Self Driving Vehicles

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:42:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/27/2019 12:45 AM, John B. wrote:
Now you are telling me that ... if I only read your book I would know the truth,

But how do we know that next year someone else won't write a book and
prove that your book is wrong?

OH! That's right! Frank's book couldn't possible be in error.

Let's try this: First, read _Street Smarts_ by John Allen. It's only 50
pages or so. Take notes as you do. Surely you can manage that?

Then read _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. It's longer, and feel free to
speed through the parts that go into too much detail for you. Again,
take notes. This shouldn't be hard. You claim to be a bicyclist, so why
not read a book that is intended to make bicycling better for you?

Next, come back here and tell me which parts of those books you think
are wrong. (And it would be better if you distinguished what was wrong
for Malaysia from what you thought was wrong for, say, U.S. riding. Be
specific.)

This would be a lot more productive than your vague assertions that a
book you had never read might be wrong.

Of course, I can't force you to do the above. But until you do, you're
certainly arguing out of ignorance. At best, that's a waste of our time.

Hmmm, do I really need a book? Will a book really make me a better and
safer cyclist? I ask as I've been riding since I was 12 years old. Not
admittedly every day, but certainly at least once a year which seems
to be the criteria for being a cyclist, and I've ridden in several
states in the U.S. and just about every country in East Asia and
currently in Thailand which annually is neck in neck for leader in
the world record for road accidents. And in that entire period, which
I might comment spans 75 years, I have never come close to hitting, or
being hit by, a motor vehicle.

And, no I am not trying to infer that I know everything that there is
to know about bicycles but I do know enough to have ridden for 75
years without hitting, or being hit, by a motor vehicle... or a team
and wagon for that matter.

Now tell me Frank, what is reading your little book going to do for
me? Were your books written by people with more experience than me?
Really old geezers, maybe been riding for a hundred years?

Tell me Frank, what secret and mystic information will your book(s)
will reveal?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 12/27/2019 6:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/27/2019 3:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have
people who argue against it.


No one is 'against education' but many people see a line between actual
education and indoctrination. Madrassas do their version of 'education'
to inflict on the earth more jihadis. Defend that!

Especially as to riding bicycles on public roads, many parse situational
technique from categorical dogma.

Again, I think one needs to take the course to know what's in it. I'm
not aware of any cycling course that says "Take the lane ALL THE TIME,
no matter what." I don't do that, and never said I did.

There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride lane center.
There are other times and other places where that's ridiculous and
possibly suicidal.

And so, yet again: 10 foot lane, 8.5 foot truck. What do _you_ do?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/27/2019 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:42:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/27/2019 12:45 AM, John B. wrote:
Now you are telling me that ... if I only read your book I would know the truth,

But how do we know that next year someone else won't write a book and
prove that your book is wrong?

OH! That's right! Frank's book couldn't possible be in error.

Let's try this: First, read _Street Smarts_ by John Allen. It's only 50
pages or so. Take notes as you do. Surely you can manage that?

Then read _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. It's longer, and feel free to
speed through the parts that go into too much detail for you. Again,
take notes. This shouldn't be hard. You claim to be a bicyclist, so why
not read a book that is intended to make bicycling better for you?

Next, come back here and tell me which parts of those books you think
are wrong. (And it would be better if you distinguished what was wrong
for Malaysia from what you thought was wrong for, say, U.S. riding. Be
specific.)

This would be a lot more productive than your vague assertions that a
book you had never read might be wrong.

Of course, I can't force you to do the above. But until you do, you're
certainly arguing out of ignorance. At best, that's a waste of our time.

Hmmm, do I really need a book? Will a book really make me a better and
safer cyclist? I ask as I've been riding since I was 12 years old. Not
admittedly every day, but certainly at least once a year which seems
to be the criteria for being a cyclist, and I've ridden in several
states in the U.S. and just about every country in East Asia and
currently in Thailand which annually is neck in neck for leader in
the world record for road accidents. And in that entire period, which
I might comment spans 75 years, I have never come close to hitting, or
being hit by, a motor vehicle.

And, no I am not trying to infer that I know everything that there is
to know about bicycles but I do know enough to have ridden for 75
years without hitting, or being hit, by a motor vehicle... or a team
and wagon for that matter.

