Ineffective Cycling

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:07:20 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/9/2019 3:23 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be dead
center of the right most lane.

The most succinct critique of John Franklin's work that I saw was this:

"If John Franklin’s aim was to keep cycling as a niche activity
practised by a tiny minority of confident men, then congratulations!
Success! Well done! You may now stop reading.

If John Franklin’s aim was to help riding a bike become an activity
which is easy for everyone — men and women, from toddlers to pensioners
— then he has failed."

This is what I constantly see in my area. For the experienced cyclist,
both men and women, following at least some of the precepts of
"Vehicular Cycling" make sense, but it doesn't help get more people out
of cars and onto bicycles. The latter requires some level of bicycle
infrastructure, and all of Frank's "danger danger" rhetoric is not going
to convince the majority of people to give cycling a try.

"The problem is that he opposes a type of road design which is proven to
increase cycling rates and safety and which offers a better way of life
for everyone, and not just for “cyclists� either."

Fortunately, there are few places in the world that subscribe to
Franklin's point of view because of the effort to reduce motor vehicle
traffic.

There is a problem with bike lanes, specifically unprotected bike lanes
that are just painted lines. Today is "Bike to Work Day" in my area. As
an elected official I rode around to several "Energizer Stations," two
put on by Apple, one by Kaiser, and one by my city. I saw first hand the
problem with unprotected bike lanes. In Sunnyvale, a Chevy Volt decided
that a bike lane was the perfect place to park. I called the police
non-emergency number and they sent out a "community service officer" to
ticket the vehicle. See oi68.tinypic.com/2ccrplj.jpg. But meanwhile,
cyclists were veering out of the unprotected bike lane into traffic, and
they probably would have been better being part of the normal traffic
flow. In Cupertino, I was in a bike lane where there were vehicles
turning left but there was no turn lane so the cars behind them simply
veered into the bike lane and passed on the right--not some of the cars,
ALL of them. See http://oi64.tinypic.com/adjo0h.jpg I asked our
traffic people if they could at least put up some bollards to prevent this.

The diatribe against Cyclecraft and Franklin is he
https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/****-you-john-franklin/

**** man! If I was to wait until there were protected bicycle lanes going
to everywhere I currently ride my bicycle I'd hardly ever be on the
bicycle. I've ridden for over 60 years and have yet to see a protected
separate from the roadway bicycle path.

Cheers


Yeah the two extremes. Reality is somewhere in the middle.

--
duane

Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Duane:
What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane.Â* Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand.Â* I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

If it's just the wording, I might give some motivation. The majority of
bike trips (at least outside the US) are transportational, and the
majority of transportational trips is in town.

In my classes I ran in the 1900's based on "Cyclecraft", I explained as
follows:
In situations of potential conflict in town, you should be in the
"primary" position.
Situations of potential conflict include
- going straight when there is a significant chance of the car behind
doing a near-side turn
- going straight when there is a car coming from the near-side and you
have priority
- going straight when it is unsafe/inappropriate for a car to overtake
you (e.g. pedestrian crossing, oncoming traffic on narrow roads)

In Europe, this means that the "primary position" is recommended for
70-80% of the distance you cycle in town, so it is more helpful to teach
"in town, take the primary position, and when you judge it is safe to be
overtaken by the cars behind, change to the secondary position to let
them pass".

For cycling outside town, the situation is different:
1) a lot fewer points of conflict
2) lower traffic density means you won't be overtaken every 10s while
riding in secondary position
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.

Rolf

PS: it is extremely hard to have a language that is both precise and
easily understood at the same time. For international communication,
the precise language might be more appropriate but to reach the public
you need an easily understood language even though this language might
lead to misunderstandings in some other countries.



I like your points about riding outside of town. My usual preference.

With respect to primary position, better explanation but still not legal
here. I can legally move to the center to avoid obstacles including door
zones or to move into position to turn left. Before I pay the fines I
would drive to work.

My primary position is the legal position. My secondary position would be
moving left when necessary.

