Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure

On 7/3/2015 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 8:44 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it
is even more interesting largely because of the many
anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments
complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride
willy nilly.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html





Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of
cyclists" like it just happened around he

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html

The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the
Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a
miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just
side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at
high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and
the other one crashed into the windshield.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are
crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get
across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have
the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over
to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far
far easier to make that left turn. ...


I don't have problems with that. Ahead of time I move over to the center
of the road and hold out my left hand. Car drivers generally understand
and pass me on the right unless they also want to turn left. During rush
hour getting to road center can be an issue but the same is true on
roads without bike lanes because of an endless row of passing cars.

Here's the problem with your logic, Joerg. You put up an example of a
motorist who wants to clear the road of cyclists, and say that because
of people like him, more infrastructure is needed.

But if a driver actively wants to hit cyclists, no practical
infrastructure will prevent it. In any ordinary paint-striped bike
lane, you're still vulnerable. When you move left prior to your left
turn, you're still vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road
without infrastructure, you're still vulnerable.

And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the
extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary folks
who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at
intersections, driveway crossings and the like.

No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where motorists
expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all but a very, very
few do not want to hit you.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/3/2015 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 8:44 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it
is even more interesting largely because of the many
anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those comments
complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride
willy nilly.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html





Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of
cyclists" like it just happened around he

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html

The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the
Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a
miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just
side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt from behind at
high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the road to the left and
the other one crashed into the windshield.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are
crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get
across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d i don't need to have
the aggravation of trying to move from the far right bike lane over
to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane i find is far
far easier to make that left turn. ...


I don't have problems with that. Ahead of time I move over to the center
of the road and hold out my left hand. Car drivers generally understand
and pass me on the right unless they also want to turn left. During rush
hour getting to road center can be an issue but the same is true on
roads without bike lanes because of an endless row of passing cars.

Here's the problem with your logic, Joerg. You put up an example of a
motorist who wants to clear the road of cyclists, and say that because
of people like him, more infrastructure is needed.

But if a driver actively wants to hit cyclists, no practical
infrastructure will prevent it. In any ordinary paint-striped bike
lane, you're still vulnerable. When you move left prior to your left
turn, you're still vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road
without infrastructure, you're still vulnerable.

And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the
extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary folks
who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at
intersections, driveway crossings and the like.

No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where motorists
expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all but a very, very
few do not want to hit you.

Well, our bike lanes are clearly marked "no homicidal lunatics allowed." That seems to work -- usually. http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/r...ike-path-85780

That path, BTW, runs down the middle of a highway bridge. I don't even know how a car could get on it.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/3/2015 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 8:44 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section
below it is even more interesting largely because of the
many anti-bicycles on the road comments. A lot of those
comments complain about what we hew call 'Scofflaw
bicyclists' who ride willy nilly.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html







Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of
cyclists" like it just happened around he

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html

The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the
Canadian article that more bike infrastructure is needed.
It's a miracle that this cyclist survived. The first cyclist
was just side-swiped but the two others were hit full brunt
from behind at high speed. IIRC one was catapulted across the
road to the left and the other one crashed into the
windshield.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they
are crap ad are more dan gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm
trying to get across town in a reasonable amou nt of time an d
i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the
far right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in
a traffic lane i find is far far easier to make that left turn.
...


I don't have problems with that. Ahead of time I move over to the
center of the road and hold out my left hand. Car drivers
generally understand and pass me on the right unless they also
want to turn left. During rush hour getting to road center can be
an issue but the same is true on roads without bike lanes because
of an endless row of passing cars.

Here's the problem with your logic, Joerg. You put up an example
of a motorist who wants to clear the road of cyclists, and say that
because of people like him, more infrastructure is needed.

But if a driver actively wants to hit cyclists, no practical
infrastructure will prevent it. In any ordinary paint-striped
bike lane, you're still vulnerable. ...


Less so if built correctly. Maniacs like in the link can still get you.
But the vast majority aren't maniacs. They are people who chat, text,
email, put on make-up, shave, eat, haven't fully come off their sleep
medication, had way too many cocktails, are under the influence of some
"recreational" drug, and so on. The resulting accidents look similar.
Except for the booze all things drivers simply did not do in the 70's
which is why riding in the lanes was safer back then, and I felt safer
back then.

There is a simple and cheap improvement for bike lanes: Rumble strips.
That wakes up almost any distracted driver. Of course, segregated
structures are best.

