Self Driving Vehicles

On 12/27/2019 8:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.


OK, coulda woulda shoulda, boulder, hole, whatever. Equally
likely is that he kept lane center, the truck pilot takes
another hit from his bong and finishes thumbing out his
text. The jury is OK with 'didn't see him'.

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

On 12/27/2019 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
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:


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.

So define AFRAP. Let's talk about that. What is "P" and how far is it?

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.

My experience, and the experience of almost everyone who learns and
experiences these things, is that if I'm close to the right edge, many
drivers will squeeze by with barely a foot to spare. Others will
"straddle pass," going only partly into the next lane, and do who knows
what if an oncoming car appears. But if I'm in the center of a ten foot
lane, almost all drivers will wait until passing is clear, then be
entirely in the next lane when they pass.

Here's a graphic summary of some test data:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg
Note all the closest passes happened when the cyclist was far right.

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.

In many if not most states, the laws state a cyclist is not required to
ride at the far right "if the lane is too narrow to safely share." The
dimensions I gave for lane and truck should make it clear that the lane
in question is indeed too narrow. So the cyclist is not required to be
at far right. _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.

I suspect your interpretation of the law is both wrong and impractical.
For example: In a state with a three foot passing clearance law, any
lane less than 12 feet wide is "too narrow to safely share" by simple
math. (Two feet minimum for a cyclist riding with his right shoulder
vertically above the road edge, three feet clearance, and 8.5 feet for a
legal limit truck makes 13.5 feet - and that's riding the bike one foot
from the edge, which is often a bad idea given cracks, potholes, gravel,
etc.) Most traffic lanes are no wider than 12 feet, and many are ten
feet. There is even a movement to make narrower lanes the default, for
safety purposes.

Then there are situations where the road effectively narrows up ahead -
say, by parked cars. Is the cyclist forbidden to gradually move left
before he comes to the cars, even though the road is still "wide"?

Then there is the empty road situation. Yes, the letter of the law says
to be far right (as far right as "P")... but why? If the road is empty,
should a cyclist not be able to, say, ride the portion that has the
fewest pavement patches? And practically speaking, how often do cyclists
really get ticketed for not being at the right edge of an empty road?

What about approaching an intersection where a motorist is at a stop
sign at the right, peering around a parked car? Can I not be toward the
center of the roadway, so I'm visible to him as early as possible? Do I
really have to skim by the parked car, risk getting doored, and risk his
not being able to see me until its too late?

What about when the motor vehicle traffic is slow, so the cyclist can
keep up with it? Or for that matter, when it's stopped? Many states
mandate "far right" only when car traffic is faster; but even in those
that lack that detail, why should a cyclist move to a position where
he's less visible, and where some motorists would immediately move
forward to prevent him from getting back in line, even for (say) an
upcoming left turn?

Bob Mionske's book _Bicycling and the Law_ discusses a lot of this. For
the benefit of others reading this (because Jay knows it): Mionske is an
Oregon lawyer, a former Olympic cyclist, he has long written on legal
matters for bike publications. And he seems to disagree with Jay on much
of this. [Page 198: "Lanes that are too narrow to safely share mean that
cyclists must 'take the lane'..."]

BTW, Steve Magas (another fairly prominent lawyer specializing in
bicycle cases) also disagrees with you.

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.

See above.

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.

Given the fact that almost all lanes are (by simple math) too narrow to
safely share, it makes sense to use a position toward center as the
default.

And that's even without needing reference to the rest of the typical
examptions. Example from Ohio law: "Conditions that may require riding
away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed
or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it
otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is
too narrow for the bicycle or electric bicycle and an overtaking vehicle
to travel safely side by side within the lane. "

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.

It may not be next level for you. It certainly is for many people. (Can
you really say you don't see cyclists making mistakes?)

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.

There certainly are intersections that are more complicated than others!
And many that are acceptable to cars are complicated for the typical
cyclist, specifically because the typical cyclist thinks everything must
be done from the far right edge of the road. I can't believe you haven't
observed that behavior.

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.

Hah! Well, that attitude negates math, science and engineering, doesn't it?

Is it really your opinion that "two feet plus three feet plus 8.5 feet"
is less than twelve feet?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/27/2019 8:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 18:45:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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.

Drop the "ride out in front of traffic," will you? "Ride out" is an
official crash description. It normally implies suddenly jumping
directly in front of motor vehicles. I've explained many times that's
not how it's done.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/27/2019 9:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/27/2019 8:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.


OK, coulda woulda shoulda, boulder, hole, whatever.Â* Equally likely is
that he kept lane center, the truck pilot takes another hit from his
bong and finishes thumbing out his text.Â* The jury is OK with 'didn't
see him'.