As far as lane center to prevent close passes I don’t find it effective
except in cases of a single lane road. Not very common here. With the
normal two lane road, the car is going to pass me when safe of pass me
illegally. For the former, taking the lane isn’t necessary. For the
latter my experience is that most of the time they still pass, only closer,
faster and more dangerously.

On my commute I see a lot of bikes. I don’t think rush hour traffic at
20k/h will work. And the police would be out in force. I’m not for
separate bike paths either so I don’t have a solution other than ride
defensively. Be visible, predictable and follow the rules of the road.

--
duane

Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Duane:
What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane.* Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand.* I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

What lane position(s) do Quebec's driving schools teach to ride motorized
two-wheelers?
If it's just the wording, I might give some motivation. The majority of
bike trips (at least outside the US) are transportational, and the
majority of transportational trips is in town.

In my classes I ran in the 1900's based on "Cyclecraft", I explained as
follows:
In situations of potential conflict in town, you should be in the
"primary" position.
Situations of potential conflict include
- going straight when there is a significant chance of the car behind
doing a near-side turn
- going straight when there is a car coming from the near-side and you
have priority
- going straight when it is unsafe/inappropriate for a car to overtake
you (e.g. pedestrian crossing, oncoming traffic on narrow roads)

In Europe, this means that the "primary position" is recommended for
70-80% of the distance you cycle in town, so it is more helpful to teach
"in town, take the primary position, and when you judge it is safe to be
overtaken by the cars behind, change to the secondary position to let
them pass".

For cycling outside town, the situation is different:
1) a lot fewer points of conflict
2) lower traffic density means you won't be overtaken every 10s while
riding in secondary position
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.

More risks, different risks, greater risk... what's your source for 3)? And
don't say "that recent recumbent velomobile's awful accident"

https://radunfaelle.wordpress.com/details/
https://radunfaelle.000webhostapp.com/UK_toedliche_RF-Unfaelle.html
(Sorry, John B., the abbreviation codes in above documents are even tougher
than the language.)

PS: it is extremely hard to have a language that is both precise and
easily understood at the same time. For international communication,
the precise language might be more appropriate but to reach the public
you need an easily understood language even though this language might
lead to misunderstandings in some other countries.

Don't worry, unless you confuse primal and primary, searching the term
yields plenty of topical debates. And 99.85% agree that Sidney has much
more hostile drivers than Bangkok, statistically. Doesn't really make me
want to fly to Sidney to check, primary-hand.

Am 10.05.2019 um 13:01 schrieb Sepp Ruf:
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.
More risks, different risks, greater risk... what's your source for 3)? And
don't say "that recent recumbent velomobile's awful accident"

The only source of studies giving sufficiently detailed data is the
"First Cross Study" quoted by John Forester
https://www.johnforester.com/Article...ty/Cross01.htm.

As I threw away the book containing all the details some time ago, I can
only quote from vague memory.

Being hit from behind is on the order of 1% of all bicycle accidents but
on the order of 5-10% of bicycle accidents outside towns, and it is the
most fatal accident type. It is also one of the few "hard-to-avoid"
accident types (as seen by the age percentiles of accidents).

Rolf

On 10/05/2019 7:01 a.m., Sepp Ruf wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Duane:
What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane.* Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand.* I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

What lane position(s) do Quebec's driving schools teach to ride motorized
two-wheelers?

No idea, I wasn't born in Quebec and have never ridden a motorcycle
here. When I was a kid in New Orleans riding a motorcycle I don't
remember any specific instruction regarding lane position. What does
this have to do with anything?

The vehicle code in Quebec regarding lane position of bicycles is:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.

A cyclist may also ride on the shoulder in the same direction as traffic.

The first paragraph does not apply to a cyclist about to make a left
turn, if he is authorized to ride against traffic or in case of necessity.





If it's just the wording, I might give some motivation. The majority of
bike trips (at least outside the US) are transportational, and the
majority of transportational trips is in town.