Example from yesterday: I rode up to Placerville on singletrack which
requires me to also use a short county road stretch. On the way there
everything looked as usual. On the way back just 3h or so later a
heavy-gauge steel metal pole _off_ the side of that same road was
completely flattened. That must have been at least a heavy pickup truck.


... When you move left prior to your left turn, you're still
vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road without
infrastructure, you're still vulnerable.

And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the
extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary
folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at
intersections, driveway crossings and the like.


And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to
grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a
young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when
in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist.


No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where
motorists expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all
but a very, very few do not want to hit you.

Well, our bike lanes are clearly marked "no homicidal lunatics
allowed." That seems to work -- usually.
http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/r...ike-path-85780

That path, BTW, runs down the middle of a highway bridge. I don't
even know how a car could get on it.


I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The only
motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike facilities are
dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally. That's why I ride with
daytime light even on some trail sections when the vegetation is more dense.

Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2015-07-03 7:47 PM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:39:16 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is
even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on
the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew
call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html


Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of
cyclists" like it just happened around he

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html

The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian
article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that
this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the
two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was
catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into
the windshield.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan
gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou
nt of time an
d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far
right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane
i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con
cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had
better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated
lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip
bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single
time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn
is very hard and dan
gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do -
rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the
direction one wishes to travel?

About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the
really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother
flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists.

A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens.

Cheers

On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and
we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass
us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to
some extent.

We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code
that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been
a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head
on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where
her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is
out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect
her to publicize this.

I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to
second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are
other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one.
--
duane

Ontario recently paased a one metre passing law. Maybe that's why they're
passing you further.

heers

Yeah that's what I was saying. Seems like it could be working.


It does. I feel the effect in California after they passed that a few
months ago. Except people out here don't know no meidrs so it's three
feet :-)

Most people now give us those 3ft or even more. But on every ride there
are several drivers twho on purpose don't. Plenty of space, nobody
coming in the other lane and they don't more even one foot. Those are
the scary ones, especially after they had a few cold ones with the guys.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is
even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on
the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew
call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html


Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of
cyclists" like it just happened around he

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html

The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian
article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that
this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the
two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was
catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into
the windshield.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan
gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou
nt of time an
d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far
right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane
i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con
cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had
better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated
lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip
bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single
time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn is very hard and dan
gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do -
rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the
direction one wishes to travel?

About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the
really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother
flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists.

A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens.

Cheers

On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and
we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass
us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to
some extent.

We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code
that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been
a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head
on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where
her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is
out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect
her to publicize this.

I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to
second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are
other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one.


Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have
any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being
seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull
out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back
in even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on
some sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways,
parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had
such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident
happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad
she wore a helmet.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sion-1.3131405

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is
even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on
the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew
call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html


Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of
cyclists" like it just happened around he

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html

The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian
article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that
this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the
two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was
catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into
the windshield.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan
gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou
nt of time an
d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far
right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane
i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con
cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had
better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated
lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip
bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single
time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn
is very hard and dan
gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do -
rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the
direction one wishes to travel?

About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the
really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother
flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists.

A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens.

Cheers

On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and
we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass
us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to
some extent.

We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code
that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been
a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head
on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where
her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is
out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect
her to publicize this.

I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to
second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are
other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one.


Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have
any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being
seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull
out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back in
even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on some
sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways,
parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had
such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident
happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad she wore a helmet.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sion-1.3131405

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257


While I don't have anything against DRLs, if the idiot that hit her didn't
see a pack of roadies with the usual colours in broad daylight I doubt that
lights would have helped.

There's not a lot of detail about this crash but being familiar with the
area I think the idiot decided to pass a hay truck or some other farm
equipment without being able to see around it. I've been in this same
situation and we've had to bail off the road into the gravel.

It's not the rider's fault for not having laser beam strobe lights. It's
the fault of the asshole that passed unsafely. Why people feel that they
can endanger someone's life because they don't want to be delayed a few
seconds is beyond me.
--
duane

On 2015-07-04 12:15 PM, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 5:37 PM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-03 6:42 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst the article is interesting the Comments section below it is
even more interesting largely because of the many anti-bicycles on
the road comments. A lot of those comments complain about what we hew
call 'Scofflaw bicyclists' who ride willy nilly.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...141935846.html


Then there are car drivers who are hell-bent on "clearing the road of
cyclists" like it just happened around he

