|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1091
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/8/2010 8:50 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/8/2010 10:26 AM, RobertH wrote: On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° 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. False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings, watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore, when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles. Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing driver. What is there in "defensive driving" useful to cyclists that is not covered under vehicular/effective cycling? Well nothing based on any of the VC literature that I've read. Only a zealot would tell you to - sorry - imply that you should never get out of the way. |
Ads |
#1092
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/8/2010 8:52 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:50 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:26 AM, RobertH wrote: What is there in "defensive driving" useful to cyclists that is not covered under vehicular/effective cycling? No "cult" affiliation necessary. And no head zealot required. |
#1093
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/9/2010 1:55 AM, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:50 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:26 AM, RobertH wrote: On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, T m Sherm n _ 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. False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings, watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore, when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles. Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing driver. What is there in "defensive driving" useful to cyclists that is not covered under vehicular/effective cycling? Sure, Tom, I'll take that one. Defensive driving emphasizes the specific ways that _lawful_ vehicle operators are victimized in garden-variety collisions (In terms of cycling, a 'looked-but-failed-to-see error' by a left-turning driver has the most serious damage x frequency vector) and teaches strategies to avoid them. Defensive driving emphasizes the need for awareness above and beyond simply following the rules of the road. The foundational assumptions of defensive driving are strongly supported by factual evidence. Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see' incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them. Vehicular Cycling emphasizes assertiveness and rule-following over defensiveness. In Vehicular Cycling, a defensive mindset is in fact viewed as superfluous and unnecessary. Riders who express the necessity for defensive posture in traffic are berated and ridiculed until they go away shaking their heads in wonder and disgust at their fellow man. Right but I think that this is only with the "Vehicular Cycling as Religious Calling" crowd. What I've read of vehicular cycling is just suggestions on some things that CAN work for you when you're forced into the road with cars. For example: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/practic...ng/VCIntro.htm So to avoid hazardous conditions bicyclists should politely merge left, and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past -- just as any other driver would do. Some may think this unsafe for bicyclists, but this is normal practice for all slow drivers: drive to the right when it’s safe, but use a full lane when needed. The law is the same for bicyclists precisely because this is the best and safest way to operate a bicycle in traffic. As one police chief says, "It’s just common sense and standard traffic rules." This one is telling you to move left to avoid hazards, then go back to the right. But a zealot would interpret this differently. I don't see anywhere that tells you to not get out of the way if it's not safe. |
#1094
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing
On 12/8/2010 9:00 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/8/2010 8:22 AM, Duane Hébert wrote: 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? My header is UTF-8 compliant. Not saying that it isn't. OE is not the best, especially not for nntp. But I have my OE set to accept UTF-8 headers. I can read your posts at home but when I try to reply, it fails telling me the header is too long. Since I use the same news server here as at home, it must be the OE. But a lot of people use OE. |
#1095
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/9/2010 1:10 AM, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:14 pm, Frank wrote: I have NEVER said I always "aim for," or ride in, the middle of a lane. I have many times said I share a lane whenever it's safe to do so. However, it's not safe to do so in a ten foot lane, unless perhaps the passing vehicle is a motorcycle or other bicycle. Right. But when in you are "controlling the lane," as I specified, you always aim for the general center of the lane? Or are there times when you choose to ride further left? Riding in the middle of such a lane gives a five-foot buffer to right side hazards, less than the width of a standard suburban sidewalk. So you seem to be saying you, too, would ride in the middle of that lane when a truck is behind. Don't be shy about saying that. Read it again. That is most certainly not what I am saying, or even what I "seem to be saying." To be clear what I am actually saying is that a fixation on a down-the- center lane position, when so many other 'positions' are open and available, is questionable at best. In most situations a five-foot buffer to right side hazards will be woefully inadequate. Dangerous, you might say. You give a good example of how dogmatic adherence to arbitrary vehicular cycling guidelines ("primary position, secondary position") can lead to a decrease in rider safety. It makes me wonder: Have you really thought this through, in terms of maximizing actual space? Or is the 'lane-controlling' center lane position more about theater? Probably on such a street I would be riding close to the middle of the road, not the middle of the lane. But it massively depends, on so many things. I also don't mind moving over to help someone pass if possible. If a street required constant "lane controlling" in front of anxious traffic I would also try to find a better one. This seems to be what every single person here is telling Frank. |
#1096
