A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I like the smashing part



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 3rd 09, 11:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default I like the smashing part

On Oct 2, 7:36*pm, wrote:
On Oct 2, 10:27*am, Andy wrote:





http://bicyclesafe.com/


The Door Prize


A driver opens his door right in front of you. You run right into it
if you can't stop in time. If you're lucky, the motorist will exit the
car before you hit the door, so you'll at least have the pleasure of
smashing them too when you crash, and their soft flesh will cushion
your impact. This kind of crash is more common than you might think,
and in fact cyclists crashing into parked cars is the #1 kind of car-
bike collision in Santa Barbara. (source)We've compiled a list of
cyclists killed by running into open car doors.


How to avoid this collision:


Ride to the left. Ride far enough to the left that you won't run into
any door that's opened unexpectedly. You may be wary about riding so
far into the lane that cars can't pass you easily, but you're more
likely to get doored by a parked car if you ride too close to it than
you are to get hit from behind by a car which can clearly see you.


Sounds like good advice, it does take a lot of confidence to put into
practice. *I am continually surprised by how little room car drivers
will give cyclists when they are passing them - far less, it seems to
me, than they allow any parked cars they encounter. *Anyone have any
thoughts on why this is? *I have come up with a few suggestions that
vary from cynical to downright scary:

1. *They expect you will move over
2. *Hitting a parked car would do much more damage to their vehicle
than would a cyclist.
3. *They simply didn't see you.
4. *They did see you.


A perceptive analysis with acute observations. I have a piece of road
suitable to testing your assumptions 1 and 2, which also presumes 4,
which I long since used to prove your hypotheses true.

MILIEU
A piece of the inner bypass in my small West Cork Town, Bandon. runs
one way along a quay. On the quayside is a narrow green strip with a
solid-looking wall separating it from the river; the green strip also
contains some quite substantial trees; it is in any event a very
definite barrier.

This green strip and wall is on the driver side. On the other side of
the road cars are parked.

The road is actually quite wide. There is in fact space to pass a
cyclist with three feet of space if the motorist goes near enough the
trees to get his car brushed but not scraped.

Though my pedalpals now all ride on the pavement there, the traffic in
fact flows slowly enough to conduct repeated experimental ridethroughs
in relative safety, given a somewhat heightened awareness. It helps
that the return to the beginning of the test ride is through a quiet
lane on the other side of the river, so each test has a breathing
space and takes under two minutes. I did 60 ridethroughs one afternoon
while I waited for some colour printing to be done.

TEST PROTOCOL
The test is simple. If drivers will pass when the cyclist is on the
passenger side between the driver and the hard parked cars, but not
when the cyclist is on the river side, and his car therefore runs a
risk of metal-work damage against a parked car, the driver values his
car above the safety of the cyclist.

I've ridden that street uncountable times at all times of the day (at
night I use the pavement there for obvious reasons). The results are
very clear indeed.

RESULTS
When the cyclist rides on the passenger side of moving cars, between
the moving cars and the parked cars, drivers invariably pass and force
the cyclist into the parked cars.

When the cyclist rides on the passenger side, close to raised edge of
the green strip, drivers generally do not pass despite the fact that
objectively they would be four or five feet clear of the cars parked
on the passenger side, even when giving the cyclist adequate
clearance. Those who pass under these circumstances always fail to
give the cyclist the legal clearance (three feet) in their eagerness
to avoid the parked cars on their passenger side.

CONCLUSION
Inescapably drivers value the metalwork of their automobiles higher
than the life and limbs of a cyclist.

I also concluded that most drivers have only a very vague idea of how
wide their cars are. That won't come as a surprise to any cyclist,
either.

In a recent discussion, it was suggested that the number one reason
more people don't use bicycles as a means of transportation (v. their
use for recreation) is fear of having to share the road with the
automobile. *I can certainly believe that.


Seems pretty obvious to me.

Andre Jute
Speak softly and carry a big stick -- Teddy Rooseveld

Ads
  #12  
Old October 3rd 09, 11:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default I like the smashing part

On Oct 3, 1:14 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Norman wrote:
What the passengers often do is unexpectedly
leap out while the automobile is stopped at a
light (green) when you're trying to squeeze past
their immobile bulk.


Well, if you're not a gutter passing asshole, this is not a problem.

nate

(still remembering the asshole cyclist that gutter passed me and then
cut me off just as the light turned green at an intersection
yesterday...