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...e26112064.html

The picture illustrates why I agree with the notion in the Canadian
article that more bike infrastructure is needed. It's a miracle that
this cyclist survived. The first cyclist was just side-swiped but the
two others were hit full brunt from behind at high speed. IIRC one was
catapulted across the road to the left and the other one crashed into
the windshield.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

My experiences with bicycle lanes in Ontaro Canada is that they are crap ad are more dan
gerous than no bicycle lane. I'm trying to get across town in a reasonable amou
nt of time an
d i don't need to have the aggravation of trying to move from the far
right bike lane over to make a left turn. If I'm riding in a traffic lane
i find is far far easier to make that left turn. As far as i'm con
cerned fully segregated bicycle only lanes are an abomination and one had
better have highly puncture resistant tires because those segregated
lanes aren't cleared very often - heck even the right hand painted strip
bicycle lanes are full of debris and you risk your tires every single
time you ride in one of those bicycle lanes. Agawin making a left turn
is very hard and dan
gerous to do in a right hand bicycle lane. What's one supposed to do -
rided through the intersection, stop nd then reposition oneself in the
direction one wishes to travel?

About the only thing good about many bicycle lanes is that they get the
really slow bicyclists out of thetraffic lane and that allows a smoother
flow of other traffic including fast bicyclists.

A lot of bicycle lanes simply reduce bicyclists to second class citizens.

Cheers

On the other hand I did a 100k in eastern Ontario today around Dalkeith and
we noticed a distinct change with drivers moving to the next land to pass
us. The new min passing distance law seems to be working. May least to
some extent.

We've been trying to get one passes in Quebec to clarify the vehicle code
that just requires motorists to pass only when it's safe. So far it's been
a no go. But recently a respected journalist Isabelle Richer was hit head
on when a minivan passed a slow moving vehicle and came into the lane where
her group was riding. Now the media is pushing to pass this law. She is
out of the coma now and expected to return to work in 6 months. I expect
her to publicize this.

I agree with you at least to say that SOME bike lanes reduce cyclists to
second class citizens. I also use some that are useful. But there are
other ways to make cycling safer and a minimum passing law is one.


Isabelle Richer might want think about lighting if here bike didn't have
any. I found that bright daytime lights reduce the chance of not being
seen by car drivers substantially. This includes people who want to pull
out to pass another car. They often abandon the manuever and pull back in
even though there'd be plenty of space. Probably they think I am on some
sort of small motorcycle. Same for people pulling out of driveways,
parking lots, side roads and such. This was very different before I had
such lighting. I couldn't find any details about how her accident
happened but such insurance is cheap, less than $100. And I am sure glad she wore a helmet.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sion-1.3131405

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-34-...dent-1.1907257


While I don't have anything against DRLs, if the idiot that hit her didn't
see a pack of roadies with the usual colours in broad daylight I doubt that
lights would have helped.


Inattentive driver often don't. But if something with a bright glow
comes at them that gets their attention. Same from behind where my
daytime lights flash. It makes me visible from a long distance.


There's not a lot of detail about this crash but being familiar with the
area I think the idiot decided to pass a hay truck or some other farm
equipment without being able to see around it. I've been in this same
situation and we've had to bail off the road into the gravel.

It's not the rider's fault for not having laser beam strobe lights. It's
the fault of the asshole that passed unsafely. Why people feel that they
can endanger someone's life because they don't want to be delayed a few
seconds is beyond me.


Full agreement here. However, I believe in prevention so I always ride
with lights now, after experiencing the difference time and again.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:11:48 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip

Less so if built correctly. Maniacs like in the link can still get you.
But the vast majority aren't maniacs. They are people who chat, text,
email, put on make-up, shave, eat, haven't fully come off their sleep
medication, had way too many cocktails, are under the influence of some
"recreational" drug, and so on. The resulting accidents look similar.
Except for the booze all things drivers simply did not do in the 70's
which is why riding in the lanes was safer back then, and I felt safer
back then.

There is a simple and cheap improvement for bike lanes: Rumble strips.
That wakes up almost any distracted driver. Of course, segregated
structures are best.

Example from yesterday: I rode up to Placerville on singletrack which
requires me to also use a short county road stretch. On the way there
everything looked as usual. On the way back just 3h or so later a
heavy-gauge steel metal pole _off_ the side of that same road was
completely flattened. That must have been at least a heavy pickup truck.


... When you move left prior to your left turn, you're still
vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road without
infrastructure, you're still vulnerable.

And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the
extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary
folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at
intersections, driveway crossings and the like.


And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to
grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a
young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when
in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist.


No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where
motorists expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and all
but a very, very few do not want to hit you.