Now tell me Frank, what is reading your little book going to do for
me? Were your books written by people with more experience than me?
Really old geezers, maybe been riding for a hundred years?

Tell me Frank, what secret and mystic information will your book(s)
will reveal?

Perhaps you might re-read the paragraphs I wrote above. I never claimed
you had a bad crash rate, and I didn't say reading a relevant book would
reduce your crash rate. (And I can accept that you don't crash, unlike
some others that have posted here. We're similar that way.)

But you were claiming that the books I've mentioned could be terribly
wrong. You did that based on pure speculation, despite not having read
the books.

I said that if you _do_ read the books, you might be able to discuss (or
argue) specific points they contain. I said it would be a lot more
productive than the uninformed speculation that you've been doing.

It's still true. I think you should at least get enough background
knowledge so you aren't arguing from a position of ignorance.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:15:27 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Speaking of local differences: That may be another Portland weirdness.
(My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper sticker.) I don't ever
remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for anything I've
done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?") In fact, when
I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to become a certified
cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for suggestions for
improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride closer to the center
of the lane.")

Extra-stringent road test? Did you have to pop wheelies and juggle? Did you get a badge?

Yes, it was extra stringent. Since the test was to qualify to become a
certified instructor, there were elements that were beyond what a normal
student would be asked to do. In a similar way, I believe to qualify as
a law professor, you have to have proven you know more than a law
student. No?

Well, what extraordinary things were you expected to do? Ride no-hands? Signal with both hands at the same time. Yell "on your right" in six different languages? How complicated could it be?

Did I get badge? I'm looking at an ancient embroidered patch that says
"Effective Cyclist Instructor, League of American Wheelmen." I need to
sew it on my current saddlebag.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments.

I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom. And I don't
consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper behavior. Does a
Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a bulletproof vest?


The comments are just illustrative of what certain motorists think. If you pull Defective Cycling moves around some people, you'll get flattened. So maybe you don't take the lane in the pin-head region of East Toadsuck.

So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot lane in East
Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from behind you, exactly what
do _you_ do?

Depends on the road, traffic and speed of the truck. If I'm on an open section being approached by a truck, I'll stay AFRAP and hold a straight line. The truck will cross the center line and pass me. If I'm in the middle of the road, it will pass me closely, honk and spew a cloud of diesel. If its tight quarters because of oncoming traffic or road conditions, I'll take the road depending on the speed and distance of the truck, among other things. That's the law. Cyclecrap says that "primary position" is the default position which is against the law much of the time, unnecessary most of the time and dangerous some times. It's like your instructor telling you that you were not in the middle of the road enough. That's dopey and illegal assuming you didn't need to take the road to prevent unsafe passing.


Do you really stop and get off the road? If so, that's amazing. Do you
do what most (even) avid cyclists do, which is ride right at the
pavement edge and hope Mr. Toadsuck doesn't misjudge where his right
mirror is? If that's what you do, you need to take a class, whether you
believe it or not. I'm serious.

Maybe you don't ride through certain neighborhoods at night, etc., etc.

Yes, when I lived down south I was told that. "Don't ride home past that
bar at night." Because the guys that hung out there were (shudder!)
black. Well, I rode past the bar anyway. Yes, the place looked a little
rowdy. No, I never got a bit of trouble.

Ditto for the black neighborhood immediately next to us. The white boys
in big pickup trucks stayed out of it. This white guy on a bicycle rode
through with never a problem. I used to occasionally stop at the house
of an old black janitor I was friends with.

Up here, one of my colleagues said he wouldn't even stop for traffic
lights while driving his car home from the university at night. Yet I
rode by bike for decades with never a problem.

All this doesn't mean there aren't bad neighborhoods. But I think a lot
of fear is senseless paranoia.

Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them.

Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who bragged about zooming
on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps? Who bragged
about riding drunk?

Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to time - who claims
that California law says you may never move away from the edge of the road?

Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride without a marine
strobe on the back of your bike?

We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was not his fault
that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone of a line of
stopped cars, he suffered a crash.

You have to be careful in door zones, but primary fault is on the car. https://www.tcnf.legal/car-doored-again/ I ride in the door zone because the only other option is sitting in traffic or splitting lanes, which is illegal in Oregon.