Cut you off? Weren't you stopped?

hopefully he heard me cussing him out. "Take the lane"
does not mean "cut off faster traffic just because you're too lazy to
stop for a red light." I'd passed him once with lots of room and the
a-hole forced everyone to pass him again...


Pass him? Didn't you just say he took the lane?

You're not mad because he "cut [you] off"; you're mad because he got
ahead of you again when you think of yourself as "faster".

for what? 5 seconds? What
an asshat.)


For all I know maybe this guy was an "asshat" (or whatever), but...
it's not necessarily about five seconds here, ten seconds there... 75
more seconds there waiting behind a bunch of cars that are in turn
waiting for some impediment that is no problem for a bike to go right
on around (maybe even by going up on the sidewalk a little bit), etc.
- it's about a general strategy which emphasizes keep going as
continuously as is practicable. Getting places on a bike is not at
all the same as getting places in a car.

We know: You're awesome; everybody else sucks.



  #13  
Old October 4th 09, 12:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Nate Nagel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,872
Default I like the smashing part

Dan O wrote:
On Oct 3, 1:14 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Norman wrote:
What the passengers often do is unexpectedly
leap out while the automobile is stopped at a
light (green) when you're trying to squeeze past
their immobile bulk.

Well, if you're not a gutter passing asshole, this is not a problem.

nate

(still remembering the asshole cyclist that gutter passed me and then
cut me off just as the light turned green at an intersection
yesterday...


Cut you off? Weren't you stopped?


No, I was accelerating as the light turned green.I was second in line,
cyclist passed me as we were all moving and then when the line of cars
started moving faster than he, he whipped in front of my car.


hopefully he heard me cussing him out. "Take the lane"
does not mean "cut off faster traffic just because you're too lazy to
stop for a red light." I'd passed him once with lots of room and the
a-hole forced everyone to pass him again...


Pass him? Didn't you just say he took the lane?


Right, that means that the 10 or so cars he just passed had to move into
another lane to pass him for a second time (seeing as they'd already
passed him once within the last block or two.)

You're not mad because he "cut [you] off"; you're mad because he got
ahead of you again when you think of yourself as "faster".


I *was* faster. It was a road with a 35 MPH speed limit and he wasn't
going 35 MPH. Matter of fact, I believe I was moving faster than he
when he took the lane.


for what? 5 seconds? What
an asshat.)


For all I know maybe this guy was an "asshat" (or whatever),


yes.

but...
it's not necessarily about five seconds here, ten seconds there... 75
more seconds there waiting behind a bunch of cars that are in turn
waiting for some impediment that is no problem for a bike to go right
on around (maybe even by going up on the sidewalk a little bit), etc.
- it's about a general strategy which emphasizes keep going as
continuously as is practicable. Getting places on a bike is not at
all the same as getting places in a car.


Yes, I know, those pesky red lights are just there to inconvenience you.
Grow the **** up.

We know: You're awesome; everybody else sucks.


I'm not sure why you're not in my killfile yet. Your signal to noise
ratio is off the chart. Matter of fact, let me rectify that right now.

I bet you're just tweaked because I called someone an asshole for riding
just like you do. Let me be clear: I don't ride in traffic in any way
that I would find offensive if I were driving in the same traffic. I
don't drive around cyclists in any way that I would consider offensive
if I were cycling in the same place. Obviously that's a novel concept
to some of you (aimed directly at you, Danno.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  #14  
Old October 4th 09, 12:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default I like the smashing part

On Oct 3, 4:09 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Oct 3, 1:14 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Norman wrote:
What the passengers often do is unexpectedly
leap out while the automobile is stopped at a
light (green) when you're trying to squeeze past
their immobile bulk.
Well, if you're not a gutter passing asshole, this is not a problem.


nate


(still remembering the asshole cyclist that gutter passed me and then
cut me off just as the light turned green at an intersection
yesterday...


Cut you off? Weren't you stopped?


No, I was accelerating as the light turned green.I was second in line,
cyclist passed me as we were all moving and then when the line of cars
started moving faster than he, he whipped in front of my car.


You were complaining about gutter passing - not about someone merging
in front of you.



hopefully he heard me cussing him out. "Take the lane"
does not mean "cut off faster traffic just because you're too lazy to
stop for a red light." I'd passed him once with lots of room and the
a-hole forced everyone to pass him again...