In my classes I ran in the 1900's based on "Cyclecraft", I explained as
follows:
In situations of potential conflict in town, you should be in the
"primary" position.
Situations of potential conflict include
- going straight when there is a significant chance of the car behind
doing a near-side turn
- going straight when there is a car coming from the near-side and you
have priority
- going straight when it is unsafe/inappropriate for a car to overtake
you (e.g. pedestrian crossing, oncoming traffic on narrow roads)

In Europe, this means that the "primary position" is recommended for
70-80% of the distance you cycle in town, so it is more helpful to teach
"in town, take the primary position, and when you judge it is safe to be
overtaken by the cars behind, change to the secondary position to let
them pass".

For cycling outside town, the situation is different:
1) a lot fewer points of conflict
2) lower traffic density means you won't be overtaken every 10s while
riding in secondary position
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.

More risks, different risks, greater risk... what's your source for 3)? And
don't say "that recent recumbent velomobile's awful accident"

https://radunfaelle.wordpress.com/details/
https://radunfaelle.000webhostapp.com/UK_toedliche_RF-Unfaelle.html
(Sorry, John B., the abbreviation codes in above documents are even tougher
than the language.)

PS: it is extremely hard to have a language that is both precise and
easily understood at the same time. For international communication,
the precise language might be more appropriate but to reach the public
you need an easily understood language even though this language might
lead to misunderstandings in some other countries.

Don't worry, unless you confuse primal and primary, searching the term
yields plenty of topical debates. And 99.85% agree that Sidney has much
more hostile drivers than Bangkok, statistically. Doesn't really make me
want to fly to Sidney to check, primary-hand.

On 5/10/2019 5:29 AM, Duane wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Duane:
What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane. Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand. I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

If it's just the wording, I might give some motivation. The majority of
bike trips (at least outside the US) are transportational, and the
majority of transportational trips is in town.

In my classes I ran in the 1900's based on "Cyclecraft", I explained as
follows:
In situations of potential conflict in town, you should be in the
"primary" position.
Situations of potential conflict include
- going straight when there is a significant chance of the car behind
doing a near-side turn
- going straight when there is a car coming from the near-side and you
have priority
- going straight when it is unsafe/inappropriate for a car to overtake
you (e.g. pedestrian crossing, oncoming traffic on narrow roads)

In Europe, this means that the "primary position" is recommended for
70-80% of the distance you cycle in town, so it is more helpful to teach
"in town, take the primary position, and when you judge it is safe to be
overtaken by the cars behind, change to the secondary position to let
them pass".

For cycling outside town, the situation is different:
1) a lot fewer points of conflict
2) lower traffic density means you won't be overtaken every 10s while
riding in secondary position
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.

Rolf

PS: it is extremely hard to have a language that is both precise and
easily understood at the same time. For international communication,
the precise language might be more appropriate but to reach the public
you need an easily understood language even though this language might
lead to misunderstandings in some other countries.



I like your points about riding outside of town. My usual preference.

With respect to primary position, better explanation but still not legal
here. I can legally move to the center to avoid obstacles including door
zones or to move into position to turn left. Before I pay the fines I
would drive to work.

My primary position is the legal position. My secondary position would be
moving left when necessary.

As far as lane center to prevent close passes I don’t find it effective
except in cases of a single lane road. Not very common here. With the
normal two lane road, the car is going to pass me when safe of pass me
illegally. For the former, taking the lane isn’t necessary. For the
latter my experience is that most of the time they still pass, only closer,
faster and more dangerously.

On my commute I see a lot of bikes. I don’t think rush hour traffic at
20k/h will work. And the police would be out in force. I’m not for
separate bike paths either so I don’t have a solution other than ride
defensively. Be visible, predictable and follow the rules of the road.


So you're saying that riders ought to consider pavement
design, pavement condition or lack thereof, impedimenta such
as parked cars, ambient weather, traffic, cross traffic,
time of day, sight lines, signage/ordinances, rider speed &
ability? So how I ride is conditional even for the same
route on different days or times?

in that case, +1.

