Eyc headlight problem

Op zondag 11 april 2021 om 20:51:04 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 4/11/2021 11:23 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:59:20 a.m. UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

We've long since passed that point with helmet shaming, at least in the
U.S., Australia and New Zealand. Riding with a cycling cap or no cap at
all was once plenty safe, but now draws finger wagging, taunts and
lectures from intolerant people, even ones who should be allies. It's an
example of "safety inflation."

In fact, there are many who think it's better to never ride a bike, than
to ride one without a helmet. That's flagrantly stupid and contrary to
all research I've been able to find. We don't need to duplicate that
stupidity with DRLs, no matter how much some may love the gimmickry.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Funny, in all my years of riding without a helmet, I've never been told that I should be wearing one.
That amazes me. IIRC, you live in Ontario, where a mandatory helmet law
for adult cyclists was barely avoided. (One of the leaders of the
successful opposition was a man who used to post here frequently.)

There is no statewide MHL here in Ohio for kids or adults. But I've been
yelled at by passing motorists, including one who was blaring her horn
and yelling at me to ride on a sidewalk. I had a car of young girls
deliberately brush-pass me then slow way down as one yelled "Wear your
F*** helmet!" I had a bicyclist cuss me out long and loud for not
wearing one. And I've had many milder "Where's your helmet?" remarks
delivered in scolding tones, from everyone from fellow club members to
pedestrians on the sidewalk.


Move! Get out of that 'hell hole'. Rode alone today and according to my 'helmet wear algorithm' I didn't wear a helmet. No one yelled or honked at me. It was cold for the time of the year (5C) but it was a pleasant ride after a rainy day yesterday.

Lou

On 4/11/2021 5:09 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zondag 11 april 2021 om 20:51:04 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 4/11/2021 11:23 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:59:20 a.m. UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

We've long since passed that point with helmet shaming, at least in the
U.S., Australia and New Zealand. Riding with a cycling cap or no cap at
all was once plenty safe, but now draws finger wagging, taunts and
lectures from intolerant people, even ones who should be allies. It's an
example of "safety inflation."

In fact, there are many who think it's better to never ride a bike, than
to ride one without a helmet. That's flagrantly stupid and contrary to
all research I've been able to find. We don't need to duplicate that
stupidity with DRLs, no matter how much some may love the gimmickry.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Funny, in all my years of riding without a helmet, I've never been told that I should be wearing one.
That amazes me. IIRC, you live in Ontario, where a mandatory helmet law
for adult cyclists was barely avoided. (One of the leaders of the
successful opposition was a man who used to post here frequently.)

There is no statewide MHL here in Ohio for kids or adults. But I've been
yelled at by passing motorists, including one who was blaring her horn
and yelling at me to ride on a sidewalk. I had a car of young girls
deliberately brush-pass me then slow way down as one yelled "Wear your
F*** helmet!" I had a bicyclist cuss me out long and loud for not
wearing one. And I've had many milder "Where's your helmet?" remarks
delivered in scolding tones, from everyone from fellow club members to
pedestrians on the sidewalk.


Move! Get out of that 'hell hole'. Rode alone today and according to my 'helmet wear algorithm' I didn't wear a helmet. No one yelled or honked at me. It was cold for the time of the year (5C) but it was a pleasant ride after a rainy day yesterday.

We just now got back from a ride for groceries. Nobody yelled, which is
normal. But as I've said, unlike Sir, it has happened to me many times
over the years, and not just here. I was yelled at in a Portland suburb.
(I was also yelled at to "get in a bike lane" there, on a street that
had none.) Idiots abound. We don't need to give them more ammunition.

Regarding bicycling, this is the opposite of a hell hole. As I've said,
we have hundreds of pleasant, small country roads to explore. On
Friday's ride with a friend from the other side of town, I chose the
route; but about halfway through the ride I said "I forget where that
little road goes. Do you mind if we explore?" Nobody did, so we poked
around for an extra 5 or 10 miles on roads with almost zero traffic. I
did eventually have to check the GPS to refresh my memory; but it was a
perfect cycling day, with beautiful skies and trilling toads serenading
us the whole way.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/11/2021 5:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 5:09 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zondag 11 april 2021 om 20:51:04 UTC+2 schreef Frank
Krygowski:
On 4/11/2021 11:23 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:59:20 a.m. UTC-4, Frank
Krygowski wrote:

We've long since passed that point with helmet shaming,
at least in the
U.S., Australia and New Zealand. Riding with a cycling
cap or no cap at
all was once plenty safe, but now draws finger wagging,
taunts and
lectures from intolerant people, even ones who should
be allies. It's an
example of "safety inflation."

