Do bicycles and cars mix?

DurangoKid wrote:
7. An Autobahn driver I spoke with contends that American drivers are
slow and dangerous. As a cyclist I'm inclined to agree.



I agree. But: they are not dangerous BECAUSE they are slow. They are
slow AND dangerous, because they are underskilled. Germans are fast and
dangerous, because they think they are even better drivers than they
are. Trust me: if you drive on an Autobahn and somebody comes up behind
you at what seems to be twice your speed and flashes the lights at you:
it is truly scary - and happens all the time. Not a few guys come within
a few yards before flashing. In the seventies the speed limits were
lowered to 100km/h to save gasoline. The fatality rate dropped
dramatically - and inched back up once the speed limits were relaxed.
Slow is NOT dangerous per se. The danger comes from mixing too many
different speeds on the same road. The fast drivers could lower the
danger by adapting to the lower speed around them - or the other way
around. Your German friend did not see himself as part of the danger -
well, most of us don't. At the end of the day: IF it comes to a crash,
your chances of survival are much better at lower speed - remember that
kinetic energy grows with the square of speed.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

zumbrunndbla wrote:
I agree. But: they are not dangerous BECAUSE they are slow. They are
slow AND dangerous, because they are underskilled. Germans are fast and
dangerous, because they think they are even better drivers than they
are. Trust me: if you drive on an Autobahn and somebody comes up behind
you at what seems to be twice your speed and flashes the lights at you:
it is truly scary - and happens all the time. Not a few guys come within
a few yards before flashing. In the seventies the speed limits were
lowered to 100km/h to save gasoline. The fatality rate dropped
dramatically - and inched back up once the speed limits were relaxed.
Slow is NOT dangerous per se. The danger comes from mixing too many
different speeds on the same road. The fast drivers could lower the
danger by adapting to the lower speed around them - or the other way
around. Your German friend did not see himself as part of the danger -
well, most of us don't. At the end of the day: IF it comes to a crash,
your chances of survival are much better at lower speed - remember that
kinetic energy grows with the square of speed.



I agree with you. American drivers have it too easy. They don't get the
training that would make them more skilled drivers. My point was that
there is less correlation between speed and the frequency of accidents.
Skill is a more determining factor. Of course, there's no arguing with
ke = 1/2mv**2.

I lived in Colorado for a while. There they have a principle in the
traffic regulations called driving too fast for the conditions. You
could be cited for driving the speed limit if there was bad weather or
congestion, etc. They were concerned about driving in the mountains.
The roads are often narrow, the curves are blind, and the side of the
road is the bottom of a canyon. I guess it all boils down to using
one's head.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

P.J. Hartman wrote:
(Don Quijote) wrote in message
. com...
"Everybody was just chatting," said Debra Ryder, out for her first
ride with the group.
Oh, I already know I'm going to get lambasted by the cyclists for this
comment, but here it is anyway.
Without taking anything away from the egregious actions of the
automobile driver, perhaps a lot of the cyclists could have avoided
injury if they'd been paying better attention themselves. Riding in
large groups tends to become more of a social function and less of a
cycling one. If this had been a single bicyclist, perhaps the rider
would have been alert enought to avoid the oncoming car.



You are right, you are going to be lambasted. In this particular
instance, the car crossed a double yellow and plowed into cyclists in
the oncoming lane, ie there was nowhere for the cyclists to go to avoid
the oncoming car.

A portion of the community reaction here in St. Petersburg was that if
the cyclists were not on the road, this wouldnt have happened. This
position is as specious as it is asinine. It is tantamount to saying
that if no one had flew on 9-11, there wouldnt have been a terrorist
attack. Bicyclists are seen as disposable and inferior to automobiles
and until that is changed, we will continue to have incidents like this
where the driver expresses no accountability or remorse.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

"Mitch Haley" wrote in message
...
Pete wrote:

"Don Quijote" wrote in message
***If I'm a vehicle why can't I ride like one!?***

This is the way *I* ride. Why can't you?

Phobia.

No. He's just a monkey. He said so himself.

Pete

Don Quijote slashes at windmills:

If point A is far from point B you better ride on a non stop street,
or else you take a bus, don't you?

No.

