|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 12/25/2019 3:18 PM, Tosspot wrote: On 24/12/2019 15.41, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/24/2019 8:09 AM, Duane wrote: snip A tale of two Christians. True Christians don't claim to be perfect. If only I could tell the difference between true christians and false christians. Yep. And true vs. false Hindus, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Americans, Canadians... and Bicyclists. True Scotsmen, on the other hand, are immediately obvious. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/24/2019 6:01 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/24/2019 2:04 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 21:44:43 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:45:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 22:08:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/23/2019 7:33 PM, John B. wrote: Thus it would seem to behoove the cyclist, for his own protection, to avoid, in any way possible, contact with other traffic. So, ride in your basement on a wind trainer. Have at it, if that's all you can handle. But I feel sorry for you.. Insult if you chose but a bit more accurate reading would show that: "I ride on roads where traffic is *normally* moving at speeds of 100 KPH or faster..." A _perfectly_ accurate reading would show that I was talking about riding to church on Sunday morning, and dealing with one rude motorist. Nobody was going 100kph. Yet you advised "avoiding, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, contact with other traffic." If you meant physical contact, I suppose you might have a case. But in about five decades of riding, that's not been a problem (despite Sir's and you fears.) If you mean I should not have been on the street I was riding, I'm sorry, but that's nuts. I'm not going to ride only on segregated bike trails. Yes, it's conceivable that a motorist could try to murder me. But it's also conceivable that a car could crash into a house and knock a sleeping person out of bed. (We had one of those incidents on the news tonight.) It would be paranoid to give up road riding - or sleeping in bed - because of such a rare possibility. Frank, it is perfectly all right to froth at the mouth in fury but don't get it all over the screen so you can't see what the other guy said, before you post your insults. (It makes you look like a fool) Sorry, John, I'm not frothing. I'm not even angry. But I'm quite surprised that two purportedly avid cyclists think another cyclist should give away his legal rights if a motorist acts like an ass. Guys, grow a pair! - Frank Krygowski Should give away his legal rights.... Yes, it makes perfect sense. Or does it? I came across some data on vehicle - pedestrian collisions and while it isn't cyclists I suggest that it has some relationship as the cyclist has about as much protection in a collision as the pedestrian.. Remembering that I was referring in my post of cycling on a highway with motor vehicle traffic traveling at 100 kph, or faster, while I'm whizzing along at more or less 25 kph, a difference of about 75kph. The chart, published by the European Commission for Mobility and Transport (Road Safety) shows that the chance of death of a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling at 75 kph is ~98%. I suggest that the chances of death in a motor vehicle - bicycle collision at the same speed is very similar. Refusing not to give up one's "legal Rights" in conditions that offer a 98% chance of death hardly seems like a logical idea. The idea is to avoid the collision. The question is, what's the best way of avoiding the collision. Certainly I agree with your first 7 words. The remainder of your post is simply self justification. There are several schools of thought. The most common idea is to never ride a bicycle on a public road. Perhaps that's what you're advocating - although it's inconsistent with your posting here, and with your claimed habits. It's certainly incompatible with my life. As I previously wrote, "Remembering that I was referring in my post of cycling on a highway with motor vehicle traffic traveling at 100 kph, or faster, while I'm whizzing along at more or less 25 kph, a difference of about 75kph." Does that sound like "never ride a bicycle on a public road"? The second most common idea is to ride on the extreme edge of the road and/or its shoulder, even if it has gravel, bumps, broken glass, drain grates, cracks, etc. and even if doing so encourages motorists to pass leaving mere inches of clearance. That's the habit of every cyclist who kowtows to every motorist, and who thinks any toothless moron driving a beat up pickup deserves higher status than any bicyclist. They trust such a moron to accurately gauge where his right mirror is as said moron rushes home to watch Oprah. Which, I might point out, no one has mentioned except you. Is this another scare story to bolster your theories? The third idea is the one actually consistent with most American and European laws, and is taught in every cycling class curriculum I've encountered. That's to use one's legal right to the road by claiming the lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle. This is also the technique whose devotees say has changed their riding experience tremendously for the better. They say it has almost eliminated dangerously close passes and has added to their safety and riding pleasure. So you advocate simply riding out in front of traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster than you? No, John, I've never said anyone should "simply ride out in front of traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster." As in much of your post above, you are constructing straw man arguments. But most people can't seem to comprehend the verbiage of the laws, and almost nobody is interested in actually _learning_ about competent riding. That's because everyone already "knows" that they are wonderfully competent and have nothing more to learn. It's Dunning-Kruger at its finest. So, again, most people don't ride at all. And most of those who do cower as far to the edge as physically possible. They put up with vehicles passing inches from their elbow, and think "Oh, I hope none of those drivers twitches a couple inches toward the edge; because at their speed, there's a 98% chance they'll kill me." If that's how you like to ride, do so. But ISTM that if you want to argue about it, you should make your way through a proper cycling class first. Or at least read a good book on competent road cycling. Ah yes, And of course the class is teaching the correct information.... The Holy Roman Church taught that the sun rotated around the earth and justified it by quoting the Bible... until 1822 when The College of Cardinals state that the "publication of works treating of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted." That is nearly 2,000 years of teaching the wrong thing.... are your bicycle schools better? I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? -- - Frank Krygowski I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement. Up to half a year ago I had the urge sometimes to point out to people what they were doing wrong despite I never got a sensible reply or discussion as a result. I think the natural reaction of people when doing something wrong they blame the other guy. The last time a guy who stopped his car at a dangerous spot and opened his door in front of me. A curse escaped me when I just could go around his door. He came after me and right hooked me into the roadside and almost knocked me off my bike. I came home all ****ed up and it ruined my up to then pleasant ride. I promised myself I won't let that happen again. You can't discuss with idiots and I don't do that anymore. Lou |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:36:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 12/24/2019 6:01 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/24/2019 2:04 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 21:44:43 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:45:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 22:08:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/23/2019 7:33 PM, John B. wrote: Thus it would seem to behoove the cyclist, for his own protection, to avoid, in any way possible, contact with other traffic. So, ride in your basement on a wind trainer. Have at it, if that's all you can handle. But I feel sorry for you. Insult if you chose but a bit more accurate reading would show that: "I ride on roads where traffic is *normally* moving at speeds of 100 KPH or faster..." A _perfectly_ accurate reading would show that I was talking about riding to church on Sunday morning, and dealing with one rude motorist. Nobody was going 100kph. Yet you advised "avoiding, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, contact with other traffic." If you meant physical contact, I suppose you might have a case. But in about five decades of riding, that's not been a problem (despite Sir's and you fears.) If you mean I should not have been on the street I was riding, I'm sorry, but that's nuts. I'm not going to ride only on segregated bike trails. Yes, it's conceivable that a motorist could try to murder me. But it's also conceivable that a car could crash into a house and knock a sleeping person out of bed. (We had one of those incidents on the news tonight.) It would be paranoid to give up road riding - or sleeping in bed - because of such a rare possibility. Frank, it is perfectly all right to froth at the mouth in fury but don't get it all over the screen so you can't see what the other guy said, before you post your insults. (It makes you look like a fool) Sorry, John, I'm not frothing. I'm not even angry. But I'm quite surprised that two purportedly avid cyclists think another cyclist should give away his legal rights if a motorist acts like an ass. Guys, grow a pair! - Frank Krygowski Should give away his legal rights.... Yes, it makes perfect sense. Or does it? I came across some data on vehicle - pedestrian collisions and while it isn't cyclists I suggest that it has some relationship as the cyclist has about as much protection in a collision as the pedestrian. Remembering that I was referring in my post of cycling on a highway with motor vehicle traffic traveling at 100 kph, or faster, while I'm whizzing along at more or less 25 kph, a difference of about 75kph. The chart, published by the European Commission for Mobility and Transport (Road Safety) shows that the chance of death of a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling at 75 kph is ~98%. I suggest that the chances of death in a motor vehicle - bicycle collision at the same speed is very similar. Refusing not to give up one's "legal Rights" in conditions that offer a 98% chance of death hardly seems like a logical idea. The idea is to avoid the collision. The question is, what's the best way of avoiding the collision. Certainly I agree with your first 7 words. The remainder of your post is simply self justification. There