Pass him? Didn't you just say he took the lane?


Right, that means that the 10 or so cars he just passed had to move into
another lane to pass him for a second time (seeing as they'd already
passed him once within the last block or two.)


And if he passed you all in the gutter at the next light... and the
next... and so on - are you really "faster"?


You're not mad because he "cut [you] off"; you're mad because he got
ahead of you again when you think of yourself as "faster".


I *was* faster. It was a road with a 35 MPH speed limit and he wasn't
going 35 MPH. Matter of fact, I believe I was moving faster than he
when he took the lane.


And yet, somehow, he was ahead of you.


for what? 5 seconds? What
an asshat.)


For all I know maybe this guy was an "asshat" (or whatever),


yes.

but...
it's not necessarily about five seconds here, ten seconds there... 75
more seconds there waiting behind a bunch of cars that are in turn
waiting for some impediment that is no problem for a bike to go right
on around (maybe even by going up on the sidewalk a little bit), etc.
- it's about a general strategy which emphasizes keep going as
continuously as is practicable. Getting places on a bike is not at
all the same as getting places in a car.


Yes, I know, those pesky red lights are just there to inconvenience you.
Grow the **** up.

We know: You're awesome; everybody else sucks.


I'm not sure why you're not in my killfile yet. Your signal to noise
ratio is off the chart. Matter of fact, let me rectify that right now.

I bet you're just tweaked because I called someone an asshole for riding
just like you do. Let me be clear: I don't ride in traffic in any way
that I would find offensive if I were driving in the same traffic. I
don't drive around cyclists in any way that I would consider offensive
if I were cycling in the same place. Obviously that's a novel concept
to some of you (aimed directly at you, Danno.)


Sure, what's right and good is what doesn't offend you personally.
You're awesome :-)


  #15  
Old October 4th 09, 12:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
notme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default I like the smashing part

When the cyclist rides on the passenger side ...

When the cyclist rides on the passenger side, ...


Is there an error there...? I should think one of those should be "driver's
side"?


  #16  
Old October 4th 09, 01:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default I like the smashing part

Corrected text, with thanks to "notme" who pointed out the error. Also
an additional note about the speed of traffic determining the
cyclist's behaviour.

On Oct 3, 11:47*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:36*pm, wrote:


*I am continually surprised by how little room car drivers
will give cyclists when they are passing them - far less, it seems to
me, than they allow any parked cars they encounter. *Anyone have any
thoughts on why this is? *I have come up with a few suggestions that
vary from cynical to downright scary:


1. *They expect you will move over
2. *Hitting a parked car would do much more damage to their vehicle
than would a cyclist.
3. *They simply didn't see you.
4. *They did see you.


A perceptive analysis with acute observations. I have a piece of road
suitable to testing your assumptions 1 and 2, which also presumes 4,
which I long since used to prove your hypotheses true.

MILIEU
A piece of the inner bypass in my small West Cork Town, Bandon. runs
one way along a quay. On the quayside is a narrow green strip with a
solid-looking wall separating it from the river; the green strip also
contains some quite substantial trees; it is in any event a very
definite barrier.

This green strip and wall is on the driver side. On the other side of
the road cars are parked.

The road is actually quite wide. There is in fact space to pass a
cyclist with three feet of space if the motorist goes near enough the
trees to get his car brushed but not scraped.

Though my pedalpals now all ride on the pavement there, the traffic in
fact flows slowly enough to conduct repeated experimental ridethroughs
in relative safety, given a somewhat heightened awareness. It helps
that the return to the beginning of the test ride is through a quiet
lane on the other side of the river, so each test has a breathing
space and takes under two minutes. I did 60 ridethroughs one afternoon
while I waited for some colour printing to be done.

TEST PROTOCOL
The test is simple. If drivers will pass when the cyclist is on the
passenger side between the driver and the hard parked cars, but not
when the cyclist is on the river side, and his car therefore runs a
risk of metal-work damage against a parked car, the driver values his
car above the safety of the cyclist.

I've ridden that street uncountable times at all times of the day (at
night I use the pavement there for obvious reasons). The results are
very clear indeed.

RESULTS
When the cyclist rides on the passenger side of moving cars, between
the moving cars and the parked cars, drivers invariably pass and force
the cyclist into the parked cars.