Well, our bike lanes are clearly marked "no homicidal lunatics
allowed." That seems to work -- usually.
http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/r...ike-path-85780

That path, BTW, runs down the middle of a highway bridge. I don't
even know how a car could get on it.


I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The only
motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike facilities are
dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally. That's why I ride with
daytime light even on some trail sections when the vegetation is more dense.

Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course.

I just returned from like a 1,000 mile ride -- O.K., it was less than 1,000 miles, but still really epic. AND I DIDN'T DIE! (except metaphorically on the last hills getting home). My route even included crossing a water-body, and I didn't wear a life preserver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505xiKnCNDk
The first part of the ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted.

The remainder of the ride was on shoulderless death roads filled with guys in pick-up trucks flying giant Americun flags and blasting country-western music. There really were a lot of guys flying giant flags and blasting country-western music. I guess it's a holiday thing. I was hit seven times, maybe eight, but I kept riding. I'm that tough. I also noted a larger than usual accumulation of dead cyclists by the side of the road.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here's the problem with your logic, Joerg. You put up an example
of a motorist who wants to clear the road of cyclists, and say that
because of people like him, more infrastructure is needed.

But if a driver actively wants to hit cyclists, no practical
infrastructure will prevent it. In any ordinary paint-striped
bike lane, you're still vulnerable. ...


Less so if built correctly. Maniacs like in the link can still get you.
But the vast majority aren't maniacs. They are people who chat, text,
email, put on make-up, shave, eat, haven't fully come off their sleep
medication, had way too many cocktails, are under the influence of some
"recreational" drug, and so on. The resulting accidents look similar.
Except for the booze all things drivers simply did not do in the 70's
which is why riding in the lanes was safer back then, and I felt safer
back then.

There are a lot of feelings about danger, and feelings about safety,
that don't match reality. Many people feel much safer traveling with a
St. Christopher medal. Do you think they work?


There is a simple and cheap improvement for bike lanes: Rumble strips.
That wakes up almost any distracted driver.

Oh good grief.

The bike-ignorant superintendent of our local metro park decided to
"improve" bike safety by adding rumble strips between a bike lane and an
adjoining standard lane. I know of one of my bike club members who
crashed because of hitting that rumble strip, and another one who
doubted my warnings that it was dangerous until he hit it and nearly
crashed. And BTW, the latter guy was on a mountain bike. I think if
he'd been on a road bike, it would have been worse.

Of course, segregated structures are best.

Good grief.

And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against the
extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to ordinary
folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise! - pop out at
intersections, driveway crossings and the like.


And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail to
grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me as a
young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially not when
in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a cyclist.

"Never, ever rely on my right of way"??

That's advice as useless as "ride as if you are invisible to motorists."
If you were to really do what you say, you'd stop and wait at every
intersection with any road or driveway, if there were any possibility a
car might pull out.

Sorry, Joerg, but you're spouting nonsense yet again.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 6:22:27 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:11:48 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip

Snipped
I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The only
motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike facilities are
dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally. That's why I ride with
daytime light even on some trail sections when the vegetation is more dense.

Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course.

I just returned from like a 1,000 mile ride -- O.K., it was less than 1,000 miles, but still really epic. AND I DIDN'T DIE! (except metaphorically on the last hills getting home). My route even included crossing a water-body, and I didn't wear a life preserver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505xiKnCNDk
The first part of the ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted.

The remainder of the ride was on shoulderless death roads filled with guys in pick-up trucks flying giant Americun flags and blasting country-western music. There really were a lot of guys flying giant flags and blasting country-western music. I guess it's a holiday thing. I was hit seven times, maybe eight, but I kept riding. I'm that tough. I also noted a larger than usual accumulation of dead cyclists by the side of the road.

-- Jay Beattie.

I ride may tens of thousands of kilometres each and every year. I ride year round with at least 50kms a day but usually between 75kms and 100kms daily and then longer rides Sayturdays and Sundays. I've never used daylight running lights front or rear. If a driver can't tell thata bicyclist is on the road then that driver should not be driving. Bright clothing is far more visible to me that any flashing lights I've seen on any bicycle.

This thing tthat you need all this crap in order to ride the streets of maiming and death is a surefire way to discourage any newbie bicylist or potential bicycle commuter from ever venturing out onto the roads. That's because tthey'll take one look at the cost of the stuff required, like Jeoerg's $100.00 light and say "It's too dangerous out there for me!"

Joerg, are you trying to turn people off of bicycling entirely? Same to you SMS?

Cheers