If you want to ride in a door zone, have at it (although I don't). It's
not impossible to do safely. However, the guy who posted here described
doing it at speed, something like 20 mph, and paid for it. I'd say
anything over 5 mph is taking a foolish risk.

And about sitting in traffic: Especially now that I'm retired, my riding
has only a few intersections where I might routinely miss a green light
cycle and have to wait in traffic. Yes, I could avoid that by passing
waiting cars and getting to the front of the line. But I've almost never
done that. Are we supposed to tell motorists to be patient about bikes,
while we're impatient about cars? I take my place in line. It's almost
never more than two minutes delay. What am I going to accomplish with
two extra minutes?

We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk of getting
brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled roadway.

Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent than the
average bike rider. They're probably more competent than the typical
avid cyclist.

Don't tell me that education isn't necessary.

So is flexibility and common sense.

I have never said that those are bad. I think, like John, you're arguing
against what you imagine, rather than what I've actually said.


And most of the education you need is available in the bicyclist's handbook, at least in Oregon. https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs...ist-Manual.pdf It's not rocket science, not even vinegar and baking soda rocket science.

Um... did you even read that? How about page 4? Page 5? You've been
arguing against what it says.

Nope. Its the Officious Cycling people who preach Position One as the "default position." The ODOT manual tracks Oregon law. AFRAP unless unsafe or necessary to prevent close passing.

I don't doubt that there are other sources of good information. But I do
believe that most cyclists never seek out any such information, and
their behavior proves that.

Also, those who take a class will practice things like emergency hazard
avoidance and trickier on-road situations - things like complicated
intersections, freeway ramp merges, and maybe even dealing with some of
the green nonsense Portland sprays on its streets.

Wow, that is totally so next level stuff. Complicated intersection? Are they somehow more complicated for bicycles than for cars? I guess I need to take the class to be able to spot a complicated intersection.

This was my complicated intersection today: https://tinyurl.com/wpo4qu9 You have to keep track of who got there first, and there are nine relevant traffic lanes. Ah screw it, I'm going. From the air: https://tinyurl.com/vqmz2e5 I ride through there a lot and would like a patch or extra credit or a merit badge. Can I apply for class credit? Same goes with daily crossing on-ramps and riding on that green nonsense in Portland -- and extra, extra credit for riding over that button surface plastic transition strip they use all over the place. That's like banana peels.



I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have people who
argue against it.

I don't argue against education. I'm just tired of insufferable know-it-alls and ideologues. If it isn't the law, then its just opinion.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:17:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/27/2019 3:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Speaking of local differences: That may be another
Portland weirdness.
(My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper
sticker.) I don't ever
remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for
anything I've
done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?")
In fact, when
I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to
become a certified
cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for
suggestions for
improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride
closer to the center
of the lane.")

Extra-stringent road test? Did you have to pop wheelies
and juggle? Did you get a badge?

Yes, it was extra stringent. Since the test was to qualify
to become a certified instructor, there were elements that
were beyond what a normal student would be asked to do. In a
similar way, I believe to qualify as a law professor, you
have to have proven you know more than a law student. No?

Did I get badge? I'm looking at an ancient embroidered patch
that says "Effective Cyclist Instructor, League of American
Wheelmen." I need to sew it on my current saddlebag.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the
comments.

I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom.
And I don't
consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper
behavior. Does a
Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a
bulletproof vest?


The comments are just illustrative of what certain
motorists think. If you pull Defective Cycling moves
around some people, you'll get flattened. So maybe you
don't take the lane in the pin-head region of East Toadsuck.

So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot
lane in East Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from
behind you, exactly what do _you_ do?

Do you really stop and get off the road? If so, that's
amazing. Do you do what most (even) avid cyclists do, which
is ride right at the pavement edge and hope Mr. Toadsuck
doesn't misjudge where his right mirror is? If that's what
you do, you need to take a class, whether you believe it or
not. I'm serious.

Maybe you don't ride through certain neighborhoods at
night, etc., etc.