In fact, there are many who think it's better to never
ride a bike, than
to ride one without a helmet. That's flagrantly stupid
and contrary to
all research I've been able to find. We don't need to
duplicate that
stupidity with DRLs, no matter how much some may love
the gimmickry.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Funny, in all my years of riding without a helmet, I've
never been told that I should be wearing one.
That amazes me. IIRC, you live in Ontario, where a
mandatory helmet law
for adult cyclists was barely avoided. (One of the
leaders of the
successful opposition was a man who used to post here
frequently.)

There is no statewide MHL here in Ohio for kids or
adults. But I've been
yelled at by passing motorists, including one who was
blaring her horn
and yelling at me to ride on a sidewalk. I had a car of
young girls
deliberately brush-pass me then slow way down as one
yelled "Wear your
F*** helmet!" I had a bicyclist cuss me out long and loud
for not
wearing one. And I've had many milder "Where's your
helmet?" remarks
delivered in scolding tones, from everyone from fellow
club members to
pedestrians on the sidewalk.


Move! Get out of that 'hell hole'. Rode alone today and
according to my 'helmet wear algorithm' I didn't wear a
helmet. No one yelled or honked at me. It was cold for the
time of the year (5C) but it was a pleasant ride after a
rainy day yesterday.

We just now got back from a ride for groceries. Nobody
yelled, which is normal. But as I've said, unlike Sir, it
has happened to me many times over the years, and not just
here. I was yelled at in a Portland suburb. (I was also
yelled at to "get in a bike lane" there, on a street that
had none.) Idiots abound. We don't need to give them more
ammunition.

Regarding bicycling, this is the opposite of a hell hole. As
I've said, we have hundreds of pleasant, small country roads
to explore. On Friday's ride with a friend from the other
side of town, I chose the route; but about halfway through
the ride I said "I forget where that little road goes. Do
you mind if we explore?" Nobody did, so we poked around for
an extra 5 or 10 miles on roads with almost zero traffic. I
did eventually have to check the GPS to refresh my memory;
but it was a perfect cycling day, with beautiful skies and
trilling toads serenading us the whole way.



People yell at you in Portland because you just don't fit in.
Next time try a little arson of Federal property, they'll
take you for a local:

https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/portla...lent-protests/

(Safety note: Wear a Che Guevara or Biden or BLM (CCP) tee
shirt as protection from indictment)

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

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:40:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 1:42 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/11/2021 8:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:

If someone wants to use a DRL, who cares -- as long as it is not
blinding other cyclists or motorists. I don't think DRLs are helpful
in full sunlight, but I don't see them as some existential threat to
human freedom and dignity -- just a waste of light.
As I have to emphasize time and time again, I'm not telling people not
to use a DRL, not to wear a helmet, not to wear day-glo clothing and so
on. What troubles me are the claims that "anyone with a brain" will make
those currently fashionable choices. Imposing ever-increasing "safety"
recommendations adds to the perceived danger of bicycling. That's the
opposite of promoting cycling.

Will the sky someday fall, in Jay's words? More realistically, will laws
mandate those measures? Well, helmets are mandatory for essentially
everyone in at least two countries, with fines up near $400 in some
areas. They're mandatory for kids in many U.S. states and for adults in
some areas. Day-glo vests must be carried by cyclists in France and be
worn under certain conditions. Blinking taillights are required by at
least some bike clubs for daytime riding.

The Oregon under 16 MHL is the source of the prohibition on offering evidence of the non-wearing of helmet as evidence of comparative fault. Assuming there were some law mandating a DRL on bicycles (there isn't one for cars in Oregon), it is reasonable to assume that it would protect cyclists from claims of comparative fault based on the using of a DRL.

Also, what you are proposing is a ban on DRLs to avoid them becoming the "standard of care." That doesn't make sense either -- people should be allowed to use DRLs, flippy-flags, day-glow vests and whatever else they want.

