Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/7/2010 8:13 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:22 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/6/2010 9:21 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/6/2010 10:08 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

At home I use Outlook Express for a news reader.[...]

Bill Gates holding a gun to your head?


Huh?

Why would anyone use a Micro$oft product when better, free alternatives
are available? (Assuming that they are given a choice.)


I haven't got around to installing TBird at home. Last year when I
tried it, it sucked too much. The current version seems ok - I'm using
it at work.

The "Huh?" was more about you telling me to use a newsreader that will
let me respond to your posts in lieu of you not doing funny things to
your header.

So huh?

On 12/8/2010 12:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 7, 8:21 pm, wrote:
Frank writes:


Then you also talked about bailing out of the road entirely and riding
the sidewalk. Did I get that wrong?

Yes, you got that wrong. I said something to the effect that I would be
looking beyond the road and taking account of *all* my options. But since
you now seem to be adding a sidewalk to your scenario, it's a considerable
option.

That's what I thought. So we put you down as a sidewalk cyclist.

What don't you understand about "taking account of all my options?"
And why do you ignore the fact that he's talking about what he would
do when the truck wasn't stopping?

Only an idiot sits in the middle of the road pedaling at 20-30k with
a truck coming up behind them at speed.

I thought that you said you studied defensive driving?

On 12/7/2010 9:35 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:06 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:47 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:31 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I think it's dangerous for a cyclist to ride the road's edge so as to
not displease the trucker. It's unacceptably dangerous to imply to
the trucker (or any motorist) that he's welcome to pass you with only
tiny clearance.

I feel extremely safe handling it the way I do. I'm making a big deal
of it because Duane mocked the fact that I control the trucker's
behavior.

I didn't mock you. I questioned your assertion that you
on a bicycle are controlling the trucker's behavior. This is
only true if the trucker sees you and allows it. I've had cases
where the truck didn't see me and cases where they didn't allow
it.

Your claim that you can control a truck that weighs several tons more
than you traveling at higher speeds than you, in every case is what
is dangerous here. Not cycling.

So DR, what _do_ you do in that situation? 10 foot lane, 8.5 foot
truck. Do you suddenly bail to ride the sidewalk, or do you bump
along in the gutter, or do you control the lane?

Hmm. So staying in my narrow lane when a truck approaches from behind
is what's dangerous? Despite my having done so for decades with no
problems? Not only has it never been a safety problem, I honestly see
no alternative, if I'm going to ride my bike for transportation.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying assuming that it's safe because
you have control is incorrect. I'm saying that thinking that there
are NO dangers is incorrect. I'm saying to practice defensive driving
at all time instead of relying on some illusion of control or some
statistics. Argue against that if you like but stop arguing against
what you say that I say. This started because I said that you have
to be aware that the truck MAY NOT STOP. You seem to be claiming
that that isn't the case because you've never seen it and statistically
it won't happen.

So is letting the truck go by with inches to spare at best safer than
taking the lane? Or will you stop where you can get off the road, and
wait for a gap in traffic before riding that section? (Where I cross an
overpass regularly with a shoulder less than 2 feet wide, this could
mean waiting for hours.)

Better than having the truck run over me? Remember, we're talking about
a truck that doesn't see me or isn't going to stop. Maybe he's texting.

Frank dreamed up some scenario so that he could ridicule people and call
them cowards skulking in the ditches. I asked what he'd do if the truck
wasn't stopping. Apparently he'd stay in the center of the lane, in the
full knowledge that the truck would eventually stop because
statistically, there aren't many rear end collisions between trucks and
bikes.

What I would do is take the side of the road and throw bricks at the ****er.



Granted, if I were just a "drive to the bike path and ride" kind of
guy, I could avoid the situation. But to (say) ride to work, or to
the hardware store? I can't wait until they build a completely
segregated bike path. That will _never_ happen. I can't jump on the
sidewalk in many places (even if I mistakenly believed the sidewalk
was safer) because there are no sidewalks in many such places. And
I'm damned sure not going to get off my bike and stand by the side of
the road until some motorist goes by! Kowtowing isn't my style.