When the cyclist rides on the driver's side of the
moving cars, close to raised edge of
the green strip, drivers generally do not pass despite the fact that
objectively they would be four or five feet clear of the cars parked
on the passenger side, even when giving the cyclist adequate
clearance. Those who pass under these circumstances always fail to
give the cyclist the legal clearance (three feet) in their eagerness
to avoid the parked cars on their passenger side.

CONCLUSION
Inescapably drivers value the metalwork of their automobiles higher
than the life and limbs of a cyclist.

I also concluded that most drivers have only a very vague idea of how
wide their cars are. That won't come as a surprise to any cyclist,
either.

In a recent discussion, it was suggested that the number one reason
more people don't use bicycles as a means of transportation (v. their
use for recreation) is fear of having to share the road with the
automobile. *I can certainly believe that.


Seems pretty obvious to me.

Andre Jute
Speak softly and carry a big stick -- Teddy Rooseveld


I might add that if this road were five feet narrower, I would simply
take the lane and control the traffic behind me, for my safety and
theirs. The one way main street of the town, a couple of blocks over,
has about that much (five feet less) space left after cars parked both
sides but it is rarely necessary to take the lane because traffic
moves at least 15kph slower than on the inner bypass. So this entire
matter isn't hard and fast; the cyclist must use his judgement. But
the comparison has led me to the depressing conclusion that the
average motorist is in appropriate directional control of his vehicle
only at speeds not exceeding a dismally low 20kph, 12mph; this is not
a misprint. Even that doesn't include everyone; a majority of four-
wheel drive operators have not the faintest idea at any time where the
corners of their vehicle are, or how long it is; they're dangerous any
time the vehicle moves, regardless of how slowly.-- AJ
  #17  
Old October 4th 09, 01:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default I like the smashing part

On Oct 4, 12:23*am, Dan O wrote (to Nate):

Sure, what's right and good is what doesn't offend you personally.


Precisely. That is the definition of morality. First you decide what
is right. That is your code, unless you're a hypocrite. It follows
that what offends the code is wrong.

You're awesome :-)


Right on, Danno. Anyone who keeps an old Porsche running is awesome,
almost as awesome as someone who keeps an old Alfa Romeo running.
(That Studebaker ruins your image, Nate; send it to me and I'll
dispose of it thoughtfully and with environmental awareness.)

Holy ****, Batman, Danno is right twice in one post. Must be a record
for a wrongo like him, don't you think?

Andre Jute
"I wanted to go that way anyway" -- what one says after spinning a 911
the full 180.

  #18  
Old October 4th 09, 03:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default I like the smashing part

On Oct 3, 3:47 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:36 pm, wrote:



On Oct 2, 10:27 am, Andy wrote:


http://bicyclesafe.com/


The Door Prize


A driver opens his door right in front of you. You run right into it
if you can't stop in time. If you're lucky, the motorist will exit the
car before you hit the door, so you'll at least have the pleasure of
smashing them too when you crash, and their soft flesh will cushion
your impact. This kind of crash is more common than you might think,
and in fact cyclists crashing into parked cars is the #1 kind of car-
bike collision in Santa Barbara. (source)We've compiled a list of
cyclists killed by running into open car doors.


How to avoid this collision:


Ride to the left. Ride far enough to the left that you won't run into
any door that's opened unexpectedly. You may be wary about riding so
far into the lane that cars can't pass you easily, but you're more
likely to get doored by a parked car if you ride too close to it than
you are to get hit from behind by a car which can clearly see you.


Sounds like good advice, it does take a lot of confidence to put into
practice. I am continually surprised by how little room car drivers
will give cyclists when they are passing them - far less, it seems to
me, than they allow any parked cars they encounter. Anyone have any
thoughts on why this is? I have come up with a few suggestions that
vary from cynical to downright scary:


1. They expect you will move over
2. Hitting a parked car would do much more damage to their vehicle
than would a cyclist.
3. They simply didn't see you.
4. They did see you.


A perceptive analysis with acute observations. I have a piece of road
suitable to testing your assumptions 1 and 2, which also presumes 4,
which I long since used to prove your hypotheses true.

MILIEU
A piece of the inner bypass in my small West Cork Town, Bandon. runs
one way along a quay. On the quayside is a narrow green strip with a
solid-looking wall separating it from the river; the green strip also
contains some quite substantial trees; it is in any event a very
definite barrier.

This green strip and wall is on the driver side. On the other side of
the road cars are parked.

