Please don't help so much

Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent
him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl

It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition
of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic
density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if
there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous
complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum.

You've listed lots of reasons for moving left even in a wider lane. One
might say the graphics athttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpklassume good
pavement. Curbs, drain gates, debris, potholes etc. require riding
further left. If a person doesn't, out of excess submissiveness, those
factors can cause a serious backfire.


So you're saying it's advisable to avoid hazards? Brilliant,
professor.

Oh, that was pretty obvious, although you seemed to have it somewhat
backward. Sometimes it seems necessary to explain the obvious to you.

So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few
seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up
cyclists' rights to the road?

I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking
about a cooperative stance.

A "cooperative stance" in a lane too narrow to share? Would that be
cooperatively standing by the side of the road until all the cars are
gone?


No, it would be riding as far out of the way as practicable. Even if
the lane is too narrow to share with a passing car, this reduces how
far and how long they have to leave the lane to safely pass, and how
fast they have to go to do it.

Dan, you still don't get it. Riding "as far out of the way as
practicable" was what my friend was trying to do (even though I'd say,
and he'd now say, it was not safely practicable). In doing that, he and
his wife were subjected to unreasonable risk by many motorists who did
not wait to safely pass. When they moved to lane center, that stopped.

I learned the same thing years prior. I still recall the rainy ride on
the narrow highway with tractor trailers passing a friend and me, when I
made the definite (and scary) decision to ride dead center in a ten foot
lane instead of at the rough edge of the pavement. Yes, it was scary
when we heard the first semi hit his brakes. But he and all subsequent
drivers waited until it was safe to pass, instead squeezing by with
inches of clearance plus water spray, as the previous truckers had done.

Maybe you need to watch this:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/

And there are situations where taking the
lane makes sense. And this may be one of them.

It absolutely was.

You're the expert :-)

I did get the preparatory credentials, provide references, do the study,
do the curriculum work, report on my activities, turn in evaluations of
my performance, and pass the certification tests. I was asked to do
that based on my 100% on a qualifying written test and observed
expertise on the road. I have been asked, and agreed, to teach, write
and consult on related matters. And I was the only cyclist present
during this incident in question, observing what actually happened. So
yes, you're actually correct; I am the expert.

You might now think about your qualifications. What, exactly, have you
done?

Very, very
few motorists will ever attempt [assault] on a public road with others
observing.


Yes, very few. How many cars did you say use that road daily? Just
*that* road. 30,000?

Roughly. And I've been riding it for 32 years now, with not one
incident of assault, despite your fears.


Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the
hardware store or wherever.

Of course it's not the only route! Instead of riding directly west to
that store, I can go roughly two miles out of my way by riding either
north or south to use the next crossing of the interstate, then ride
roads nearly as busy to complete the trip. But why would I do that? To
avoid delaying a pickup driver by a few seconds? Are you really
submissive enough to consider that?

... And as for alternate routes. I won't presume to know your area, but
by keeping all my options open and being not only willing but eager to
leave the road at times, I find really interesting and fun routes
almost everywhere that practically or *completely* eliminate having to
deal with traffic. (Traffic sucks.)

You missed a major clue. There is a freeway perpendicular to the road I
used. There is NO way across that freeway except the road I used, one
about a mile north and one about a mile south - unless you want to
scuttle with your bike through a large culvert about half a mile south,
and hope the water doesn't rise. I prefer to make use of my right to
the road.

But I think you kind of get off on dealing with traffic.

Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to
tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them
correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely
specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called
teaching.

"Wrong", "correctly", ("properly") - hmm... that's the attitidue we
see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply
your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone
else.

And by contrast, we might adopt the attitude so fashionable in many
circles: "Golly, whatever you think is right, Danny, is fine!

Live and let live, Frankie.

There
are two sides to every story...

Aren't there?

Are there?

Does the sun rise in the west, Dan? Does 2 + 2 = 10,000? Was Paul
Revere the first president of the United States of America? And should
a two foot wide bicyclist try to allow an 8.5 foot wide truck pass him
within a ten foot lane?

Some things are flat wrong, even when examined with the softest standards.



... everyone is entitled to their own opinion...

Aren't they?

... there is no such thing as right or wrong...

That's a pretty assinine thing to say, but who decides what's right
and what's wrong, professor?

... and I'll give your paper a
gold star even though half your answers on the arithmetic test were, um,
different from the answer key."


We're not discussing mathematics here, dickhead.

Ah, another display of crude insults from the boy who wants me to be
perfectly diplomatic with everyone!

But "wrong" is not merely a mathematical concept. Some things are flat
wrong, whether you can understand that or not.

You've been advocating practices like stunt riding in or around traffic,
you've bragged about riding drunk, you've told about riding at night
without lights, you've defended zooming on and off sidewalks at high
speed. The data's pretty clear that those things are big contributors
to bad, often fatal, crashes. But you still take offense if someone
suggests those are wrong.


What do you mean, "Advocating"? I advocate those activities only for
myself - cognizant of the risks, considerate of the reasonable
interests of others.

(I'll bet your love life is *really* something ;-)

I know exactly how to play
Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* con[s]training. I want to Ride Bike!

Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of
14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something.

Smarmy supercilious judgmental.

I'm judgmental against drunks who ride bikes wrong way at night doing
wheelies without lights and bragging about it. And who then pretend
they know enough about competent cycling to argue online.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 27, 1:39 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank
wrote:

snip

There are two sides to every story...

Aren't there?

Are there?

Does the sun rise in the west, Dan?

Ever been to Venus, professor?

On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...

Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?

Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
irrational as expecting them all to attack you.

¹or bikers

--
Wes Groleau

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns
it, and finds himself no wiser than before ... He is full of
murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having
come by their ignorance the hard way.
— Kurt Vonnegut

On 06-27-2012 18:07, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 1:39 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank
wrote:

snip

There are two sides to every story...