*I ain't riding because it ain't safe*. But what do you expect, for me
to drive on secondary streets stopping and going at every corner? I
ain't got an engine, remember, so to get up to speed every block or so
is not my idea of fun or safety.


News flash to Don and all other freaked-out victims of poor advice: get off the
busy narrow arterial boulevard and chart a route on secondary streets. Look
around and you will find streets with relatively few stops and reasonably quiet
traffic.

I'm at the wrong end of the food chain, being the slowest on the road,
and you expect me to go out there and play with lions?

Don you'll never get anywhere with that attitude--the bicycle is clearly at the
top of the current transportation food chain. Yes, cycling is dangerous. Yes,
getting run down and killed is a possibility. But there is a way to ride which
greatly minimizes the possibility. First step is clever route finding. Why are
you so freaked out by riding in traffic? It's really no more dangerous than
driving or walking. Motorcycling is far more dangerous. If you're out in
traffic, there's going to be **** happening, people making mistakes all around
you, all the time. Just gotta be ready for it. And then, know that there will
still be some measure of risk, which, because you LOVE CYCLING SO DAMN MUCH,
you are willing to accept.

Failing that, move out of Fla.

However, in riding off-road since 1988, I have had exactly 1 accident,
a
dislocated shoulder, and I can attribute that to my own stupidity (me
and wet, mossy rocks don't mix). I have never killed any indigenous
species, and I take great care to leave trails in the same or better
condition than I found them.

My point? It is not the nature of the type of riding, but rather the
nature of the individual cyclist that makes riding off-road dangerous.
And with that said, I'm sure all of the cyclists in these groups who
have experience both on and off-road will agree that riding on the
road
is inherently MORE dangerous than riding off-road - why do you think
mountain biking has gotten so popular?



Kudos on the trail ethics, but have to say your reporting of 1 "accident" in 15
years of off-roading (trail riding?) indicates not much off-roading done by you
in the past 15 years. When trai ridin there is a bigger chance of incidents and
I would say injuries, even if the chance of getting hit by a car is eliminated.
Kind of like riding on the bike path. Also those with supreme trail skills,
while they definitely welcome the lack of vehicles and feel safer on the trail
than on the road, tend to escalate their speeds and risk-taking to make up for
their increase in skill.

Also I collided with a moto earlier this summer out in the woods. What if I had
sustained some nasty open leg fracture or something, 15 miles from the nearest
road? Get hauled out in a chopper I guess. Makes ya think twice about riding
fast on the trail.

Robert

Quijote said:

No what? Why don't cyclists go training on secondary streets? Could it
be because of dogs or because of speed?

Who says they don't. Many "secondary" streets are quite suitable for fast
riding: wide, quiet, few stops. cyclist will go basically the same speed on a
30 mph boulevard as a 75 mph freeway, and much faster on the quiet 30 mph
secondary street than the super-busy arterial with stop lights..not all
secondaries are created equal.

Don you'll never get anywhere with that attitude--the bicycle is clearly at
the
top of the current transportation food chain.

Compared to what, cats?


DQ, if you can't see that the bike is clearly the superior mode of transport in
urban and suburban areas, despite the danger, then I can't help you.

don't think motorcycling is more dangerous because you ride with
traffic. Someone said the problem is mixing different speeds together.
Comprende?

You are wrong. It is precisely the speed of the motorcycle which makes
motorcycling far more dangerous than riding a bike. You are about 30 times more
likely to die while motorcycling than while cycling. People can't handle the
responsibility that comes with all that speed. Furthermore, that motorcycles
have to ride in the traffic lane is a disadvantage, not an advantage. Cyclists
have the option of getting out of the traffic lane--use it. Or are you just
another hopeless victim of "vehicular cycling" dogma?

The only streets that are going to get any new bike lanes are streets that
don't need them, because they're already wide enough. I doubt any cities would
sacrifice a single high-traffic lane to create a bike lane. That's reality. you
may not like it, but you should get used to it. Not going to change any time
soon.

Robert

Having had three (3) different cars pull out in front of me, in the past few
months, (traveling 25 to 30 mph), while looking directly at me, I concluded
that it was a speed perception. I was told that people driving car's don't
expect bicycles to go 25 to 30 mph.