The way this plays out in court is that experts testify to what is reasonable behavior by a bicyclist. This can be your retirement job -- you can be the next John Forester opining that DRLs are useless and not the standard of care for a reasonable cyclist.

None of this matters to those so fearful that they fit Jeff's cartoon
image. http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jef...cle-Safety.jpg
It also doesn't matter to those who "suit up" to do any ride at all. But
it does, or should, matter to people who think bicycling is good for
society and think it should be treated as normal. It should also matter
to people who value elementary logic, not to mention reasonable freedom
of choice.
In any case, does any cyclist really think that much about the potential
of who would be at fault if they get hit? It's much more about reducing
the the likelihood of being hit. Some of us care about minimizing that
possibility, some do not.
Oh good grief - if a person doesn't use a DRL, he doesn't mind getting
hit? That's ludicrous.

My defense against getting hit is avoiding skulking in the gutter. I
almost always ride where motorists are looking, as specifically allowed
by state law. I also stay aware of traffic interactions and potential
conflicts. Those tactics have worked perfectly for almost 50 years now,
in dozens of states and nearly a dozen foreign countries.

Gutter bunnies get right hooked and left crossed because they are
inconspicuous, then they buy talismans for protection - DRLs, bike
flags, electric horns, day-glo vests and more.

WTF is "skulking in the gutter"? How do you even ride in the gutter? Are you saying AFRAP is skulking in the gutter -- even though it is required by law?

As a couple of data points, I've been hit maybe a half-dozen times and never while skulking in the gutter. I was lane center riding the speed of traffic when someone turned in front of me. Nice ride to the hospital in an ambulance. I was doing the same thing when some one pulled out from my right for no reason. I got hooked by a mail truck. I got rear-ended by a bus while in the middle of the f****** lane. People do stupid sh**.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/11/2021 5:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 5:09 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zondag 11 april 2021 om 20:51:04 UTC+2 schreef Frank
Krygowski:
On 4/11/2021 11:23 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:59:20 a.m. UTC-4, Frank
Krygowski wrote:

We've long since passed that point with helmet shaming,
at least in the
U.S., Australia and New Zealand. Riding with a cycling
cap or no cap at
all was once plenty safe, but now draws finger wagging,
taunts and
lectures from intolerant people, even ones who should
be allies. It's an
example of "safety inflation."

In fact, there are many who think it's better to never
ride a bike, than
to ride one without a helmet. That's flagrantly stupid
and contrary to
all research I've been able to find. We don't need to
duplicate that
stupidity with DRLs, no matter how much some may love
the gimmickry.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Funny, in all my years of riding without a helmet, I've
never been told that I should be wearing one.
That amazes me. IIRC, you live in Ontario, where a
mandatory helmet law
for adult cyclists was barely avoided. (One of the
leaders of the
successful opposition was a man who used to post here
frequently.)

There is no statewide MHL here in Ohio for kids or
adults. But I've been
yelled at by passing motorists, including one who was
blaring her horn
and yelling at me to ride on a sidewalk. I had a car of
young girls
deliberately brush-pass me then slow way down as one
yelled "Wear your
F*** helmet!" I had a bicyclist cuss me out long and loud
for not
wearing one. And I've had many milder "Where's your
helmet?" remarks
delivered in scolding tones, from everyone from fellow
club members to
pedestrians on the sidewalk.


Move! Get out of that 'hell hole'. Rode alone today and
according to my 'helmet wear algorithm' I didn't wear a
helmet. No one yelled or honked at me. It was cold for the
time of the year (5C) but it was a pleasant ride after a
rainy day yesterday.

We just now got back from a ride for groceries. Nobody
yelled, which is normal. But as I've said, unlike Sir, it
has happened to me many times over the years, and not just
here. I was yelled at in a Portland suburb. (I was also
yelled at to "get in a bike lane" there, on a street that
had none.) Idiots abound. We don't need to give them more
ammunition.

Regarding bicycling, this is the opposite of a hell hole. As
I've said, we have hundreds of pleasant, small country roads
to explore. On Friday's ride with a friend from the other
side of town, I chose the route; but about halfway through
the ride I said "I forget where that little road goes. Do
you mind if we explore?" Nobody did, so we poked around for
an extra 5 or 10 miles on roads with almost zero traffic. I
did eventually have to check the GPS to refresh my memory;
but it was a perfect cycling day, with beautiful skies and
trilling toads serenading us the whole way.