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

On 10/05/2019 9:03 a.m., AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2019 5:29 AM, Duane wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Duane:
What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane.Â* Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand.Â* I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

If it's just the wording, I might give some motivation.* The majority of
bike trips (at least outside the US) are transportational, and the
majority of transportational trips is in town.

In my classes I ran in the 1900's based on "Cyclecraft", I explained as
follows:
In situations of potential conflict in town, you should be in the
"primary" position.
Situations of potential conflict include
- going straight when there is a significant chance of the car behind
doing a near-side turn
-* going straight when there is a car coming from the near-side and you
have priority
- going straight when it is unsafe/inappropriate for a car to overtake
you (e.g. pedestrian crossing, oncoming traffic on narrow roads)

In Europe, this means that the "primary position" is recommended for
70-80% of the distance you cycle in town, so it is more helpful to teach
"in town, take the primary position, and when you judge it is safe to be
overtaken by the cars behind, change to the secondary position to let
them pass".

For cycling outside town, the situation is different:
1) a lot fewer points of conflict
2) lower traffic density means you won't be overtaken every 10s while
riding in secondary position
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.

Rolf

PS: it is extremely hard to have a language that is both precise and
easily understood at the same time.* For international communication,
the precise language might be more appropriate but to reach the public
you need an easily understood language even though this language might
lead to misunderstandings in some other countries.



I like your points about riding outside of town.* My usual preference.

With respect to primary position, better explanation but still not legal
here.** I can legally move to the center to avoid obstacles including
door
zones or to move into position to turn left.* Before I pay the fines I
would drive to work.

My primary position is the legal position. My secondary position would be
moving left when necessary.

As far as lane center to prevent close passes I don’t find it effective
except in cases of a single lane road.* Not very common here.* With the
normal two lane road,* the car is going to pass me when safe of pass me
illegally.* For the former, taking the lane isn’t necessary.* For the
latter my experience is that most of the time they still pass, only
closer,
faster and more dangerously.

On my commute I see a lot of bikes.* I don’t think rush hour traffic at
20k/h will work.** And the police would be out in force.* I’m not for
separate bike paths either so I don’t have a solution other than ride
defensively.* Be visible, predictable and follow the rules of the road.


So you're saying that riders ought to consider pavement design, pavement
condition or lack thereof, impedimenta such as parked cars, ambient
weather, traffic, cross traffic, time of day, sight lines,
signage/ordinances, rider speed & ability? So how I ride is conditional
even for the same route on different days or times?

in that case, +1.


This is exactly what I'm saying.

On 5/10/2019 3:29 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

**** man! If I was to wait until there were protected bicycle lanes going
to everywhere I currently ride my bicycle I'd hardly ever be on the
bicycle. I've ridden for over 60 years and have yet to see a protected
separate from the roadway bicycle path.

Cheers


Yeah the two extremes. Reality is somewhere in the middle.


Not sure what country SirRidesalot lives in, but in the U.S. we have
many "protected separate from the roadway bicycle paths." Not just in
California of course, I've been on them in Virginia, Idaho, and Oregon
as well.

The reality is that the need for protected bike lanes varies. They are
not just to "make people feel safe," they are to address the actual
safety issue of various non-cycling entities believing that a painted
bike lane is the perfect place to stop a vehicle to make a delivery,
take a phone call, drop-off or pick-up passengers, park, wait in line to
enter a parking lot, issue traffic tickets, etc..

Often, the whole length of a bike lane doesn't need to be protected, but
there can be selected protected areas where problems most often occur.
That is what cities in my area are doing. We'll identify areas where a
section of protected bike lane is needed, and use the money we have on
those specific areas.

I know that some people believe that if only we could educate drivers
and do more enforcement that all the problems would be solved. That's a
nice belief, but unfortunately it's naive. The reality is that you can't
address these problems through education or enforcement, you have to
have physical barriers that prevent the abhorrent behavior.