I then had a conversation with my youngest son... a Junior at WWU,
(Ellensburg, WA) and uses his "Dirt Bike" around campus. He informed me of
exactly the same problem. People will look right at him as he's driving
toward and intersection, acknowledge that he's there... then turn out in
front of him.

CONCLUSION:
It's survival of the fittest... and those in cars must get this feeling that
they are bigger and will survive a conflict with a smaller vehical... so
it's OK for them to *kill* people that ride *either* bicycles or
motorcycles.

Sick... but deeply hidden in the subconsious of car drivers.

fwiw



Not necessarily. Just because drivers are looking right at you doesn't mean
they see you. Take eye contact with a grain of salt. File it away with turn
signals--it's nice, but don't bet your life on it. Assuming visibility is the
hallmark of the experience-challenged cyclist.

Robert

I was out riding on the Pinellas Trail just a few miles from where the
Pastore incident happened that day and was saddened, but not surprised,
to hear of an incompetent driver plowing into a group of cyclists. The
drivers here, in one of the most densely populated counties in Florida,
are atrocious, generally speaking.

Just a few days later I witnessed another clueless driver going north on
a southbound lane of a four-lane road at night and despite my honking
and waving, he didn't catch on that he was in the wrong lane. He had a
head-on collision with another car just shortly thereafter and it is
amazing that everyone lived through this accident. The point: driver's
licenses seem to be given out here as easily as if one was purchasing
them at K-mart.

I was pleased to find out that such a poor driving and cycling mix is
not universal to all of the states. When visiting Honolulu recently, it
was great to find that the drivers generally seemed to have more respect
for cyclists than their Florida counterparts. Even with the hillier
terrain and the mob of cars in Waikiki, I felt safer driving on the
roads there than I do here in Pinellas County.

To raise awareness of cyclists in this county, a week after the
Pastore incident, a very large group of local cyclists did a ride in
honor of those who were injured in the crash. I hope the press
coverage made a few local drivers think about respecting the cyclists
who share their roads.

-- Michaela



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

vancegod [/i]
Public roads are there so companies can stock the shelves in your grocery store. They're there so that you may buy parts to fix your ... bike. They're there so you may enjoy protection from the Police Dpt.. They're there so the ambulance can get you when some insensed motorist runs your bootie down! Your statements are inflamitory, selfish, and ill-advised. Your sense of entitlement truely makes me sad. [/quote]

A very emotional statement. Why??
Name one incident, where an ambulance was too late because of a bicycle! Name on incident when a fire burned out of control because the firetruck was help up by a bicycle! What is all the emotion supposed to accomplish?

Originally posted by vancegod
In addition automobile drivers out number cyclists, on our roads, by how much? Ten to one, one-thousand to one, ten-thousand to one? So you would have your "rights" supported at the expense of the majority? We just don't do things that way in this country. [/b]

Actually, we do. Democracy means the majority rules, but the rule of law insures the majority does not run roughshod over minorities (among other things). Anyhow, if there are so few cyclists, how much harm can they cause?

Originally posted by vancegod
I would close with the disclosure of the fact that I was a Messenger in Portland, OR for 13 years. I have also done my stint as a line mechanic in numerable shops. In addition I have enjoyed more than my fair share of ameteur cycling competition. My friends often speculate as to whether or not I was born on two wheels. [/b]

Good for you! But:

[quote][i]Originally posted by vancegod wrote:
And the only thing in this world I dislike more than "bike-nazzi's" is
"bike-nazzi's" in lycra. Thanks for helping to give us all a bad name.



Again, why the raw emotion? Why invoke Hitler? I just don't get it.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

There is always one in the group that hasn't a clue how careful we
cyclists actually are to stay away from cars. Now I have seen arrogance
from a few cyclists but it is few. I ride alone and with a few other
riders but I always prefer larger groups as to the statement, it's
better to ride in numbers.

I hope I'm not on the rode when your in your car, and like I always say
to drivers that cut me off, "Hope I give your children more room than
you have just shown me" and then I say how disappointed your mother
would be in you today.

It's not that cyclists have to stick together, it's law of nature to be
nice to people and the hard part is that there are way to many
disgruntled "IT'S MY ROAD" and you better move mentality of drivers than
should be drivers license's. I'm digressing, I sit back and read now.

Casey



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com