People yell at you in Portland because you just don't fit in.
Next time try a little arson of Federal property, they'll
take you for a local:

https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/portla...lent-protests/

(Safety note: Wear a Che Guevara or Biden or BLM (CCP) tee
shirt as protection from indictment)

These dopes are being rounded up slowly -- often out of state. We have protest tourists. https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/i...tland-protests

And the protesters are not even on the radar from a cycling standpoint. IMO, the right-thinking conservative PU drivers are worse than all of the Antifa hooligans put together. Poor Frank got yelled at and told to get in a bike lane. Riding way out in Clackamas, Yamhill and Washington counties, I've had much more dire encounters with MAGA idiots with Trump flags and bumper stickers -- for just riding on a f****** road.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/11/2021 4:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

As a couple of data points, I've been hit maybe a half-dozen times and never while skulking in the gutter. I was lane center riding the speed of traffic when someone turned in front of me. Nice ride to the hospital in an ambulance. I was doing the same thing when some one pulled out from my right for no reason. I got hooked by a mail truck. I got rear-ended by a bus while in the middle of the f****** lane. People do stupid sh**.

Taking positive steps to avoid being hit is something we need to do more
on. The cyclist community needs to double-down on education and avoid
compulsion.

Gentle encouragement for helmets and lights, and setting an example,
will have better results than advocating for mandates. Even though
nearly everyone here understands that helmets and lights are a good
idea; countering the false narrative of people like Frank is important
but in a nice way.

Passing out lights for free to those without them, whatever the reason
someone lacks them, is one productive effort that I've engaged in, using
my discretionary money when I was the mayor of my city. Several
organizations offer free helmets, at least for children.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:22:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 19:23:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 6:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 16:01:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 2:34 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


I have yet to see a DRL that's visible to me BEFORE the bicycle and bicyclist are. The only time I notice a bicyclist with a headlight or tail-light on during the day is if they are in deep shade or if it's heavy overcast.

The VAST MAJORITY of bicyclists do NOT repeat, do NOT, need a DRL.

Agreed! Also, if cyclists ride more prominently in the lane, they're
even less likely to not be noticed by motorists.

The problem is, when people who buy a DRL get noticed, they say "Oh, he
noticed me because of my DRL" even if they would have been noticed
anyway. Confirmation bias in action.

But I have seen situations where a DRL was noticeable. The other day
we were driving back from Bangkok and because of the holiday traffic
started very early in the morning - sun just peeping over the horizon
- and met a bloke on a bicycle and yes the DRL did make him much more
noticeable.

As I've said, you can sometimes spot a bicyclist farther away because of
a DRL. But I've never observed an incident when the DRL made a
_practical_ difference. A cyclist doesn't need to be seen at the horizon.

I have. Twice. Each time it was cyclist riding the wrong way on the
side of the street. Both times were very early in the morning and if
he had some sort of light I would have seen him further enough away to
have easily avoided him rather then an "OH MY GOD" situation.

In my state, lights are required from sunset to sunrise. That's actually
a bit more strict than the law was a few years ago, when lights were
required from half an hour past sunset to half an hour before sunrise.
(Not that the laws are adequately enforced, mind you.) DRLs are lights
in use outside those times, or outside similar conditions.

If you're talking about "very early in the morning," so early that the
cyclist was not visible, he may well have been in violation of the law.
But that's a separate issue from "DRLs always for safety!"

Frank, whether or not the two bikes that I almost hit may or may not
been in violation of the law is meaningless, at least to me. But,
really, does that make a difference? Laying there with the broken leg
does one really feel better knowing that the guy what done it broke
the law?

As for DRL's I did research the subject and I find studies dating back
to the 1970's and which showed that the use of DRL's did reduce the
frequency of vehicle accidents, although the level of decrease did
vary from study to study.

But, perhaps more to the point you blithely ignore the fact that a
number of studied of bicycle accidents have shown that, in some cases
more than 50% of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist. Wouldn't
it be more productive, rather then rant and rave about DRL's, to
advocate riding a bicycle safely?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/11/2021 6:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/11/2021 5:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 5:09 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zondag 11 april 2021 om 20:51:04 UTC+2 schreef Frank
Krygowski:
On 4/11/2021 11:23 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:59:20 a.m. UTC-4, Frank
Krygowski wrote:

We've long since passed that point with helmet shaming,
at least in the
U.S., Australia and New Zealand. Riding with a cycling
cap or no cap at
all was once plenty safe, but now draws finger wagging,
taunts and
lectures from intolerant people, even ones who should
be allies. It's an
example of "safety inflation."

