"Bicycle Infrastructure Promotes Observance of Bicycle Laws"

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:56:15 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

Think I'd prefer "passive" and "defensive" instead of "primary" and
"secondary". Both places to ride are equally useful, depending on the
circumstances. Primary makes it sound like it should be used most of
the time, but the opposite is true.

I'd say it depends on traffic volume. And I think most people choose to do
their cycling on low-traffic streets and roads.

If there are no same-direction vehicles sharing the road with you, why _not_
be in the middle of the lane? The only reason I can see is the presence of
a law that says you must be "As Far Right As Practicable."

Seems to me that absent other effected traffic, those laws are obviously
senseless and discriminatory.

- Frank Krygowski

On 22/01/14 13:37, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:56:15 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

Think I'd prefer "passive" and "defensive" instead of "primary" and
"secondary". Both places to ride are equally useful, depending on the
circumstances. Primary makes it sound like it should be used most of
the time, but the opposite is true.

I'd say it depends on traffic volume. And I think most people choose to do
their cycling on low-traffic streets and roads.

For me, not at all. On a busy 3 lane road with a wide left lane, I ride
in the left wheel tracks mostly - the passive or secondary position.

If there are no same-direction vehicles sharing the road with you, why _not_
be in the middle of the lane? The only reason I can see is the presence of
a law that says you must be "As Far Right As Practicable."

The middle of the lane is often *less* smooth and may have debris and
oil drops.

Seems to me that absent other effected traffic, those laws are obviously
senseless and discriminatory.


I doubt anyone has been fined for riding in the middle of the road if no
one was there to see them do it.

--
JS

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:05:49 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:59:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

You can give details on how much [BTA] effort goes into (say) requests for segregated
infrastructure, vs. education of bicyclists, education of motorists,
improving the legal environment for bicyclists (rights to the road,
liability for motorists, etc.). I'd be interested in details - say,
percentage distribution of those various efforts.

Actually, mandatory bicycle and driver education is one of the BTA long-term goals. They are already injecting themselves into local driver training programs. http://btaoregon.org/2011/02/drivers...ity-education/

That's a good step. So, according to that page, the BTA is now, in 2014,
_piloting_ a program to begin trying to teach motorists about sharing the
road with bikes.

Now, the BTA been in existence since the early 1990s, right?
And they're now starting to educate motorists? By comparison, what
percentage of their effort has gone into separate bike infrastructure?

Seems to me their emphasis is obvious and overwhelming.

- Frank Krygowski

I've decided to look for a copy of "Effective Cycling" to
read.

Not because I'm especially curious what it's about; I think
I have a pretty solid idea based on what I've heard, reviews,
articles, bios, interviews, and all the fervent testimonials.

More because I want to hear it from the horse's mouth. I
am intrigued by his purportedly "controverial" style, and
the long book reportedly contains lots of diverging off
at length. One review said he'll offer advice on life and
love, too. I expect it to be lively and revealing.

Frank says my ideas come from path-and-paint (and helmeteer)
propaganda, but I must say from reading considerable detail
about "Effective Cycling" and Forester that Frank appears
to be regurgitating pure Kool Aid.

I expect I'll learn some things I didn't know about VC;
but I expect pretty much all of it will be intuitive to me.
That's what those guys say, right? That most "cyclists" will
get it from enough experience? And I feel like my experience
is rich and informative.

I think that I totally know how to ride like Frank says is
"properly"; I just don't choose to.

Here it is in a nutshell:

I understand the social contract and right to the road and
all that. I am a road user just like you in the SUV and
there are rules to guide our interaction. I also totally
get Forester's notion of "inferior" child play vs. Frank's
"adult cycling" (I still think that sounds like something
dirty, though :-P

The thing is, I *am* like a kid on a bike. But not purely
so; I also have the capacity for reasonable adult social
interaction. So life is a hybrid overlapping blend.
Hopefully I do a decent job of choosing fairly appropriate
circumstances to employ the appropriate... um, approach.