I disagree with the "equally likely" part, again based on my many, many
hundreds of times taking a lane to dissuade unsafe passes. All my "lane
taking" has never led to a crash. But it seems obvious to me that if I
had suddenly ridden off the road all of those times, I'd have crashed
hundreds of times.

I guess that's the fundamental disagreement here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:46:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/27/2019 8:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 18:45:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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.

Drop the "ride out in front of traffic," will you? "Ride out" is an
official crash description. It normally implies suddenly jumping
directly in front of motor vehicles. I've explained many times that's
not how it's done.

Have it any way you want. The traffic is traveling at 100 kph, or
faster, which is roughly 90 ft. per second, so the guy is going to
catch up with you very shortly. And he will be doing four times your
speed.

In fact we had a case some years ago where a foreign couple were
riding, apparently side by side, on a two lane road near the Cambodian
border. A pickup truck came over a little rise behind them , the
driver said that he had dropped his cap and had reached down to
retrieve it, and hit them. Had they been riding in a single line "on
the side of the road", as the law requires here, they'd likely still
be alive.... but they had seized the lane, as you have it.

Was the driver driving too fast? Possible so. Should the driver have
bent over to retrieve his cap? Probably not. But regardless of who did
what the two cyclists are dead.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:39:43 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip?

Given the fact that almost all lanes are (by simple math) too narrow to
safely share, it makes sense to use a position toward center as the
default.

With long sight lines on flat-ish country roads, cars just go around when I'm riding AFRAP. I have the room I need and so do they. When riding in the sticks, sitting in the middle of the road produces closes passes and honking. Why make myself miserable?


And that's even without needing reference to the rest of the typical
examptions. Example from Ohio law: "Conditions that may require riding
away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed
or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it
otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is
too narrow for the bicycle or electric bicycle and an overtaking vehicle
to travel safely side by side within the lane. "

The Oregon law says you can take the lane to avoid "unsafe operation" by a MV in the lane if the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. It is generally interpreted by ODOT as meaning that you can take the lane to prevent unsafe passing.

With the safe passing law, a car must pass within a "safe distance" (bicycle fall-over distance), and the law expressly allows the vehicle to cross a solid center-line to pass a bike. Assuming a empty road, a car can simply go around, and there is no risk of unsafe passing within the lane, so AFRAP is what you do. That's the ODOT handbook rule.

But like I said, if there is oncoming traffic or a congested second lane -- assuming two travel lanes in the same direction -- then I'll take the lane.. I just don't sit in the middle of the lane willy-nilly as a default rule.

Also, there is an express requirement that cyclists follow the "failure to yield" law:

ORS 811.425

A person commits the offense of failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle if the person is driving a vehicle and the person fails to move the person’s vehicle off the main traveled portion of the highway into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:

(a)The driver of the overtaken vehicle is proceeding at a speed less than a speed established in ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation) as prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule;

(b)The driver of the overtaking vehicle is proceeding at a speed in conformity with ORS 811.105 (Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation);

(c)The highway is a two directional, two-lane highway; and

(d)There is no clear lane for passing available to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.

(2)This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle in a funeral procession.

(3)The offense described in this section, failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §640; 1991 c.482 §16; 1995 c.383 §68; 2001 c.104 §307; 2003 c.819 §15]


On the typical one-lane each way road, you have to pull over to let cars go if there is a twisting or congested lane in the opposite direction. Sorry, but the Officious Cyclist promenading through the countryside with a car -- or ten cars -- stuck behind him would get a ticket. He would also get run-down by some ****ed-off mullet head in a pickup.

Personally, I don't like cars lurking behind me. I pull AFRAP and let them go when it is safe to do so. I have no point to prove.


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.

It may not be next level for you. It certainly is for many people. (Can
you really say you don't see cyclists making mistakes?)

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.

There certainly are intersections that are more complicated than others!
And many that are acceptable to cars are complicated for the typical
cyclist, specifically because the typical cyclist thinks everything must
be done from the far right edge of the road. I can't believe you haven't
observed that behavior.

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.

Hah! Well, that attitude negates math, science and engineering, doesn't it?

Is it really your opinion that "two feet plus three feet plus 8.5 feet"
is less than twelve feet?

The relevant question is "do I need to take the lane to prevent unsafe passing." Usually not. Cars just go around, crossing the center line. Again, in cramped quarters, I'll take the lane for as long as I need it, which is generally not long.

And, BTW, taking the lane doesn't prevent unsafe passing unless you are dealing with compliant drivers. I've been lane center and gotten passed many times within inches with on-coming traffic on narrow roads. There are many non-compliant drivers -- more in certain areas than others -- which was my point.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:39:43 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
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:


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.