Yes, when I lived down south I was told that. "Don't ride
home past that bar at night." Because the guys that hung out
there were (shudder!) black. Well, I rode past the bar
anyway. Yes, the place looked a little rowdy. No, I never
got a bit of trouble.

Ditto for the black neighborhood immediately next to us. The
white boys in big pickup trucks stayed out of it. This white
guy on a bicycle rode through with never a problem. I used
to occasionally stop at the house of an old black janitor I
was friends with.

Up here, one of my colleagues said he wouldn't even stop for
traffic lights while driving his car home from the
university at night. Yet I rode by bike for decades with
never a problem.

All this doesn't mean there aren't bad neighborhoods. But I
think a lot of fear is senseless paranoia.

Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust
that others on this NG know their localities better than
I do and would not presume to lecture them.

Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who
bragged about zooming
on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps?
Who bragged
about riding drunk?

Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to
time - who claims
that California law says you may never move away from the
edge of the road?

Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride
without a marine
strobe on the back of your bike?

We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was
not his fault
that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone
of a line of
stopped cars, he suffered a crash.

You have to be careful in door zones, but primary fault is
on the car. https://www.tcnf.legal/car-doored-again/ I
ride in the door zone because the only other option is
sitting in traffic or splitting lanes, which is illegal in
Oregon.

If you want to ride in a door zone, have at it (although I
don't). It's not impossible to do safely. However, the guy
who posted here described doing it at speed, something like
20 mph, and paid for it. I'd say anything over 5 mph is
taking a foolish risk.

And about sitting in traffic: Especially now that I'm
retired, my riding has only a few intersections where I
might routinely miss a green light cycle and have to wait in
traffic. Yes, I could avoid that by passing waiting cars and
getting to the front of the line. But I've almost never done
that. Are we supposed to tell motorists to be patient about
bikes, while we're impatient about cars? I take my place in
line. It's almost never more than two minutes delay. What am
I going to accomplish with two extra minutes?

We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk
of getting
brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled
roadway.

Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent
than the
average bike rider. They're probably more competent than
the typical
avid cyclist.

Don't tell me that education isn't necessary.

So is flexibility and common sense.

I have never said that those are bad. I think, like John,
you're arguing against what you imagine, rather than what
I've actually said.


And most of the education you need is available in the
bicyclist's handbook, at least in Oregon.
https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs...ist-Manual.pdf
It's not rocket science, not even vinegar and baking soda
rocket science.

Um... did you even read that? How about page 4? Page 5?
You've been arguing against what it says.

I don't doubt that there are other sources of good
information. But I do believe that most cyclists never seek
out any such information, and their behavior proves that.

Also, those who take a class will practice things like
emergency hazard avoidance and trickier on-road situations -
things like complicated intersections, freeway ramp merges,
and maybe even dealing with some of the green nonsense
Portland sprays on its streets.

I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have
people who argue against it.


No one is 'against education' but many people see a line
between actual education and indoctrination. Madrassas do
their version of 'education' to inflict on the earth more
jihadis. Defend that!

I would quibble a bit about your definition of a madrasa creating
jihadis. "Madrasa" is simply the Arabic word for "school" and in
modern usage denotes a school that teaches Islamic theology and
religious law as well as more mundane subjects.
While a jihadi may be taught by a madrasa it is not necessarily true
that madrasas teach only jihadi :-)

As Sun Tzu said, know your enemy....

Especially as to riding bicycles on public roads, many parse
situational technique from categorical dogma.

There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride
lane center. There are other times and other places where
that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 12/27/2019 5:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 6:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/27/2019 3:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have
people who argue against it.


No one is 'against education' but many people see a line
between actual education and indoctrination. Madrassas do
their version of 'education' to inflict on the earth more
jihadis. Defend that!

Especially as to riding bicycles on public roads, many
parse situational technique from categorical dogma.

Again, I think one needs to take the course to know what's
in it. I'm not aware of any cycling course that says "Take
the lane ALL THE TIME, no matter what." I don't do that, and
never said I did.

There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride
lane center. There are other times and other places where
that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal.

And so, yet again: 10 foot lane, 8.5 foot truck. What do
_you_ do?



Bail out, jump up over the curb.
I have plenty enough steel bits in my bones already.

