Ineffective Cycling

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2019 11:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:12:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
Good title for a book. Lots of potential

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uick-turn.html
--

He should have been in position three, but he does get points for the fluorescent vest. Had he attended my advanced skills course, he would have known not to ride straight into a turning fire engine. That is in class number six, if you purchase the deluxe package. Otherwise, it is covered more generally in class number three, chapter four: "Don't Ride Your Bike into Things." See Bicycle Illuminati Rule 7.2(1)(a)(iii): "when riding your bike, do not ride straight into walls, large trucks or other massive objects." Here's the chapter materials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpFC6kfc15s

FWIW, that situation is dealt with in detail in the cycling classes I
have taken. How to prevent it from setting up in the first place, how to
watch for it developing, exactly what evasive action to take if it can't
be avoided, etc. Oh, and the classes had actual drills on the relevant
last-second evasive skills, practiced over and over.

No, people do _not_ know those things automatically. Even riders with
years of experience.

Goodness! Those bicyclists, back there, must be sort of stupid. After
all it was a great big motor bus and the guy rode right into it. the
cyclists here aren't that stupid (and they can't even speak English).
As for "evasive action", well I suppose that "just stop and let the
bloody great thing go by" is evasive action.

But the assertion that one needs lessons to teach one NOT to crash
into a big bus, or that "people do_not_know these things
automatically" - not to ride into the side of a bus, one assumes,
would seem to equate the intelligence of the average U.S. bicycle
rider with that of a pet rock.

That rider was at the pet rock level. But "that situation" I referred to
is what's known as a Right Hook in the U.S. (or a left hook in Britain,
etc.) And it happens regularly, even to intelligent cyclists.
Intelligent but ignorant, that is.

It happens in part because bike lanes instruct cyclists to ride through
intersections to the right of vehicles that may turn right. That scheme
is one factor that sets up the conflict. Another is the meme that claims
a bicyclist must always be at the edge of the roadway - meaning a
cyclist must put himself in the same situation even without the paint
stripe telling him to.

Yes, be wary of right turning cars when you are in a bike lane approaching an intersection. That's in my self-published book "Bicycle Illuminati Part Deux." BTW, we have a law for that now -- thanks in part to the unfortunately over-the-top group I helped create, the BTA nka the Street Trust. https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...rs-affirm.html

Apparently, you are not keeping abreast of the law in Oregon, unlike me and those who actually know about cycling.

And more importantly, emphasis should be put on training drivers who do not understand that bike lanes are in fact traffic lanes and should be treated like traffic lanes. Many problems would be solved if motorists thought of bike lanes as the right-right lane.


There are ways of avoiding that geometry. There are ways of sometimes
dissuading the motorist if you're unavoidably in that situation. There
are ways of evading the crash if it all goes wrong. Those are the sorts
of things taught in these sorts of classes.

But you obviously didn't know that.

I would assume as much. It would be like going to a driver's ed class where they didn't teach you basic defensive driving.

I avoid at least one crash every day and two on Sundays -- I avoided one yesterday morning when some car right hooked my son and me. He hit the jets and engaged the driver, for better or worse. She was French and said that "I szaw you" (pointing at her eyes for accentuation). WTF? Why would you even say that? It means she saw us and turned anyway. Hmmmm. "F*** you, au revoir!" DEPORT HER DONALD!

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 7 May 2019 22:35:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2019 7:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2019 11:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:12:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
Good title for a book. Lots of potential

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uick-turn.html
--

He should have been in position three, but he does get points for the fluorescent vest. Had he attended my advanced skills course, he would have known not to ride straight into a turning fire engine. That is in class number six, if you purchase the deluxe package. Otherwise, it is covered more generally in class number three, chapter four: "Don't Ride Your Bike into Things." See Bicycle Illuminati Rule 7.2(1)(a)(iii): "when riding your bike, do not ride straight into walls, large trucks or other massive objects." Here's the chapter materials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpFC6kfc15s

FWIW, that situation is dealt with in detail in the cycling classes I
have taken. How to prevent it from setting up in the first place, how to
watch for it developing, exactly what evasive action to take if it can't
be avoided, etc. Oh, and the classes had actual drills on the relevant
last-second evasive skills, practiced over and over.