Aren't there?

Are there?

Does the sun rise in the west, Dan?

Ever been to Venus, professor?

What the sun does in Venus is irrelevant to how to ride bikes on earth.


--
Wes Groleau

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined.�
— David Hume, age 37
“There's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it.�
— Becky Groleau, age 4

On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...

Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?

Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
irrational as expecting them all to attack you.

¹or bikers


As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
it's because it was deliberate. Accidents are accidents. Thinking that
you can control that is ridiculous.

Some accidents are criminal, like when the driver is texting or falling
asleep, but there is not usually any intent. The best you can do is
make yourself visible and your intentions obvious.

On Jun 28, 5:40 am, Duane wrote:
On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...

Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?

Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
irrational as expecting them all to attack you.

¹or bikers

As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
it's because it was deliberate. Accidents are accidents. Thinking that
you can control that is ridiculous.

Some accidents are criminal, like when the driver is texting or falling
asleep, but there is not usually any intent. The best you can do is
make yourself visible and your intentions obvious.

Dude! You're giving Frank a tangent to play his nutty vehicular
cycling spiel off of, and selectively dodge my argument (even though
I'm not certified to argue... and apparently a drunk :-)

Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
supposed to, which was my point.

On Jun 27, 1:39 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Dan O wrote:

snip


... And as for alternate routes. I won't presume to know your area, but
by keeping all my options open and being not only willing but eager to
leave the road at times, I find really interesting and fun routes
almost everywhere that practically or *completely* eliminate having to
deal with traffic. (Traffic sucks.)

You missed a major clue. There is a freeway perpendicular to the road I
used. There is NO way across that freeway except the road I used, one
about a mile north and one about a mile south - unless you want to
scuttle with your bike through a large culvert about half a mile south,
and hope the water doesn't rise. I prefer to make use of my right to
the road.


I didn't miss that. I know about crossing freeways and such things.
I cross a freeway and a river at least twice a day.

"scuttle: to run hastily" (Hmmm.. )

Anyway, the culvert sounds intriguing. I'll bet there are *lots* of
other neat things between point A and point B that "legitimate vehicle
operators" don't get to experience. (Ride Bike!) Nothing wrong with
hopping onto a main road to use the overpass - I just don't parade
down the main road all the way along with all the sorry cagers who
have no better option. If I got off on directing and controlling
traffic, I guess I might prefer that route, though.

snip

On 06/28/2012 01:14 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 28, 5:40 am, Duane wrote:
On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...

Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever
a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?

Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
irrational as expecting them all to attack you.

¹or bikers

As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
it's because it was deliberate. Accidents are accidents. Thinking that
you can control that is ridiculous.

Some accidents are criminal, like when the driver is texting or falling
asleep, but there is not usually any intent. The best you can do is
make yourself visible and your intentions obvious.

Dude! You're giving Frank a tangent to play his nutty vehicular
cycling spiel off of, and selectively dodge my argument (even though
I'm not certified to argue... and apparently a drunk :-)

**** him.

Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
supposed to, which was my point.

That's also my point. The idea that you are controlling things is what
ticks me off. You have to be ready to deal with the other guy doing the
unexpected. This is defensive driving/cycling.

On Jun 28, 8:40*am, Duane wrote:
On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason...

Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? *Is there ever
a good reason to buzz a bicyclist?

Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
irrational as expecting them all to attack you.

¹or bikers

As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
it's because it was deliberate. *Accidents are accidents. *Thinking that
you can control that is ridiculous.

That's pretty simplistic, and ignores much that's well known to
competent cyclists.

The present case in point has covered that, but here it is again: If
you're in (say) an 10 foot lane and you have (say) an 8 foot wide
truck approaching from behind, you have two choices. One is to meekly
ride at the extreme edge of the lane, hoping that there won't be a
pothole to throw you or a twitch from the truck driver just as he's
brushing your elbow. If either of those (or a number of other things
happen), you'll be sideswiped. Most people would call that an
"accident," I think.

Your other choice is to realize there's no way the truck can safely
pass you without moving left. So you position yourself at or near
lane center, to make it obvious to the trucker that he'll have to
change lanes. When he does that, you will have prevented an accident,
or at least the strong possibility of one. You'll have done that by
using your legal right to the road - something I, for one, do not want
to lose.

Again, here's a site explaining the benefits of leftward lane
position. (Duane won't read this because he kill files people to whom
he loses arguments, so perhaps someone else should point it out to
him.)
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/

BTW, I notice that the "Skulk in the gutter" crowd never seems to cite
sources to justify their point of view. Why is that?

- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 28, 1:35*pm, Duane wrote:
On 06/28/2012 01:14 PM, Dan O wrote:

Dude! *You're giving Frank a tangent to play his nutty vehicular
cycling spiel off of, and selectively dodge my argument (even though
I'm not certified to argue... and apparently a drunk :-)

**** him.

Are we supposed to be impressed by that verbal thuggery? (And aren't
you worried Dan's going to chide you for being less than perfectly
kind?)


Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
supposed to, which was my point.

That's also my point. *The idea that you are controlling things is what
ticks me off.

Well, you could go with the opposite world view, I suppose - that you
have no control at all, that the world operates at random, and that
you're completely at the mercy of others' unthinking whims.

Most people that try riding as legitimate vehicle operators soon
discard such hand-wringing.
See http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/ for
example.

*You have to be ready to deal with the other guy doing the
unexpected. *This is defensive driving/cycling.

Yes, and that's part of being competent. But you also have to behave
in a way that discourages the other guy from doing dangerous things.
I think that's more important than trying for ninja-like defenses
against random dangerous behavior.

- Frank Krygowski