(No doubt 9 out of 10 Hall Monitors would consider me
inappropriate, period.)

So anyway, I'm riding along - obeying the rules of the road
as well as most anyone, covering the miles to town. Car
after car after car after truck whiz past me, and I try to
stay out of their way. Even in town I may tend toward the
childlike deference when I don't have to. I give them their
advantage even if they are not strictly entitled to it by
law or the reasonable social graces of decent humans.

Here's why: Any minute I will see my advantage. I may not
be *legally* entitled to it but dammit I feel like I've
earned it, and then **** is going to shoot out of every pore
in my body as I jump on it and...

"Hello Daddy, Hello Mom
Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch... Cherry Bomb"

It's a karmic trade.

Will let you know what I think of the book.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:43:41 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 22/01/14 13:37, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[JS:] For me, not at all. On a busy 3 lane road with a wide left lane, I ride
in the left wheel tracks mostly - the passive or secondary position.

If there are no same-direction vehicles sharing the road with you, why _not_
be in the middle of the lane? The only reason I can see is the presence of
a law that says you must be "As Far Right As Practicable."

The middle of the lane is often *less* smooth and may have debris and
oil drops.

The only time I think about oil drops is during the first bit of rain
after an extended dry spell. They can then make the surface more slippery.
(That's something taught to motorcyclists, BTW, who normally ride lane center.)

But around here - an area renowned for its pavement break-ups (details on
request) the smoothest part of almost any road is centered between the
MVs tire tracks. The only exception seems to be fresh "tar & chip."

As the asphalt ages and loses flexibility, the cracks, potholes, patches
etc. all appear first where the pavement is made to flex from the MVs
tire loads. I'd be very surprised if that were not true everywhere.

Seems to me that absent other effected traffic, those laws are obviously
senseless and discriminatory.

I doubt anyone has been fined for riding in the middle of the road if no
one was there to see them do it.

Heck, I know of people fined for riding there even when it was obviously
the only safe way to ride. I know of a guy fined, arrested and jailed for
not riding on a road's shoulder, even though the law clearly gave him
the right to ride in the lane, and even though he was not in any way
obstructing the extremely light traffic.

I also have a good friend who helped successfully fight such a charge,
acting as an expert witness. Granted, none of those happened on completely
empty roads (although one was damned near empty, with a completely free
lane available for passing). But if unreasonable cops will hassle cyclists
in those situations, I'd prefer to have AFRAP not apply on empty roads.

There's no reason it should apply there. Laws should be written more
carefully than that.

- Frank Krygowski

On 22/01/14 14:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:43:41 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 22/01/14 13:37, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[JS:] For me, not at all. On a busy 3 lane road with a wide left lane, I ride
in the left wheel tracks mostly - the passive or secondary position.

If there are no same-direction vehicles sharing the road with you, why _not_
be in the middle of the lane? The only reason I can see is the presence of
a law that says you must be "As Far Right As Practicable."

The middle of the lane is often *less* smooth and may have debris and
oil drops.

The only time I think about oil drops is during the first bit of rain
after an extended dry spell. They can then make the surface more slippery.
(That's something taught to motorcyclists, BTW, who normally ride lane center.)

But around here - an area renowned for its pavement break-ups (details on
request) the smoothest part of almost any road is centered between the
MVs tire tracks. The only exception seems to be fresh "tar & chip."

As the asphalt ages and loses flexibility, the cracks, potholes, patches
etc. all appear first where the pavement is made to flex from the MVs
tire loads. I'd be very surprised if that were not true everywhere.

Perhaps the majority of our roads are kept in better condition.

Seems to me that absent other effected traffic, those laws are obviously
senseless and discriminatory.

I doubt anyone has been fined for riding in the middle of the road if no
one was there to see them do it.

Heck, I know of people fined for riding there even when it was obviously
the only safe way to ride. I know of a guy fined, arrested and jailed for
not riding on a road's shoulder, even though the law clearly gave him
the right to ride in the lane, and even though he was not in any way
obstructing the extremely light traffic.