In fact, there are many who think it's better to never
ride a bike, than
to ride one without a helmet. That's flagrantly stupid
and contrary to
all research I've been able to find. We don't need to
duplicate that
stupidity with DRLs, no matter how much some may love
the gimmickry.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Funny, in all my years of riding without a helmet, I've
never been told that I should be wearing one.
That amazes me. IIRC, you live in Ontario, where a
mandatory helmet law
for adult cyclists was barely avoided. (One of the
leaders of the
successful opposition was a man who used to post here
frequently.)

There is no statewide MHL here in Ohio for kids or
adults. But I've been
yelled at by passing motorists, including one who was
blaring her horn
and yelling at me to ride on a sidewalk. I had a car of
young girls
deliberately brush-pass me then slow way down as one
yelled "Wear your
F*** helmet!" I had a bicyclist cuss me out long and loud
for not
wearing one. And I've had many milder "Where's your
helmet?" remarks
delivered in scolding tones, from everyone from fellow
club members to
pedestrians on the sidewalk.


Move! Get out of that 'hell hole'. Rode alone today and
according to my 'helmet wear algorithm' I didn't wear a
helmet. No one yelled or honked at me. It was cold for the
time of the year (5C) but it was a pleasant ride after a
rainy day yesterday.

We just now got back from a ride for groceries. Nobody
yelled, which is normal. But as I've said, unlike Sir, it
has happened to me many times over the years, and not just
here. I was yelled at in a Portland suburb. (I was also
yelled at to "get in a bike lane" there, on a street that
had none.) Idiots abound. We don't need to give them more
ammunition.

Regarding bicycling, this is the opposite of a hell hole. As
I've said, we have hundreds of pleasant, small country roads
to explore. On Friday's ride with a friend from the other
side of town, I chose the route; but about halfway through
the ride I said "I forget where that little road goes. Do
you mind if we explore?" Nobody did, so we poked around for
an extra 5 or 10 miles on roads with almost zero traffic. I
did eventually have to check the GPS to refresh my memory;
but it was a perfect cycling day, with beautiful skies and
trilling toads serenading us the whole way.


People yell at you in Portland because you just don't fit in.
Next time try a little arson of Federal property, they'll
take you for a local:

https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/portla...lent-protests/

(Safety note: Wear a Che Guevara or Biden or BLM (CCP) tee
shirt as protection from indictment)

These dopes are being rounded up slowly -- often out of state. We have protest tourists. https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/i...tland-protests

And the protesters are not even on the radar from a cycling standpoint. IMO, the right-thinking conservative PU drivers are worse than all of the Antifa hooligans put together. Poor Frank got yelled at and told to get in a bike lane. Riding way out in Clackamas, Yamhill and Washington counties, I've had much more dire encounters with MAGA idiots with Trump flags and bumper stickers -- for just riding on a f****** road.

-- Jay Beattie.





'Take the lane' is generally good advice and I, like you,
generally do. Not always but generally, yes.

Still and all, bad things happen to good people with some
regularity:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/fam...d-moped-rider/

There's no general rule for the actual world as we find it.


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

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:18:01 p.m. UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:40:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 1:42 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/11/2021 8:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:

If someone wants to use a DRL, who cares -- as long as it is not
blinding other cyclists or motorists. I don't think DRLs are helpful
in full sunlight, but I don't see them as some existential threat to
human freedom and dignity -- just a waste of light.
As I have to emphasize time and time again, I'm not telling people not
to use a DRL, not to wear a helmet, not to wear day-glo clothing and so
on. What troubles me are the claims that "anyone with a brain" will make
those currently fashionable choices. Imposing ever-increasing "safety"
recommendations adds to the perceived danger of bicycling. That's the
opposite of promoting cycling.