No, people do _not_ know those things automatically. Even riders with
years of experience.

Goodness! Those bicyclists, back there, must be sort of stupid. After
all it was a great big motor bus and the guy rode right into it. the
cyclists here aren't that stupid (and they can't even speak English).
As for "evasive action", well I suppose that "just stop and let the
bloody great thing go by" is evasive action.

But the assertion that one needs lessons to teach one NOT to crash
into a big bus, or that "people do_not_know these things
automatically" - not to ride into the side of a bus, one assumes,
would seem to equate the intelligence of the average U.S. bicycle
rider with that of a pet rock.

That rider was at the pet rock level. But "that situation" I referred to
is what's known as a Right Hook in the U.S. (or a left hook in Britain,
etc.) And it happens regularly, even to intelligent cyclists.
Intelligent but ignorant, that is.

It happens in part because bike lanes instruct cyclists to ride through
intersections to the right of vehicles that may turn right. That scheme
is one factor that sets up the conflict. Another is the meme that claims
a bicyclist must always be at the edge of the roadway - meaning a
cyclist must put himself in the same situation even without the paint
stripe telling him to.

I wonder. After all one can see quite a distance along most roads or
highways. If the bicyclist was even halfway alert why didn't he see
the vehicle turning into him?

I ask as I have had this happen. A bus making a left turn (USA right
turn) and had I not been looking would have likely hit me. But I did
look, and I did see him, and simply made the turn inside his turning
radius. I didn't even rate that incident as a "close call".

Can it be that I am unique? That I look right, left, back and forward?
It can't be. After all I once worked at a base that trained U.S.A.F.
pilots and I know that those fledgling pilots are taught to be
constantly looking around. And they are way up there in the air. Not
on a crowded highway.

There are ways of avoiding that geometry. There are ways of sometimes
dissuading the motorist if you're unavoidably in that situation. There
are ways of evading the crash if it all goes wrong. Those are the sorts
of things taught in these sorts of classes.

But you obviously didn't know that.

But, as I describe, I have had it happen and I didn't even call it a
close call. (chalk up one more thing that is taught in your classes
that I've know since I was a small boy)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 7 May 2019 22:36:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2019 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 18:39:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/7/2019 6:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2019 11:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:12:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
Good title for a book. Lots of potential

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uick-turn.html
--

He should have been in position three, but he does get points for the fluorescent vest. Had he attended my advanced skills course, he would have known not to ride straight into a turning fire engine. That is in class number six, if you purchase the deluxe package. Otherwise, it is covered more generally in class number three, chapter four: "Don't Ride Your Bike into Things." See Bicycle Illuminati Rule 7.2(1)(a)(iii): "when riding your bike, do not ride straight into walls, large trucks or other massive objects." Here's the chapter materials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpFC6kfc15s

FWIW, that situation is dealt with in detail in the cycling classes I
have taken. How to prevent it from setting up in the first place, how to
watch for it developing, exactly what evasive action to take if it can't
be avoided, etc. Oh, and the classes had actual drills on the relevant
last-second evasive skills, practiced over and over.

No, people do _not_ know those things automatically. Even riders with
years of experience.

Goodness! Those bicyclists, back there, must be sort of stupid. After
all it was a great big motor bus and the guy rode right into it. the
cyclists here aren't that stupid (and they can't even speak English).
As for "evasive action", well I suppose that "just stop and let the
bloody great thing go by" is evasive action.

But the assertion that one needs lessons to teach one NOT to crash
into a big bus, or that "people do_not_know these things
automatically" - not to ride into the side of a bus, one assumes,
would seem to equate the intelligence of the average U.S. bicycle
rider with that of a pet rock.