I also have a good friend who helped successfully fight such a charge,
acting as an expert witness. Granted, none of those happened on completely
empty roads (although one was damned near empty, with a completely free
lane available for passing). But if unreasonable cops will hassle cyclists
in those situations, I'd prefer to have AFRAP not apply on empty roads.

There's no reason it should apply there. Laws should be written more
carefully than that.


You missed the point. Someone was obviously "there" to see these people
not riding as far right (in the US) as practicable.

News just in, here's someone who needs hassling...

"All cyclist, I just had an incident on 1:20. At 720pm one dark grey xr6
did attempt to run myself (several times) into the ditch on descending
from sassafras. In the heat of the moment and bouncing of the car, I
missed the number plate. I chased in van [sic] only to see the same
vehicle collide (mirror) with another cyclist who fortunately remained
upright. This felonious ******* of a vehicle then further ran into and
brought down another cyclist who ended up in the drain on the left hand
side [this is in Australia]. To my dismay, I was unable to get the
registration and therefor will be unable to lay charges. If anyone
experiences this sort behaviour and can assist, I will attempt to have
the prick charge with assault with a deadly weapon. These unprovoked
attacks seem to becoming more common and we must take responsibility and
see these criminals brought to justice."


Hmmm. I ride there nearly once a week.

--
JS

I doubt anyone has been fined for riding in the middle of the road if no

one was there to see them do it.

tree falls in woods...

Armstrong, Schumacher, uh woman exec in California... I have 2 in my bag but went around....

writes:

I doubt anyone has been fined for riding in the middle of the road if no

one was there to see them do it.

tree falls in woods...


The desperate attempts at rationalization are entertaining,
though.

Armstrong, Schumacher, uh woman exec in California... I have 2 in my bag but went around....

Um... where did I set my tea?

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:56:15 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

Think I'd prefer "passive" and "defensive" instead of "primary" and
"secondary". Both places to ride are equally useful, depending on the
circumstances. Primary makes it sound like it should be used most of
the time, but the opposite is true.

I'd say it depends on traffic volume. And I think most people choose to do
their cycling on low-traffic streets and roads.

If there are no same-direction vehicles sharing the road with you, why _not_
be in the middle of the lane? The only reason I can see is the presence of
a law that says you must be "As Far Right As Practicable."

Seems to me that absent other effected traffic, those laws are obviously
senseless and discriminatory.


Seems to me that absent other affected traffic, anyone who even
considers those laws must have a screw loose.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:45:18 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:05:49 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:59:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:



You can give details on how much [BTA] effort goes into (say) requests for segregated

infrastructure, vs. education of bicyclists, education of motorists,

improving the legal environment for bicyclists (rights to the road,

liability for motorists, etc.). I'd be interested in details - say,

percentage distribution of those various efforts.



Actually, mandatory bicycle and driver education is one of the BTA long-term goals. They are already injecting themselves into local driver training programs. http://btaoregon.org/2011/02/drivers...ity-education/



That's a good step. So, according to that page, the BTA is now, in 2014,

_piloting_ a program to begin trying to teach motorists about sharing the

road with bikes.



Now, the BTA been in existence since the early 1990s, right?

And they're now starting to educate motorists? By comparison, what

percentage of their effort has gone into separate bike infrastructure?



Seems to me their emphasis is obvious and overwhelming.

Again, in their first few years of existence, they were running rides in Portland and Washington County to educate motorists and cyclists. They were sort of the counterweights to Critical Mass. But you probably knew that. One of the ride leaders was my friend, racing teammate and former contributor to this group (in the Unix days), Marc Sansoucie (now Beaverton City Council). Ray Thomas was doing his lectures on the law while Bob Mionske was in high school. And on top of that, we were doing the infrastructure work, legislative work, printed news letter (no interweb), fund raising and even bike parking at the beer fests. You love to criticize, but if any Ohio group does even ten percent of what the BTA did 20 years ago, I would be amazed.

-- Jay Beattie.