So define AFRAP. Let's talk about that. What is "P" and how far is it?

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.

My experience, and the experience of almost everyone who learns and
experiences these things, is that if I'm close to the right edge, many
drivers will squeeze by with barely a foot to spare. Others will
"straddle pass," going only partly into the next lane, and do who knows
what if an oncoming car appears. But if I'm in the center of a ten foot
lane, almost all drivers will wait until passing is clear, then be
entirely in the next lane when they pass.

Here's a graphic summary of some test data:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg
Note all the closest passes happened when the cyclist was far right.

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.

In many if not most states, the laws state a cyclist is not required to
ride at the far right "if the lane is too narrow to safely share." The
dimensions I gave for lane and truck should make it clear that the lane
in question is indeed too narrow. So the cyclist is not required to be
at far right. _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.

I suspect your interpretation of the law is both wrong and impractical.
For example: In a state with a three foot passing clearance law, any
lane less than 12 feet wide is "too narrow to safely share" by simple
math. (Two feet minimum for a cyclist riding with his right shoulder
vertically above the road edge, three feet clearance, and 8.5 feet for a
legal limit truck makes 13.5 feet - and that's riding the bike one foot
from the edge, which is often a bad idea given cracks, potholes, gravel,
etc.) Most traffic lanes are no wider than 12 feet, and many are ten
feet. There is even a movement to make narrower lanes the default, for
safety purposes.

Then there are situations where the road effectively narrows up ahead -
say, by parked cars. Is the cyclist forbidden to gradually move left
before he comes to the cars, even though the road is still "wide"?

Then there is the empty road situation. Yes, the letter of the law says
to be far right (as far right as "P")... but why? If the road is empty,
should a cyclist not be able to, say, ride the portion that has the
fewest pavement patches? And practically speaking, how often do cyclists
really get ticketed for not being at the right edge of an empty road?

What about approaching an intersection where a motorist is at a stop
sign at the right, peering around a parked car? Can I not be toward the
center of the roadway, so I'm visible to him as early as possible? Do I
really have to skim by the parked car, risk getting doored, and risk his
not being able to see me until its too late?

What about when the motor vehicle traffic is slow, so the cyclist can
keep up with it? Or for that matter, when it's stopped? Many states
mandate "far right" only when car traffic is faster; but even in those
that lack that detail, why should a cyclist move to a position where
he's less visible, and where some motorists would immediately move
forward to prevent him from getting back in line, even for (say) an
upcoming left turn?

Bob Mionske's book _Bicycling and the Law_ discusses a lot of this. For
the benefit of others reading this (because Jay knows it): Mionske is an
Oregon lawyer, a former Olympic cyclist, he has long written on legal
matters for bike publications. And he seems to disagree with Jay on much
of this. [Page 198: "Lanes that are too narrow to safely share mean that
cyclists must 'take the lane'..."]

BTW, Bob may be a great cyclist, but I checked the state docket, and he appears on two cases since his admission in 2001. I don't know what he does for a living. I've never seen him on a case.

Ray Thomas is someone I know, and although we disagree on some things (all things related to work), he is a far better source of commentary on Oregon law.
https://bikeportland.org/2013/12/02/...ing-laws-97747 It's basically what I've been saying, although he throws in Potter and the impeding law.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 12:17:16 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:


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.


That is just what I and most people do: let it depend on the situation. I often ride a 3 km stretch of a narrow road. At the end of the road there is a company that harvest crops for the farmers so once in a while I encounter big harvest machines or tractors on that narrow road.:

https://tinyurl.com/wxnzcj6

I take the lane if necessary but I gladly make room when I can hop on a drive way of a house/farm to let him pass. I don't like the sound of a roaring big engine behind me for the whole stretch. It is just an example. This 'negotiation' happens a dozen times every ride. Every situation is different.

Lou

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:19:07 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:


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.

Really? How do they determine what IS correct? Is religion not all about belief?

Lou

wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 12:17:16 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:


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.


That is just what I and most people do: let it depend on the situation. I
often ride a 3 km stretch of a narrow road. At the end of the road there
is a company that harvest crops for the farmers so once in a while I
encounter big harvest machines or tractors on that narrow road.:

https://tinyurl.com/wxnzcj6

I take the lane if necessary but I gladly make room when I can hop on a
drive way of a house/farm to let him pass. I don't like the sound of a
roaring big engine behind me for the whole stretch. It is just an
example. This 'negotiation' happens a dozen times every ride. Every situation is different.

Lou


Although I agree with you completely any answer that remotely resembles “it
depends� will likely get a rebuke from the fanatics.

Strange since it’s likely the most correct response.