Will the sky someday fall, in Jay's words? More realistically, will laws
mandate those measures? Well, helmets are mandatory for essentially
everyone in at least two countries, with fines up near $400 in some
areas. They're mandatory for kids in many U.S. states and for adults in
some areas. Day-glo vests must be carried by cyclists in France and be
worn under certain conditions. Blinking taillights are required by at
least some bike clubs for daytime riding.
The Oregon under 16 MHL is the source of the prohibition on offering evidence of the non-wearing of helmet as evidence of comparative fault. Assuming there were some law mandating a DRL on bicycles (there isn't one for cars in Oregon), it is reasonable to assume that it would protect cyclists from claims of comparative fault based on the using of a DRL.

Also, what you are proposing is a ban on DRLs to avoid them becoming the "standard of care." That doesn't make sense either -- people should be allowed to use DRLs, flippy-flags, day-glow vests and whatever else they want.

The way this plays out in court is that experts testify to what is reasonable behavior by a bicyclist. This can be your retirement job -- you can be the next John Forester opining that DRLs are useless and not the standard of care for a reasonable cyclist.
None of this matters to those so fearful that they fit Jeff's cartoon
image. http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jef...cle-Safety.jpg
It also doesn't matter to those who "suit up" to do any ride at all. But
it does, or should, matter to people who think bicycling is good for
society and think it should be treated as normal. It should also matter
to people who value elementary logic, not to mention reasonable freedom
of choice.
In any case, does any cyclist really think that much about the potential
of who would be at fault if they get hit? It's much more about reducing
the the likelihood of being hit. Some of us care about minimizing that
possibility, some do not.
Oh good grief - if a person doesn't use a DRL, he doesn't mind getting
hit? That's ludicrous.

My defense against getting hit is avoiding skulking in the gutter. I
almost always ride where motorists are looking, as specifically allowed
by state law. I also stay aware of traffic interactions and potential
conflicts. Those tactics have worked perfectly for almost 50 years now,
in dozens of states and nearly a dozen foreign countries.

Gutter bunnies get right hooked and left crossed because they are
inconspicuous, then they buy talismans for protection - DRLs, bike
flags, electric horns, day-glo vests and more.
WTF is "skulking in the gutter"? How do you even ride in the gutter? Are you saying AFRAP is skulking in the gutter -- even though it is required by law?

As a couple of data points, I've been hit maybe a half-dozen times and never while skulking in the gutter. I was lane center riding the speed of traffic when someone turned in front of me. Nice ride to the hospital in an ambulance. I was doing the same thing when some one pulled out from my right for no reason. I got hooked by a mail truck. I got rear-ended by a bus while in the middle of the f****** lane. People do stupid sh**.

-- Jay Beattie.

A number of years ago I was riding downhill at 50 kph and approaching a narrow bridge beteen Cambridge and Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Once on that bridge and with oncoming traffic, there is no place for a bicyclist to go. Just before going onto the bridge I checked my rearview mirror and saw three 18-wheelers overtaking me. The 18-wheeler furthest back had its trailer wheels over the fog line. Sine the trucks were NOT slowing down i decided to bail onto the soft shoulder. Ding that on 19mm tires at 50 kph made for a very interesting minute. I thought that I was going t wipe out or end up in the river. For bailing, I was called a scardy cat by someone on this newsgroup.

I could h ave continued onto that bridge in the hope that the 18-wheeler would slow down BEFORe running into me. I figured that push comes to shove an 18-wheeler will beat a bicycle every time in a collision.

Some other's, well their mileage may differ but I'm not about to play "take and hold the lane" with a speeding 18-wheeler; especially when there's no place to bail or get out of its way if it doesn't slow down.

Cheers

On 4/11/2021 7:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 11:40:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

As I have to emphasize time and time again, I'm not telling people not
to use a DRL, not to wear a helmet, not to wear day-glo clothing and so
on. What troubles me are the claims that "anyone with a brain" will make
those currently fashionable choices. Imposing ever-increasing "safety"
recommendations adds to the perceived danger of bicycling. That's the
opposite of promoting cycling.

Will the sky someday fall, in Jay's words? More realistically, will laws
mandate those measures? Well, helmets are mandatory for essentially
everyone in at least two countries, with fines up near $400 in some
areas. They're mandatory for kids in many U.S. states and for adults in
some areas. Day-glo vests must be carried by cyclists in France and be
worn under certain conditions. Blinking taillights are required by at
least some bike clubs for daytime riding.