I note that the safe cyclist in that video with his saf-tee
vest and saf-tee helmet is in central London England.

I have done idiot moves on a bicycle, many in fact, but not
that.

I learned to ride a bicycle coasting down a hill on my buddy's bike.
Balancing, steering and pedaling backward to brake were way too
complicated for a beginner and I crashed into a large garbage can.
The bike stopped, I didn't, and nearly emasculated myself.

Since then one of my guiding lights has been "don't run into things".

I suggest a better guiding light is "learn all you can."
And perhaps "Don't disparage those who have learned more than you."

What? Are you saying that if you "learn all you can" it is all right
to run into garbage cans?

You disparage learning by experience? I admit it is painful but it
certainly makes an impression on one. I've remembered that episode for
probably 80 years.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 9:12:13 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
Good title for a book. Lots of potential

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uick-turn.html
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I am glad he was o.k.

But, is it worth your life getting that close?

Andy

On 08-05-19 04:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:
There are ways of avoiding that geometry. There are ways of sometimes
dissuading the motorist if you're unavoidably in that situation. There
are ways of evading the crash if it all goes wrong. Those are the sorts
of things taught in these sorts of classes.

I know how to avoid getting caught by the "right hook". However, I'm not
sure what you were referring to with "evading the crash if it all goes
wrong". Could you please expand on that a bit? Maybe it's something I
already know, but might also be something that I *should* but don't
know. Thanks.

Ned

On 5/7/2019 8:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2019 11:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:12:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
Good title for a book. Lots of potential

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uick-turn.html
--

He should have been in position three, but he does get points for the fluorescent vest. Had he attended my advanced skills course, he would have known not to ride straight into a turning fire engine. That is in class number six, if you purchase the deluxe package. Otherwise, it is covered more generally in class number three, chapter four: "Don't Ride Your Bike into Things." See Bicycle Illuminati Rule 7.2(1)(a)(iii): "when riding your bike, do not ride straight into walls, large trucks or other massive objects." Here's the chapter materials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpFC6kfc15s

FWIW, that situation is dealt with in detail in the cycling classes I
have taken. How to prevent it from setting up in the first place, how to
watch for it developing, exactly what evasive action to take if it can't
be avoided, etc. Oh, and the classes had actual drills on the relevant
last-second evasive skills, practiced over and over.

No, people do _not_ know those things automatically. Even riders with
years of experience.

Goodness! Those bicyclists, back there, must be sort of stupid. After
all it was a great big motor bus and the guy rode right into it. the
cyclists here aren't that stupid (and they can't even speak English).
As for "evasive action", well I suppose that "just stop and let the
bloody great thing go by" is evasive action.

But the assertion that one needs lessons to teach one NOT to crash
into a big bus, or that "people do_not_know these things
automatically" - not to ride into the side of a bus, one assumes,
would seem to equate the intelligence of the average U.S. bicycle
rider with that of a pet rock.

That rider was at the pet rock level. But "that situation" I referred to
is what's known as a Right Hook in the U.S. (or a left hook in Britain,
etc.) And it happens regularly, even to intelligent cyclists.
Intelligent but ignorant, that is.

It happens in part because bike lanes instruct cyclists to ride through
intersections to the right of vehicles that may turn right. That scheme
is one factor that sets up the conflict. Another is the meme that claims
a bicyclist must always be at the edge of the roadway - meaning a
cyclist must put himself in the same situation even without the paint
stripe telling him to.

Yes, be wary of right turning cars when you are in a bike lane approaching an intersection. That's in my self-published book "Bicycle Illuminati Part Deux." BTW, we have a law for that now -- thanks in part to the unfortunately over-the-top group I helped create, the BTA nka the Street Trust. https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...rs-affirm.html

Apparently, you are not keeping abreast of the law in Oregon, unlike me and those who actually know about cycling.