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 12:46*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:03*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Dec 8, 9:00*pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On Dec 8, 4:38*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that? http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-1...ase-revisited/ http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/...aking-with-bob... Yes, they're wrong -- at least in Oregon. *I know that because of this: "Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for impeding traffic, even though defendant's conviction involved his use of bicycle and definition of offense referred only to motor vehicles; nothing in vehicle code provided that such offense be applied only to motor vehicles. ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944, 185 Or.App. 81." So, go ahead and impede traffic in Ohio, but not here. *You'll get busted. * First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. *Both of you are in PDX, IIRC. Why would I? *I can read statutes, in fact, I've even written a few. Um... perhaps because law is more complicated than that? If statutes could be perfectly understood by only one lawyer reading and understanding, there would never be a need to have two opposing lawyers in court, would there? Besides, law has many specialties. I don't know what's your area of practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. One lawyer I know well does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further indicate not all attorneys are equal! Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions. If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. *There's no guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed. (And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. *Or the near-useless LAB.) A bicycle is treated identically to a motor vehicle for most purposes, including the impeding statute. *Sorry, that's the law. *The opinion was correctly decided, and there is no impetus for changing the law. Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong; but ISTM that you're effectively claiming that if a cyclist can't keep up with the motor vehicles in a narrow lane, he's not allowed to ride that road. Correct? Because you're saying that O.R.S. § 811.130 , although it specifically says "motor vehicle," must apply also to bicycles. And you're saying a cyclist has to ride as far right as "practicable" even though that statute, § 814.430, specifically grants permission to a cyclist "to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side." So by your logic, is cycling in Oregon legal only where there is enough pavement width to share side by side with a motor vehicle, or maybe on downhills? Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. *I absolutely controlled the lane many times, as always. *I specifically remember doing that at 5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just one example. *Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. *I didn't get busted. I do all sorts of stupid things and don't get busted. All the streets you mentioned are narrow and slow, and typically I'm trying to get around traffic, particularly riding east (downhill). You specifically said if I impeded traffic in Oregon (i.e., controlled a lane that was too narrow to share) I'd get busted. Sorry, Jay, I did so many times in Oregon, and saw countless other cyclists do the same, and nobody got busted. I have to do this at least a little on every bike ride I take, and I never get busted. And incidentally, the "stupid thing" would be to squeeze into a door zone or into a gutter to let someone pass by brushing my left elbow. Get with Mionske. *See what he says. *Seriously. The Court of Appeals has answered the question. *I don't need to talk to Bob... I think it would be a really good idea. If nothing else, ask him if he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. Ask him why. You could then report back to us about what he says. It would be interesting, don't you agree? - Frank Krygowski |
#1097
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 1:55*am, RobertH wrote:
Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see' incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them. Nope, that's a lie. We've been over this repeatedly. If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy" course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance techniques. Keep it honest, Robert. - Frank Krygowski |
#1098
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 8:43*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
Don't you find that people tend to pass you more closely when you take the whole road and tend to give you more distance when you're somewhat to the right? *That's be my experience for the most part. *The maniac drivers trying to terrorize me are not the norm. Here's a graph showing the results of one study on that specific topic. The author says the further he was left, the more clearance he got. The closest passing happened when the cyclist was furthest to the right, and they were all in-lane passes, i.e. people who figured they could sqeeze by without going over the line. http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg - Frank Krygowski |
#1099
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 9:30*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
Right but I think that this is only with the "Vehicular Cycling as Religious Calling" crowd. *What I've read of vehicular cycling is just suggestions on some things that CAN work for you when you're forced into the road with cars. For example:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/practic...ng/VCIntro.htm So to avoid hazardous conditions bicyclists should politely merge left, and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past -- just as any other driver would do. Some may think this unsafe for bicyclists, but this is normal practice for all slow drivers: drive to the right when it s safe, but use a full lane when needed. The law is the same for bicyclists precisely because this is the best and safest way to operate a bicycle in traffic. As one police chief says, "It s just common sense and standard traffic rules." This one is telling you to move left to avoid hazards, then go back to the right. *But a zealot would interpret this differently. *I don't see anywhere that tells you to not get out of the way if it's not safe. I certainly don't see anywhere that it tells you "get out of the way if a truck is behind you." Is that what you meant by "not safe"? And did you read as far as this?: "Politely taking enough space for your own safety is the heart and core of safely cycling in traffic. You can't be safe unless you're willing to take some space; even if you have to delay some cars." - Frank Krygowski |
#1100
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 12:30*am, James wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: DR picked you up on this once already today. I have NEVER said I always "aim for," or ride in, the middle of a lane. *I have many times said I share a lane whenever it's safe to do so. *However, it's not safe to do so in a ten foot lane, unless perhaps the passing vehicle is a motorcycle or other bicycle. In a previous post in this thread you wrote: * I'm going to continue to ride in the center of the lane, * and I'm not going to cede * my legal right to the road out of fear the trucker is really a * murderer. Need you be reminded of your own words twice in one day? *Or does "middle" not also mean "centre" in your dictionary? James, perhaps you're confused by "always." I do not "always" ride in the center of the lane. When a lane is wide enough to safely share it, I do so. It's when a lane is too narrow to safely share, that I control the lane and don't share it. If you really want to apply an "always" to the above, it's only in this sense: Both situations crop up in every normal bike ride. I'm always ready to do whichever is appropriate. If you're still confused, tell me exactly what part you don't understand. I'll try to make it even more clear. - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reduce fatalities or danger rates instead? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 3 | September 19th 10 08:05 AM |
Three cycling fatalities in London last month. | Daniel Barlow | UK | 4 | July 7th 09 12:58 PM |
Child cyclist fatalities in London | Tom Crispin | UK | 13 | October 11th 08 05:12 PM |
Car washes for cyclist fatalities | Bobby | Social Issues | 4 | October 11th 04 07:13 PM |
web-site on road fatalities | cfsmtb | Australia | 4 | April 23rd 04 09:21 AM |