are several schools of thought. The most common idea is to never ride a bicycle on a public road. Perhaps that's what you're advocating - although it's inconsistent with your posting here, and with your claimed habits. It's certainly incompatible with my life. As I previously wrote, "Remembering that I was referring in my post of cycling on a highway with motor vehicle traffic traveling at 100 kph, or faster, while I'm whizzing along at more or less 25 kph, a difference of about 75kph." Does that sound like "never ride a bicycle on a public road"? The second most common idea is to ride on the extreme edge of the road and/or its shoulder, even if it has gravel, bumps, broken glass, drain grates, cracks, etc. and even if doing so encourages motorists to pass leaving mere inches of clearance. That's the habit of every cyclist who kowtows to every motorist, and who thinks any toothless moron driving a beat up pickup deserves higher status than any bicyclist. They trust such a moron to accurately gauge where his right mirror is as said moron rushes home to watch Oprah. Which, I might point out, no one has mentioned except you. Is this another scare story to bolster your theories? The third idea is the one actually consistent with most American and European laws, and is taught in every cycling class curriculum I've encountered. That's to use one's legal right to the road by claiming the lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle. This is also the technique whose devotees say has changed their riding experience tremendously for the better. They say it has almost eliminated dangerously close passes and has added to their safety and riding pleasure. So you advocate simply riding out in front of traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster than you? No, John, I've never said anyone should "simply ride out in front of traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster." As in much of your post above, you are constructing straw man arguments. No. What you said was that one "use one's legal right to the road by claiming the lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle." So, what does one do Frank? Riding along with a stream of vehicles thundering past at 100 kph and the lane becomes too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle? And don't say that it doesn't happen. Within 10 km of my house I can show you two places, on the main highway, where 3 lanes suddenly becomes two lanes. Does one move to the center of the lane - right out in front of all those trucks? Does one head for the gutter as you so snidely refer to the edge of the road" Or does one just stop, get off the bike and walk? But most people can't seem to comprehend the verbiage of the laws, and almost nobody is interested in actually _learning_ about competent riding. That's because everyone already "knows" that they are wonderfully competent and have nothing more to learn. It's Dunning-Kruger at its finest. So, again, most people don't ride at all. And most of those who do cower as far to the edge as physically possible. They put up with vehicles passing inches from their elbow, and think "Oh, I hope none of those drivers twitches a couple inches toward the edge; because at their speed, there's a 98% chance they'll kill me." If that's how you like to ride, do so. But ISTM that if you want to argue about it, you should make your way through a proper cycling class first. Or at least read a good book on competent road cycling. Ah yes, And of course the class is teaching the correct information.... The Holy Roman Church taught that the sun rotated around the earth and justified it by quoting the Bible... until 1822 when The College of Cardinals state that the "publication of works treating of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted." That is nearly 2,000 years of teaching the wrong thing.... are your bicycle schools better? I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Nice try. You advance the theory that observation and logic apply and I simply pointed that for nearly 2,000 years the Holy Roman Church fiercely defended their creed that the sun went around the earth. And thus the question whether your teaching, today, may not be correct. After all in Victorian Times in England Medical journals were very concerned about how railway travel could cause "mania". Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? So you claim that bicycle courses are all perfect? While I have pointed out that the Church condemned what we now realize is the truth; that medical publications in 18th century England published articles concerning madness caused by riding on steam trains.... Are you sure that you are right? After all, I'm sure that the Church was equally certain that they were correct... and they could quote the Holy Bible to prove their assertion. The English medical fraternity obviously felt that they were correct when they published articles in their journals about railroad mania and now you believe that you are correct in claiming that your "bicycle schools" are correct. -- cheers, John B. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/26/2019 6:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:36:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/24/2019 6:01 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: The third idea is the one actually consistent with most American and European laws, and is taught in every cycling class curriculum I've encountered. That's to use one's legal right to the road by claiming the lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle. This is also the technique whose devotees say has changed their riding experience tremendously for the better. They say it has almost eliminated dangerously close passes and has added to their safety and riding pleasure. So you advocate simply riding out in front of traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster than you? No, John, I've never said anyone should "simply ride out in front of traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster." As in much of your post above, you are constructing straw man arguments. No. What you said was that one "use one's legal right to the road by claiming the lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle." So, what does one do Frank? Riding along with a stream of vehicles thundering past at 100 kph and the lane becomes too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle? What does one do? Well, I've explained this before, but I'm willing to explain it again. Please take notes so I can minimize further repetition. First, I think that roads with truly _continuous_ streams of 100kph traffic and lanes too narrow to safely share are best avoided for bicycling. I avoid them. Or rather, I would avoid them if I ever saw them. I don't know of any around here, other than freeways, and bicycling is illegal on our local freeways. Second, as I've always said, if a lane is wide enough to safely share, I share that lane. We can add more detail, but I want to make that clear because in the past, those arguing against me have conjured a related straw man argument. Let's not waste time with that again, OK? So what if a lane is too narrow to safely share, and it has 100 kph traffic? I do _not_ "simply ride out in front of traffic." To me, "ride out" implies changing position quickly, with no caution, no judgment, no negotiation. ("Ride out" is actually a name given to a common car-bike crash for kids, where they zoom out of a driveway directly into a car's path.) Normally I do as we did several times on today's ride. I wait to enter the road until there is sufficient clear space to enter safely. When I have a suitable opening, I enter and take my place at lane center. Car traffic most often travels in platoons, usually generated by traffic lights, so the wait is usually less than 30 seconds. Once I'm out there, I'm visible to the first driver of the next platoon. And since I'm typically right in the lane's center, it's obvious to that driver that they'll have to use the next lane to pass me. It's obvious even when they're far back. On today's ride, some of this happened on a four lane. In my mirror I could see motorists merging to the passing lane way, way back. None were delayed for more than a couple seconds. Why? Again, because my lane position made the necessity obvious from way, way back. On today's ride, some of this happened on two-lane ex-farm roads used as cut-throughs. (Some of this was at five o'clock, rush hour and sunset.) As usual, motorists waited until it was safe to use the oncoming lane for passing. There were no horn honks, no tailgating, no punishment passes. When it was clear, they just went around. (One guy gave a 1/10 second warning toot.) Now, a more difficult situation: What if I'm riding a busy road with a lane wide enough to share, but the lane narrows? What I normally do is negotiate my way to lane center in time to move left before the constriction. That negotiation involves looking back until I catch a motorist's eye (I use my mirror to help make my choice) as I signal my desire to move left. It almost always works well. I'll admit, though, that in my riding environment that usually happens on a road with a 40 MPH speed limit, not 100 kph. But I've done the same thing on those faster roads. The key is to make the move early enough, and to work with the gaps between platoons. Having said all that, there have been a few times (in almost 50 years) I've had to pull off the road and wait for a gap in traffic. It's been rare, but it's happened. Was all that understandable? Above all, I'm NOT going to ride on the very edge of pavement, or ride unpaved surfaces, because the traffic is heavy and the lane is too narrow to share. I've seen avid cyclists do that, and I've seen them nearly crash as a result. I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Nice try. You advance the theory that observation and logic apply and I simply pointed that for nearly 2,000 years the Holy Roman Church fiercely defended their creed that the sun went around the earth. And thus the question whether your teaching, today, may not be correct. After all in Victorian Times in England Medical journals were very concerned about how railway travel could cause "mania". And did the trains cause mania? No! And do we believe that today? No! Observation and science caused learning. But your bike thinking is stuck in Victorian times! Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? So you claim that bicycle courses are all perfect? Nowhere did I say that! But it's clear that I know much, much more about the content of those courses and the relevant books than you do. In other words, John, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, just for the fun of arguing. You're putting yourself in a bad position. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 4:22:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote: On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement. I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that doesn't mean they are. But you can't prescribe for them without knowing their circumstances, including applicable laws. Up to half a year ago I had the urge sometimes to point out to people what they were doing wrong despite I never got a sensible reply or discussion as a result. I think the natural reaction of people when doing something wrong they blame the other guy. The last time a guy who stopped his car at a dangerous spot and opened his door in front of me. A curse escaped me when I just could go around his door. He came after me and right hooked me into the roadside and almost knocked me off my bike. I came home all ****ed up and it ruined my up to then pleasant ride. I promised myself I won't let that happen again. You can't discuss with idiots and I don't do that anymore. I'd never say that confronting an idiot motorist is without risks. One very muscular, short-tempered friend of mine once followed an abusive motorist into a parking lot and got in a fight with him. My friend was jailed as a result. If a cyclist does choose to verbally confront an abusive idiot, I think it needs to be done with care and judgment - and perhaps with a good supply of luck. I can certainly understand people choosing to never, ever do that. Right, when someone threatens me, a drop down menu appears in my vision field populated with potential responses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUqpZgHiEE Hmmm. Let me think calmly and rationally about my response. But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk, or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely. Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride. -- Jay Beattie. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
jbeattie writes:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 4:22:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote: On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement. I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that doesn't mean they are. But you can't prescribe for them without knowing their circumstances, including applicable laws. Up to half a year ago I had the urge sometimes to point out to people what they were doing wrong despite I never got a sensible reply or discussion as a result. I think the natural reaction of people when doing something wrong they blame the other guy. The last time a guy who stopped his car at a dangerous spot and opened his door in front of me. A curse escaped me when I just could go around his door. He came after me and right hooked me into the roadside and almost knocked me off my bike. I came home all ****ed up and it ruined my up to then pleasant ride. I promised myself I won't let that happen again. You can't discuss with idiots and I don't do that anymore. I'd never say that confronting an idiot motorist is without risks. One very muscular, short-tempered friend of mine once followed an abusive motorist into a parking lot and got in a fight with him. My friend was jailed as a result. If a cyclist does choose to verbally confront an abusive idiot, I think it needs to be done with care and judgment - and perhaps with a good supply of luck. I can certainly understand people choosing to never, ever do that. Right, when someone threatens me, a drop down menu appears in my vision field populated with potential responses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUqpZgHiEE Hmmm. Let me think calmly and rationally about my response. But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk, or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely. Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride. Frank has gutters? We had to skulk in the poison ivy patches by the side of the road. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:01:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 12/26/2019 6:21 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:36:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/24/2019 6:01 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:24:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: The third idea is the one actually consistent with most American and European laws, and is taught in every cycling class curriculum I've encountered. That's to use one's legal right to the road by claiming the lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle. This is also the technique whose devotees say has changed their riding experience tremendously for the better. They say it has almost eliminated dangerously close passes and has added to their safety and riding pleasure. So you advocate simply riding out in front of traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster than you? No, John, I've never said anyone should "simply ride out in front of traffic that is traveling 75 kph faster." As in much of your post above, you are constructing straw man arguments. No. What you said was that one "use one's legal right to the road by claiming the lane whenever a lane is too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle." So, what does one do Frank? Riding along with a stream of vehicles thundering past at 100 kph and the lane becomes too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle? What does one do? Well, I've explained this before, but I'm willing to explain it again. Please take notes so I can minimize further repetition. First, I think that roads with truly _continuous_ streams of 100kph traffic and lanes too narrow to safely share are best avoided for bicycling. I avoid them. Or rather, I would avoid them if I ever saw them. I don't know of any around here, other than