The road is actually quite wide. There is in fact space to pass a
cyclist with three feet of space if the motorist goes near enough the
trees to get his car brushed but not scraped.

Though my pedalpals now all ride on the pavement there, the traffic in
fact flows slowly enough to conduct repeated experimental ridethroughs
in relative safety, given a somewhat heightened awareness. It helps
that the return to the beginning of the test ride is through a quiet
lane on the other side of the river, so each test has a breathing
space and takes under two minutes. I did 60 ridethroughs one afternoon
while I waited for some colour printing to be done.

TEST PROTOCOL
The test is simple. If drivers will pass when the cyclist is on the
passenger side between the driver and the hard parked cars, but not
when the cyclist is on the river side, and his car therefore runs a
risk of metal-work damage against a parked car, the driver values his
car above the safety of the cyclist.


Or, maybe the driver simply understands that trees and walls do not
pop open doors or pull out into the roadway.


I've ridden that street uncountable times at all times of the day (at
night I use the pavement there for obvious reasons).


(But don't you know it's "just plain wrong for any cyclist to ride on
a sidewalk at all"?)

The results are
very clear indeed.



RESULTS
When the cyclist rides on the passenger side of moving cars, between
the moving cars and the parked cars, drivers invariably pass and force
the cyclist into the parked cars.


Ow! Forced into the parked cars! That's gotta hurt! Sixty times,
you say? Ouch!


When the cyclist rides on the passenger side, close to raised edge of
the green strip, drivers generally do not pass despite the fact that
objectively they would be four or five feet clear of the cars parked
on the passenger side, even when giving the cyclist adequate
clearance. Those who pass under these circumstances always fail to
give the cyclist the legal clearance (three feet) in their eagerness
to avoid the parked cars on their passenger side.


When you say, "generally do not pass", what are the statistics there?
(How many out of sixty?) And what remainder (out of sixty or
whatever) passed but failed ("in their eagerness" :-) to give legal
clearance.


CONCLUSION
Inescapably drivers value the metalwork of their automobiles higher
than the life and limbs of a cyclist.


This does not logically follow. When you place all the potentially
dynamic hazards (bike and parked cars) together on one side of the
road, naturally drivers are more willing to pass using the static, non-
threatening side, as opposed to through the gauntlet.


I also concluded that most drivers have only a very vague idea of how
wide their cars are. That won't come as a surprise to any cyclist,
either.


Must keep the body shops, lawyers, and insurance adjusters pretty
busy.

  #19  
Old October 4th 09, 03:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default I like the smashing part

On Oct 3, 5:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:23 am, Dan O wrote (to Nate):

Sure, what's right and good is what doesn't offend you personally.


Precisely. That is the definition of morality. First you decide what
is right. That is your code, unless you're a hypocrite. It follows
that what offends the code is wrong.


And if said morality causes someone to shout obscenities at Nate as he
passes by, he won't be offended, because that's exactly what he,
himself, does.


You're awesome :-)


Right on, Danno. Anyone who keeps an old Porsche running is awesome,
almost as awesome as someone who keeps an old Alfa Romeo running.
(That Studebaker ruins your image, Nate; send it to me and I'll
dispose of it thoughtfully and with environmental awareness.)


You guys should get a room.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mystery part... Part of Campagnolo chain or installation? Artoi Techniques 19 January 13th 07 09:46 AM
Medical CDs - [Part 1], [Part 2], [Part 3 = MEDLINE 1986-1998] CDs, [Part 4 = Dragon Naturally Speaking CDs, and IBM Via Voice CDs, including Medical Solutions], [Part 5 = Math Solving, and Statistics Porgrams], [Part 6 = Various - Medical Cliparts, [email protected] UK 0 February 4th 06 09:10 AM
Medical CDs - [Part 1], [Part 2], [Part 3 = MEDLINE 1986-1998] CDs, [Part 4 = Dragon Naturally Speaking CDs, and IBM Via Voice CDs, including Medical Solutions], [Part 5 = Math Solving, and Statistics Porgrams], [Part 6 = Various - Medical Cliparts, futa Unicycling 0 February 1st 06 11:21 AM
qbp part #: fw2010 = ???? shimano part # (for PowerTap Hub) Aaron Fillion Techniques 1 July 16th 05 03:13 AM
Super, Great, Smashing Colin UK 20 June 9th 05 06:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.