I doubt if any of the people here are the kind of cyclist that you
describe.

Controlling a narrow lane is one of the fundamental skills of
cycling. I really don't think those who fail to do so are competent
cyclists. Sorry folks, but there it is.

Try some education. Try reading _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Read
his sections on Primary and Secondary road positions. He gets it
right. (He's now got editions out for drive-on-left Britain and for
drive-on-right North America.)

Try reading some links about defensive driving.

How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be on
a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
traffic.

Defensive driving teaches you to assume that the other guy is going to
do the wrong thing and to be ready for it. Ignoring the speeding truck
behind you because you are in control of the lane and statistics say he
will stop is not very defensive.

On 12/7/2010 9:37 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:56 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:32 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:53 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:42 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:

Duane, shame on you! Were you mocking Frank? Frank is an "expert,"
just ask him. He can control everything.

Apparently everything except disagreement. Sorry, I mean
mocking. What's this a Monty Python schtick?

I think Frank is trying to bolster his "straw" resume so he can seek
gainful employment in both "argument" AND "abuse." He's tired of
arguing in his spare time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

LOL

I was thinking more along the lines of shrubberies though.

Ni!


There's hope for you after all g

On 12/7/2010 10:06 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:37 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:56 AM, Duane H bert wrote:





On 12/7/2010 12:32 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:53 am, Duane H wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:42 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:

Duane, shame on you! Were you mocking Frank? Frank is an "expert,"
just ask him. He can control everything.

Apparently everything except disagreement. Sorry, I mean
mocking. What's this a Monty Python schtick?

I think Frank is trying to bolster his "straw" resume so he can seek
gainful employment in both "argument" AND "abuse." He's tired of
arguing in his spare time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

LOL

I was thinking more along the lines of shrubberies though.

Ni!

Tom Sherman demonstrates the mono-syllabic nature of his entire
vocabulary.
And his response is complet as it stands, I don't even have to provide
any parody (as much fun as that is).
DR

I think that he's responding to my shrubberies comment. Monty Python's
Holy Grail...

On 12/7/2010 9:38 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 2:04 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:


Now my boss is ****ed at me. She's asking how my dissociation algorithm
can cause such humor. Something about the coffee coming out
of my nose. LOL.

After all, you are not getting paid to read and post to Usenet.

No, it's that I am getting paid to read and post to usenet. That's
what ****es her off.

Gotta do something why the program is compiling...

On 12/7/2010 10:18 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:50 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
[...]
Who gives a damn about significant number of crashes? When you're
on the road you can't NOT pay attention because of statistical
probabilities. You need to know where all of the other vehicles
are that are sharing the road and have an idea what they're doing.
This is called defensive driving. You always expect the worse and
plan for it. I didn't make this up.[...]

Plan for the worst? Every driver a homicidal maniac? Terrorists with RPG
launchers behind every bush? Armed thermonuclear warheads falling out of
bombers passing overhead? Volcanic explosions below? Sun going nova?
Universe collapsing into a singularity?


Doesn't the aluminum foil hat that you wear take care of most of that?

There's a difference between driving defensively and being a paranoid
lunatic, or do you disagree with that?

On Dec 8, 7:35*am, Duane Hébert wrote:

Frank dreamed up some scenario so that he could ridicule people and call
them cowards skulking in the ditches.

Bingo! Frank Krygowski is obsessed with having one and only one answer
and/or perspective for anything - even if he has to make up the
situation, the characters and/or the facts and figures.

DR

On Dec 7, 10:37 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I don't ride in door zones, period. If there are parked cars, I'm a
good six feet away from them. Yes, sometimes that puts me at the left
side of the lane. This isn't difficult.

But what if there are no parked cars. Why not ride further left?
Wouldn't that be more effective?

On Dec 8, 8:10 am, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 7, 10:37 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I don't ride in door zones, period. If there are parked cars, I'm a
good six feet away from them. Yes, sometimes that puts me at the left
side of the lane. This isn't difficult.

But what if there are no parked cars. Why not ride further left?
Wouldn't that be more effective?

Depends on if there *were* parked cars there and if they left leaves
and stuff underneath where they were.