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

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 18:45:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/27/2019 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:42:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/27/2019 12:45 AM, John B. wrote:
Now you are telling me that ... if I only read your book I would know the truth,

But how do we know that next year someone else won't write a book and
prove that your book is wrong?

OH! That's right! Frank's book couldn't possible be in error.

Let's try this: First, read _Street Smarts_ by John Allen. It's only 50
pages or so. Take notes as you do. Surely you can manage that?

Then read _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. It's longer, and feel free to
speed through the parts that go into too much detail for you. Again,
take notes. This shouldn't be hard. You claim to be a bicyclist, so why
not read a book that is intended to make bicycling better for you?

Next, come back here and tell me which parts of those books you think
are wrong. (And it would be better if you distinguished what was wrong
for Malaysia from what you thought was wrong for, say, U.S. riding. Be
specific.)

This would be a lot more productive than your vague assertions that a
book you had never read might be wrong.

Of course, I can't force you to do the above. But until you do, you're
certainly arguing out of ignorance. At best, that's a waste of our time.

Hmmm, do I really need a book? Will a book really make me a better and
safer cyclist? I ask as I've been riding since I was 12 years old. Not
admittedly every day, but certainly at least once a year which seems
to be the criteria for being a cyclist, and I've ridden in several
states in the U.S. and just about every country in East Asia and
currently in Thailand which annually is neck in neck for leader in
the world record for road accidents. And in that entire period, which
I might comment spans 75 years, I have never come close to hitting, or
being hit by, a motor vehicle.

And, no I am not trying to infer that I know everything that there is
to know about bicycles but I do know enough to have ridden for 75
years without hitting, or being hit, by a motor vehicle... or a team
and wagon for that matter.

Now tell me Frank, what is reading your little book going to do for
me? Were your books written by people with more experience than me?
Really old geezers, maybe been riding for a hundred years?

Tell me Frank, what secret and mystic information will your book(s)
will reveal?

Perhaps you might re-read the paragraphs I wrote above. I never claimed
you had a bad crash rate, and I didn't say reading a relevant book would
reduce your crash rate. (And I can accept that you don't crash, unlike
some others that have posted here. We're similar that way.)

But you were claiming that the books I've mentioned could be terribly
wrong. You did that based on pure speculation, despite not having read
the books.

You are correct, in essence, although as I pointed out, even the Holy
Bible was later, perhaps 2,000 years later, was determined to be
incorrect, in part.

So, a book held to be holy and containing the words of God, may be
found incorrect while you seem to be asserting that your book(s)
contain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help
you God) and can never be challenged.

That is a rather arrogant attitude, isn't it?

But then, you have argued that bicycle paths don't improve safety but
the Dutch, who have been building bicycle paths since 1890's, claim
that, because of the separation of bicycle and motor vehicle traffic,
bicycle paths make Holland is the most bicycle safe country in the
world...


I said that if you _do_ read the books, you might be able to discuss (or
argue) specific points they contain. I said it would be a lot more
productive than the uninformed speculation that you've been doing.

It's still true. I think you should at least get enough background
knowledge so you aren't arguing from a position of ignorance.

Well yes, perhaps I am ignorant.... but I'm smart enough to see the
danger in riding out in front of traffic traveling at four times the
speed that I can ride on a bicycle.

So lets leave it at that.
You appear to firmly believe that the way to ride a bike safely is to
ride out in front of traffic traveling four times your speed.

While I as firmly believe that is a totally stupid thing to do.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:15:27 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote Jay Beattie, and attorney:

So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot lane in East
Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from behind you, exactly what
do _you_ do?

I dunno what Jay would do, but me, I'd stop my bike in the middle of the lane, pull my tape measure from my saddle bag, and measure the width of the lane precisely so that my beneficiaries can have the exact numbers to the satisfaction of even Krygowski for when they have to claim compensation from the truck driver who ran me over.

Life has been so much easier since I switched over to Effective Cycling.

Andre Jute
Not *that* shaggy, sir!

On 12/27/2019 8:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/27/2019 5:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 6:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/27/2019 3:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have
people who argue against it.


No one is 'against education' but many people see a line
between actual education and indoctrination. Madrassas do
their version of 'education' to inflict on the earth more
jihadis. Defend that!