And more importantly, emphasis should be put on training drivers who do not understand that bike lanes are in fact traffic lanes and should be treated like traffic lanes. Many problems would be solved if motorists thought of bike lanes as the right-right lane.


There are ways of avoiding that geometry. There are ways of sometimes
dissuading the motorist if you're unavoidably in that situation. There
are ways of evading the crash if it all goes wrong. Those are the sorts
of things taught in these sorts of classes.

But you obviously didn't know that.

I would assume as much. It would be like going to a driver's ed class where they didn't teach you basic defensive driving.

I avoid at least one crash every day and two on Sundays -- I avoided one yesterday morning when some car right hooked my son and me. He hit the jets and engaged the driver, for better or worse. She was French and said that "I szaw you" (pointing at her eyes for accentuation). WTF? Why would you even say that? It means she saw us and turned anyway. Hmmmm. "F*** you, au revoir!" DEPORT HER DONALD!

Yep, I've heard the "I saw you" defense before also. WTF indeed, but
they still say it.

-Mark J.

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 11:48:08 PM UTC+2, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 11:05:36 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/7/2019 11:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:12:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
Good title for a book. Lots of potential

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uick-turn.html
--

He should have been in position three, but he does get points for the fluorescent vest. Had he attended my advanced skills course, he would have known not to ride straight into a turning fire engine. That is in class number six, if you purchase the deluxe package. Otherwise, it is covered more generally in class number three, chapter four: "Don't Ride Your Bike into Things." See Bicycle Illuminati Rule 7.2(1)(a)(iii): "when riding your bike, do not ride straight into walls, large trucks or other massive objects." Here's the chapter materials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpFC6kfc15s

FWIW, that situation is dealt with in detail in the cycling classes I
have taken. How to prevent it from setting up in the first place, how to
watch for it developing, exactly what evasive action to take if it can't
be avoided, etc. Oh, and the classes had actual drills on the relevant
last-second evasive skills, practiced over and over.

No, people do _not_ know those things automatically. Even riders with
years of experience.

Anyone with even a whiff of intelligence would know not to accelerate into the side of a turning fire truck with its siren blaring and turn signal activated. Look at the complete video from the beginning. The only mystery is "what was he thinking."

If you are teaching or taking cycling classes where the instructor is actually saying, "hey, if a fire truck turns in front of you, don't accelerate into it," then the instructor should also be teaching life skills like how to dress, eat and dial 911.

-- Jay Beattie.

+1 what an idiot. He was not even looking straight forward when he started to accelerate.

Lou

On 5/7/2019 11:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

That rider was at the pet rock level. But "that situation" I referred to
is what's known as a Right Hook in the U.S. (or a left hook in Britain,
etc.) And it happens regularly, even to intelligent cyclists.
Intelligent but ignorant, that is.

It happens in part because bike lanes instruct cyclists to ride through
intersections to the right of vehicles that may turn right. That scheme
is one factor that sets up the conflict. Another is the meme that claims
a bicyclist must always be at the edge of the roadway - meaning a
cyclist must put himself in the same situation even without the paint
stripe telling him to.

Yes, be wary of right turning cars when you are in a bike lane approaching an intersection. That's in my self-published book "Bicycle Illuminati Part Deux." BTW, we have a law for that now -- thanks in part to the unfortunately over-the-top group I helped create, the BTA nka the Street Trust. https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...rs-affirm.html

I don't remember whether it was Oregon or some other state where a judge
ruled that bike lanes don't extend through intersections. Perhaps it was
Oregon, and that's what motivated the legislature to clarify.

But I wonder about the implications. IIRC, Oregon has a mandatory bike
lane law, although with some limitations.

So will it now be permitted for a cyclist to ride through an
intersection at lane center? Or will cyclists be required to stay to the
right few feet as they pass through? I can certainly see problems if the
latter is the situation.