freeways, and bicycling is illegal on our local freeways. Yes, we have limited access highways here but they are closed to bicycles... and motorcycles. No, I was talking about major highways, for instance from Bangkok to Korat (the second largest city in the Kingdom) and than turns north to the border. Essentially it is a take it or leave it choice. You want to go to Korat then you take the road. Second, as I've always said, if a lane is wide enough to safely share, I share that lane. We can add more detail, but I want to make that clear because in the past, those arguing against me have conjured a related straw man argument. Let's not waste time with that again, OK? So what if a lane is too narrow to safely share, and it has 100 kph traffic? I do _not_ "simply ride out in front of traffic." To me, "ride out" implies changing position quickly, with no caution, no judgment, no negotiation. ("Ride out" is actually a name given to a common car-bike crash for kids, where they zoom out of a driveway directly into a car's path.) Frank, over the years you have used the term "take the lane" and "seize the lane" which rather implies that you seize, or "grab" in common usage, control of the lane. Normally I do as we did several times on today's ride. I wait to enter the road until there is sufficient clear space to enter safely. When I have a suitable opening, I enter and take my place at lane center. Car traffic most often travels in platoons, usually generated by traffic lights, so the wait is usually less than 30 seconds. Once I'm out there, I'm visible to the first driver of the next platoon. And since I'm typically right in the lane's center, it's obvious to that driver that they'll have to use the next lane to pass me. It's obvious even when they're far back. On today's ride, some of this happened on a four lane. In my mirror I could see motorists merging to the passing lane way, way back. None were delayed for more than a couple seconds. Why? Again, because my lane position made the necessity obvious from way, way back. On today's ride, some of this happened on two-lane ex-farm roads used as cut-throughs. (Some of this was at five o'clock, rush hour and sunset.) As usual, motorists waited until it was safe to use the oncoming lane for passing. There were no horn honks, no tailgating, no punishment passes. When it was clear, they just went around. (One guy gave a 1/10 second warning toot.) Now, a more difficult situation: What if I'm riding a busy road with a lane wide enough to share, but the lane narrows? What I normally do is negotiate my way to lane center in time to move left before the constriction. That negotiation involves looking back until I catch a motorist's eye (I use my mirror to help make my choice) as I signal my desire to move left. It almost always works well. I'll admit, though, that in my riding environment that usually happens on a road with a 40 MPH speed limit, not 100 kph. But I've done the same thing on those faster roads. The key is to make the move early enough, and to work with the gaps between platoons. Having said all that, there have been a few times (in almost 50 years) I've had to pull off the road and wait for a gap in traffic. It's been rare, but it's happened. Was all that understandable? Yup. and (at least from your description) you are riding on roads with far less traffic density than I do and equating your experiences to other's. Then you have mentioned your "legal rights" apparently to ride in the middle of the lane but from what I read that is in Ohio, and not the rest of the world. For instance, here, in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, to my knowledge a bicycle is required by law to ride "on the side of the road". Which, before you start your "gutter bunny" sarcasm simply means, and I did check this with my Cop neighbor, that you will not impede faster traffic... like trucks busses and automobiles. Motorcycles are also required to ride on the side of the road :-) Above all, I'm NOT going to ride on the very edge of pavement, or ride unpaved surfaces, because the traffic is heavy and the lane is too narrow to share. I've seen avid cyclists do that, and I've seen them nearly crash as a result. Interesting. It appears more and more that you are discussing riding on 2nd, 3rd, class roads rather than on the major highways that I ride on. You continued avoidance of discussing how you ride in traffic that is traveling as much as four times your speed is also informative. It is becoming more and more obvious that you are applying your experiences riding on what appear to be secondary roads and attempting to equate that to conditions in the rest of the world. I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Nice try. You advance the theory that observation and logic apply and I simply pointed that for nearly 2,000 years the Holy Roman Church fiercely defended their creed that the sun went around the earth. And thus the question whether your teaching, today, may not be correct. After all in Victorian Times in England Medical journals were very concerned about how railway travel could cause "mania". And did the trains cause mania? No! And do we believe that today? No! Observation and science caused learning. But your bike thinking is stuck in Victorian times! No Frank, it was simply an example of how things that are believed to be true, and in the instance of the sun and earth, almost literally, The Word of God, are later to be found to be completely wrong, and posing the question of whether your courses are right or wrong. Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? So you claim that bicycle courses are all perfect? Nowhere did I say that! But it's clear that I know much, much more about the content of those courses and the relevant books than you do. Just exactly, and with the same blindness to any other view point, as the Roman Church when they convicted Galileo of Heresy. In modern USian terms, "My Way or the wrong way". Frank you are a bigot. bigot ~ noun 1. a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own In other words, John, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, just for the fun of arguing. You're putting yourself in a bad position. -- cheers, John B. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/26/2019 8:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 4:22:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote: On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your argument entirely backwards. Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on sidewalks, and/or in the gutter. But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they operate as legal vehicle operators. You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science and learning. Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing based on your own assumptions? I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement. I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that doesn't mean they are. But you can't prescribe for them without knowing their circumstances, including applicable laws. sigh Well, that pretty much throws out the concept of education, doesn't it? Look, there are variations in state laws regarding bicycles, but the variations tend to be in the details. For example, AFAIK every state either defines a bicycle as a legal vehicle or else says bicyclists have all the rights of vehicle operators. It's not like Oregon has riders riding on the right and Washington State has riders facing traffic. Your friend (or at least, acquaintance) Bob Mionske wrote a book titled _Bicycling & the Law_. John Franklin wrote _Cyclecraft_. The LAB runs cycling classes, and the American Bicycle Education Association runs somewhat better ones. These people don't do a separate version for every American cyclist. If a cyclist does choose to verbally confront an abusive idiot, I think it needs to be done with care and judgment - and perhaps with a good supply of luck. I can certainly understand people choosing to never, ever do that. Right, when someone threatens me, a drop down menu appears in my vision field populated with potential responses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUqpZgHiEE Hmmm. Let me think calmly and rationally about my response. We're not cyborgs, but normal people still have inborn ability to judge strategies in personal interactions. Some are better at this than others, and mistakes sometimes occur. But almost all people find ways to get along acceptably almost all the time. But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk, or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely. Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride. Have you never seen a bicyclist riding in a gutter? Or riding within inches of a road's edge? Or riding _off_ the road's edge, in dirt or grass because a car was coming? I can't believe that. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Self Driving Vehicles
On 12/26/2019 9:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:01:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/26/2019 6:21 PM, John B. wrote: So, what does one do Frank? Riding along with a stream of vehicles thundering past at 100 kph and the lane becomes too narrow to be safely shared with a motor vehicle? What does one do? Well, I've explained this before, but I'm willing to explain it again. Please take notes so I can minimize further repetition. First, I think that roads with truly _continuous_ streams of 100kph traffic and lanes too narrow to safely share are best avoided for bicycling. I avoid them. Or rather, I would avoid them if I ever saw them. I don't know of any around here, other than freeways, and bicycling is illegal on our local freeways. Second, as I've always said, if a lane is wide enough to safely share, I share that lane. We can add more detail, but I want to make that clear because in the past, those arguing against me have conjured a related straw man argument. Let's not waste time with that again, OK? So what if a lane is too narrow to safely share, and it has 100 kph traffic? I do _not_ "simply ride out in front of traffic." To me, "ride out" implies changing position quickly, with no caution, no judgment, no negotiation. ("Ride out" is actually a name given to a common car-bike crash for kids, where they zoom out of a driveway directly into a car's path.) Frank, over the years you have used the term "take the lane" and "seize the lane" which rather implies that you seize, or "grab" in common usage, control of the lane. You're paying more attention to your own visualizations than to my detailed descriptions. And of course, you're not bothering to check what the curricula I describe actually teach. You need to do more reading. You're arguing from a position of ignorance, just because you like arguing. It makes you look less than wise. Normally I do as we did several times on today's ride. I wait to enter the road until there is sufficient clear space to enter safely. When I have a suitable opening, I enter and take my place at lane center. Car traffic most often travels in platoons, usually