The Oregon under 16 MHL is the source of the prohibition on offering evidence of the non-wearing of helmet as evidence of comparative fault. Assuming there were some law mandating a DRL on bicycles (there isn't one for cars in Oregon), it is reasonable to assume that it would protect cyclists from claims of comparative fault based on the using of a DRL.

Your point seems to be that if a law mandating helmets or DRLs (or
day-glo vests or safety flags or electric horns?) has a comparative
fault exception, it's just fine. I disagree strongly. There are many
other detriments to such laws, and even to promotions of those measures.

My point is that every time we add an item to the list of things "you
really need to be safe on a bike" we increase the perception of
bicycling's danger. Not only are most of those things ineffective wastes
of money, they add to the image of bicycling as an extreme activity, one
that normally prudent people should avoid. That imposes all sorts of
societal costs.

Also, what you are proposing is a ban on DRLs to avoid them becoming the "standard of care."

Bull****. I never once proposed banning those things. I said precisely
the opposite. But I'd prefer an (unattainable) ideal world in which
promotional propaganda was actually factual, accurate and given in
proper context.
My defense against getting hit is avoiding skulking in the gutter. I
almost always ride where motorists are looking, as specifically allowed
by state law. I also stay aware of traffic interactions and potential
conflicts. Those tactics have worked perfectly for almost 50 years now,
in dozens of states and nearly a dozen foreign countries.

Gutter bunnies get right hooked and left crossed because they are
inconspicuous, then they buy talismans for protection - DRLs, bike
flags, electric horns, day-glo vests and more.

WTF is "skulking in the gutter"? How do you even ride in the gutter? Are you saying AFRAP is skulking in the gutter -- even though it is required by law?

Get serious. You're a lawyer. You know the "P" stands for "practicable"
not "possible." "Practicable" includes the ability to do it without
endangering oneself.

And unless your riding universe is completely different from mine, you
will have seen plenty of cyclists literally riding in the gutter. You'll
have seen even more skimming the very edge of a 10 foot lane to let an 8
foot truck squeeze by with inches to spare. You'll have seen countless
cyclists riding in the door zone.

None of those behaviors are required by law, and all those are strongly
discouraged in any legitimate cycling education program. Yet I'd bet
dollars to donuts that we have posters here who don't get the idea. They
think they have to never inconvenience a motorist no matter what, so
they ride at the far edge of the lane. In that position they aren't
noticed because they're not where motorists normally look. They're lost
among the background clutter, or (for motorists pulling out from the
right) they're hidden behind parked cars.

This is basic! It's probably covered in this online course:
https://cyclingsavvy.org/courses/ess...-short-course/

People who don't get this seem to have _far_ more close calls. They then
complain about how dangerous bicycling is. They tout their glaring
lights, their flags, their hats that saved their lives three times,
their "protected" lanes that hide them even worse, and they claim that
more and more such garbage is needed every year to be "safe."

As a couple of data points, I've been hit maybe a half-dozen times and never while skulking in the gutter. I was lane center riding the speed of traffic when someone turned in front of me. Nice ride to the hospital in an ambulance. I was doing the same thing when some one pulled out from my right for no reason. I got hooked by a mail truck. I got rear-ended by a bus while in the middle of the f****** lane. People do stupid sh**.

People do stupid ****. But people do less stupid **** to riders who are
positioned so they are visible. You improve your odds when you move away
from the edge - assuming, as on most roads, that there is not room to
safely share the lane.

Can you picture two normal curves? Each one representing the probability
of a rider's car-bike crash. Neither one has absolute zero probability
(the far left tail of the curve). But the curves are shifted laterally
from each other. The rider who hugs the edge has more chance of getting
hit, and the reasons should be obvious to a person who can visualize
lines of sight and lane dimensions.

Picture a van parked just east of a driveway. Picture a cyclist riding
west, skimming along within three feet of the van (and wishing the bike
lane were next to the curb in the passenger side door zone instead of in
the driver side door zone). Can you picture a motorist trying to pull
out of the driveway and hitting the cyclist? That should be easy.

If the van blocked the motorist's view of the cyclist without a DRL, it
would have blocked his view of the cyclist with a DRL. The DRL not only
didn't help, it may give the cyclist false confidence and increase his
danger. It's an ineffective kluge.

--
- Frank Krygowski