycle comes off
worse.

Generally, except for the ill-starred Mr Hui in a crosswalk:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matie...th-4680814.php

Well, you have to say that the courts treated the bicyclists well. Hit
someone and they die and you don't go to jail.

That is absolutely normal for motorists, of course. There are tens of
thousands of examples each year.

Funny, you know. It didn't used to be that-a-way. My brother once hit
a "telephone pole" that some minutes later fell down and killed his
girlfriend. The next time the Grand Jury met they considered his case.
The grand Jury's finding was that there was no case to answer but
regardless, someone died in an auto accident and it was considered by
the Grand Jury.
--
cheers,

John B.