generated by traffic lights, so the wait is usually less than 30 seconds. Once I'm out there, I'm visible to the first driver of the next platoon. And since I'm typically right in the lane's center, it's obvious to that driver that they'll have to use the next lane to pass me. It's obvious even when they're far back. On today's ride, some of this happened on a four lane. In my mirror I could see motorists merging to the passing lane way, way back. None were delayed for more than a couple seconds. Why? Again, because my lane position made the necessity obvious from way, way back. On today's ride, some of this happened on two-lane ex-farm roads used as cut-throughs. (Some of this was at five o'clock, rush hour and sunset.) As usual, motorists waited until it was safe to use the oncoming lane for passing. There were no horn honks, no tailgating, no punishment passes. When it was clear, they just went around. (One guy gave a 1/10 second warning toot.) Now, a more difficult situation: What if I'm riding a busy road with a lane wide enough to share, but the lane narrows? What I normally do is negotiate my way to lane center in time to move left before the constriction. That negotiation involves looking back until I catch a motorist's eye (I use my mirror to help make my choice) as I signal my desire to move left. It almost always works well. I'll admit, though, that in my riding environment that usually happens on a road with a 40 MPH speed limit, not 100 kph. But I've done the same thing on those faster roads. The key is to make the move early enough, and to work with the gaps between platoons. Having said all that, there have been a few times (in almost 50 years) I've had to pull off the road and wait for a gap in traffic. It's been rare, but it's happened. Was all that understandable? Yup. and (at least from your description) you are riding on roads with far less traffic density than I do... Which is entirely possible. and equating your experiences to other's. Then you have mentioned your "legal rights" apparently to ride in the middle of the lane but from what I read that is in Ohio, and not the rest of the world. The techniques I've described are applicable in the U.S., Canada, Britain, the European Union and probably elsewhere. Differences, if they exist for those countries, are minor. In fact, if you look back, you'll see I specified these techniques were "actually consistent with most American and European laws". If you're going to say I'm wrong, you should at least have the courtesy to say "Well, you're wrong regarding Malaysia" - IOW, I'm wrong regarding something I didn't even address. For instance, here, in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, to my knowledge a bicycle is required by law to ride "on the side of the road". Which, before you start your "gutter bunny" sarcasm simply means, and I did check this with my Cop neighbor, that you will not impede faster traffic... like trucks busses and automobiles. Motorcycles are also required to ride on the side of the road :-) Above all, I'm NOT going to ride on the very edge of pavement, or ride unpaved surfaces, because the traffic is heavy and the lane is too narrow to share. I've seen avid cyclists do that, and I've seen them nearly crash as a result. Interesting. It appears more and more that you are discussing riding on 2nd, 3rd, class roads rather than on the major highways that I ride on. Yes, I'm discussing riding in conditions common for American and European cyclists. You continued avoidance of discussing how you ride in traffic that is traveling as much as four times your speed is also informative. It is becoming more and more obvious that you are applying your experiences riding on what appear to be secondary roads and attempting to equate that to conditions in the rest of the world. Your "secondary roads" is a mistake. If I ride to the hardware store, it's on a U.S highway, a four lane that carries up to 40,000 cars per day. I regularly ride state highways north and south out of this village. I ride in and through the very center of the metro area's biggest city. And I've ridden in 47 states so far, on every style of road including freeways. I choose quieter roads much of the time, just as many cyclists. I ride major roads when it's necessary or more convenient. And did the trains cause mania? No! And do we believe that today? No! Observation and science caused learning. But your bike thinking is stuck in Victorian times! No Frank, it was simply an example of how things that are believed to be true, and in the instance of the sun and earth, almost literally, The Word of God, are later to be found to be completely wrong, and posing the question of whether your courses are right or wrong. And how do we decide, John? Do we have a mechanism? Or are you one of those guys who say "All is mystery, nothing can be known, there is no truth, ommmmmmmm..." Frank you are a bigot. At the moment, at least, you are a troll. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Slow vehicles should give way to faster vehicles | Simon Jester | UK | 3 | May 20th 18 05:17 PM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | donquijote1954 | General | 278 | December 30th 07 12:12 AM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | John Everett | Social Issues | 63 | December 28th 07 03:21 AM |
Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving? | Jack May | Rides | 102 | December 21st 07 03:10 AM |
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge | Toby Sleigh | UK | 8 | March 17th 07 10:12 AM |