And more importantly, emphasis should be put on training drivers who do not understand that bike lanes are in fact traffic lanes and should be treated like traffic lanes. Many problems would be solved if motorists thought of bike lanes as the right-right lane.

Let's be honest: It's pretty hard to treat a bike lane as a travel lane.
You have a "straight ahead" lane placed to the right of a "you may turn
right" lane. So a right turning driver is supposed to twist around and
try to see in his blind spot, to be sure no bicyclist is going to go
straight as the motorist turns right. Given that bicyclists may be
coming at 20 mph, and may even be "protected" (AKA "hidden") by parked
cars, that's no easy task.

How many motor vehicle lanes can you list where a straight ahead lane is
placed to the right of a right turn lane? Ever see that on a freeway?
"Left Lane Exit Right"?

There are ways of avoiding that geometry. There are ways of sometimes
dissuading the motorist if you're unavoidably in that situation. There
are ways of evading the crash if it all goes wrong. Those are the sorts
of things taught in these sorts of classes.

But you obviously didn't know that.

I would assume as much. It would be like going to a driver's ed class where they didn't teach you basic defensive driving.

But you derided the class as just riding around cones in a parking lot.
Reacting to motorist mistakes (and even better, helping to prevent them
in the first place) is a big part of what's taught.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/7/2019 11:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2019 22:35:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

That rider was at the pet rock level. But "that situation" I referred to
is what's known as a Right Hook in the U.S. (or a left hook in Britain,
etc.) And it happens regularly, even to intelligent cyclists.
Intelligent but ignorant, that is.

It happens in part because bike lanes instruct cyclists to ride through
intersections to the right of vehicles that may turn right. That scheme
is one factor that sets up the conflict. Another is the meme that claims
a bicyclist must always be at the edge of the roadway - meaning a
cyclist must put himself in the same situation even without the paint
stripe telling him to.

I wonder. After all one can see quite a distance along most roads or
highways. If the bicyclist was even halfway alert why didn't he see
the vehicle turning into him?

First, I think the problem is rather rare on highways. I think it's much
more common in city or suburban streets. That's partly because of the
far greater opportunities for right turns, and partly the congestion and
visual clutter.

I've almost never had a motorist even attempt it, possibly because I do
tend to ride lane center. But I've described one time where on a
suburban street (two lanes plus center bi-directional turn lane) a
motorist came up from behind, moved into the center lane, and was
apparently going to try zooming past me and cutting right. I saw him,
glared, probably shook my head or waved him back, and he waited in that
left turn lane before turning right. But I must admit that if he had
chosen to do so, he could have cut me off and caused a crash. IOW, it
can happen even if you're looking around. You need to dissuade motorists
by using lane position.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/8/2019 9:08 AM, Ned Mantei wrote:
On 08-05-19 04:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:
There are ways of avoiding that geometry. There are ways of sometimes
dissuading the motorist if you're unavoidably in that situation. There
are ways of evading the crash if it all goes wrong. Those are the
sorts of things taught in these sorts of classes.

I know how to avoid getting caught by the "right hook". However, I'm not
sure what you were referring to with "evading the crash if it all goes
wrong". Could you please expand on that a bit? Maybe it's something I
already know, but might also be something that I *should* but don't
know. Thanks.

These classes do include parking lot drills of evasive maneuvers. One is
an emergency turn. Cyclists are given practice in turning as rapidly as
possible. It involves deliberate (and/or reflexive) countersteering,
plus learning a bit about how sharply you can turn without losing
traction. There are also exercises in extreme braking, again to help
learn how fast it's possible to stop.

I mentioned experienced cyclists who learned things they didn't know in
the classes. In particular, one of the most dedicated riders in our area
was really not competent at panic stops. One might say her decades of
riding proves that panic stops are rarely needed; but she did gain some
skill at using her brakes.


--
- Frank Krygowski