The motivation of the authors of books like Cycle Craft and Effective
Cycling is not to encourage mode share changes from vehicles to
bicycles, the motivation is very narrow--to attempt to show cyclists how
to ride more safely in traffic. Some of the advice they present is
useful, but most long-time cyclists already are familiar with the ideas
they present without ever having to read these books.

On 5/10/2019 5:07 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 00:40:55 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:31:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
Snipped
Look again, you must have missed it
https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/tha...t-world-atlas/
Look at the overpass, there is a shoulder, roughly half the width of
an automobile, and certainly wide enough for motorcycle to ride in on
both sides, with no problems.

Snipped
cheers,

John B.

Is it my imagination or does that sign in the upper left mean no motorcycles? Just curious because I see what appear to be motorcycles on that overpass.

Cheers

Yup. It says no motorcycles, no trucks, no trailers and no bicycles.

As for bicycles on the overpass? Well the "Thai" in the word
"Thailand" literally means "free" and the motorcycles seem to take
that as freedom to do as they please :-)

It seems to me you're arguing in Joerg mode. You don't ever need to ride
near lane center because you ride on six foot wide separated shoulders
like the one in the photo. Which is obviously not six feet wide. And
which bicycles are forbidden to use.

Perhaps you use it anyway? But that conflicts pretty strongly with your
disparaging comments about me ignoring the (imaginary) law preventing
bicycles from obstructing traffic.

I still have no clear idea about what your riding conditions are really
like.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/10/2019 6:29 AM, Duane wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Duane:
What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane.Â* Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand.Â* I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

If it's just the wording, I might give some motivation. The majority of
bike trips (at least outside the US) are transportational, and the
majority of transportational trips is in town.

In my classes I ran in the 1900's based on "Cyclecraft", I explained as
follows:
In situations of potential conflict in town, you should be in the
"primary" position.
Situations of potential conflict include
- going straight when there is a significant chance of the car behind
doing a near-side turn
- going straight when there is a car coming from the near-side and you
have priority
- going straight when it is unsafe/inappropriate for a car to overtake
you (e.g. pedestrian crossing, oncoming traffic on narrow roads)

In Europe, this means that the "primary position" is recommended for
70-80% of the distance you cycle in town, so it is more helpful to teach
"in town, take the primary position, and when you judge it is safe to be
overtaken by the cars behind, change to the secondary position to let
them pass".

For cycling outside town, the situation is different:
1) a lot fewer points of conflict
2) lower traffic density means you won't be overtaken every 10s while
riding in secondary position
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.

Rolf

PS: it is extremely hard to have a language that is both precise and
easily understood at the same time. For international communication,
the precise language might be more appropriate but to reach the public
you need an easily understood language even though this language might
lead to misunderstandings in some other countries.



I like your points about riding outside of town. My usual preference.

With respect to primary position, better explanation but still not legal
here. I can legally move to the center to avoid obstacles including door
zones or to move into position to turn left. Before I pay the fines I
would drive to work.

My primary position is the legal position. My secondary position would be
moving left when necessary.

So if you were in town and had the right of way approaching an
intersection, and noticed the car behind you had its right turn signal
on but was moving to come up along your left side, you would still stay
near the gutter? Does Quebec law really not allow you to control the
lane to avoid that hazard?

And if you were riding with zero other traffic on a narrow lane whose
pavement was rough at the tire tracks but smooth in the center, you
would continue to ride on the rough pavement for fear of a ticket?

As far as lane center to prevent close passes I don’t find it effective
except in cases of a single lane road. Not very common here. With the
normal two lane road, the car is going to pass me when safe of pass me
illegally. For the former, taking the lane isn’t necessary. For the
latter my experience is that most of the time they still pass, only closer,
faster and more dangerously.

All I can say is our experience differs greatly. And people to whom I've
taught lane control agree with me.

Of course it's not perfect; but we've found that most people who have to
move left move way to the left, giving plenty of clearance.

I've also noticed that the people who complain the most about close
passes are the same people who claim you're not allowed to ride away
from the edge. Joerg is one example.


--
- Frank Krygowski