Especially as to riding bicycles on public roads, many
parse situational technique from categorical dogma.

Again, I think one needs to take the course to know what's
in it. I'm not aware of any cycling course that says "Take
the lane ALL THE TIME, no matter what." I don't do that, and
never said I did.

There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride
lane center. There are other times and other places where
that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal.

And so, yet again: 10 foot lane, 8.5 foot truck. What do
_you_ do?



Bail out, jump up over the curb.
I have plenty enough steel bits in my bones already.

OK. I've never had to do that. And my bones are intact.

I once posted here an account of seeing a guy do essentially that. I was
driving west on a narrow two lane country road. A bicyclist on a road
bike was heading east, and a big pickup truck was coming up behind him.
It was obvious to me that if everyone maintained their speeds, we'd be
at the same location at the same time.

If I were on the bike, I would definitely have planted myself in the
lane's center; and based on many, many hundreds of times doing that, the
trucker would have slowed and waited until it was safe to pass.

What the cyclist did instead was ride off the road into the grass
alongside. The truck passed him with a couple feet of clearance at the
same moment I passed the truck.

Thing is, if there had been a hole, a boulder, a dropoff or anything
other than smooth grass, he might have fallen directly under the truck's
wheels. To me, his move looked far, far more dangerous than taking the
lane.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 3:42:15 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote to Slow Johnny:

Let's try this: First, read _Street Smarts_ by John Allen. It's only 50
pages or so. Take notes as you do. Surely you can manage that?

"Take notes..." How patronising can even this klown Krygowski get? A lot mo "Surely you can manage that?" Krygowski is a self-parody of an objectionable asshole.

Then read _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. It's longer, and feel free to
speed through the parts that go into too much detail for you.

You're a patronizing asshole, too, Franki-boy.

Again, take notes.

How did we all just know that was coming?

This shouldn't be hard.

Once mo You're a patronizing asshole, Franki-boy.

You claim to be a bicyclist,

If you doubt that Slow Johnny is a bicyclist, Franki-boy, you should prove it, rather than just mouth off about it. Everyone else takes Slow Johnny at his own assessment of an insecure shortass -- and a cyclist.

so why not read a book that is intended to make bicycling better for you?

Because there are more ways than the book's to make cycling better? And it is patronising of you, Franki-boy, to assume that cycling is worse for him than for readers of this Cycling Koran, like you, dear Franki-boy.

Next, come back here and tell me which parts of those books you think
are wrong.

Does anyone still need to ask why Frank Krygowski was the most-hated man on campus -- with engineering students, not exactly the pick of the roost for sensitivity.

(And it would be better if you distinguished what was wrong
for Malaysia from what you thought was wrong for, say, U.S. riding. Be
specific.)

Patroniiiiizing. Again, asshole.

This would be a lot more productive than your vague assertions that a
book you had never read might be wrong.

Huh? It is generally accepted that any book may be wrong, and any theory, and any person. Why, on RBT the resident scum, including you, Franki-boy, has elevated that universal statement of truth to the obvious lie that each and every one of my books is 100% wrong, a triumph of mindless hatred over common sense and statistical verities.

Of course, I can't force you to do the above.

This letter from you certainly tries to bully poor Slow Johnny into doing what you, the great panjandrum Franki-boy, says.

But until you do, you're
certainly arguing out of ignorance.

`My money, in any argument with Franki-boy about cycling on dangerous roads, is on Slow Johnny. Frank-boy is such a self-absorbed, self-referencing psychopath (that's a professional judgement with a lot of support in my profession, vide Professor Hare) that he probably doesn't even know that Slow Johnny cycles in Thailand, which has some to the most dangerous roads even by SE Asian standards.

In addition, Franki-boy has a dumber-than-dumb track record of proceeding from the patently false assumption that all roads everywhere and anywhere in the world are just like the roads around his house in some downmarket suburb in Ohio.

At best, that's a waste of our time.

Says who?

Frank Krygowski

Says Franki-boy, who in more than ten years of haranguing us in this objectionable manner has not made a single convert to Forester's "Fascist Practice for Cyclists".

You're a waste of skin and oxygen, Franki-boy, a drag on Gaia.

Andre Jute
What an idiot Frank Krygowski is!