Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure

On 7/4/2015 2:24 PM, 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.

Joerg is channeling SMS. Heaven help us.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 12:12:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
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

Back in the day when "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was being touted a lot, the intent of that message was "Don't expect motoristss to see you". Around the same time many books were telling bicyclists to make eye contact with motorists. However, experiments proved that even though a bicyclist thought they'd made eye contact with a motorist tthe fact was that the motorist did NOT see the bicyclist. It was tthen taught to watch the car wheels as that was far more accurate in determining if the motorist saw you. In other words "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was a warning that you needed to ride defensively because in reality a lot of motorists did not see bicyclists even though tthe bicyclist thought they were in plain view of the motorist. Add to that the other fact that many motorists can't accurately judge the speed of a bicycle you can see why a bicyclist needs to watch for other vehicles. It's called maintaining situational awareness and is no way a sign tthat the bicyclist is either timid or a scardy cat.

Cheers

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 19:15:57 +0000 (UTC), 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.

Except that looking at the photograph showing all the vehicles with
their lights on and the two obvious cyclists standing at the edge of
the photo it looks more like it was after dark and the "usual colours'
was black.

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.
--
cheers,

John B.

Joerg wrote:
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.

Maybe but I don't think it would have made a difference in this case. I
guess we'll know more when she's able to communicate. At the moment she is
on a respirator and feeding tube.


--
duane

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 19:15:57 +0000 (UTC), 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.

Except that looking at the photograph showing all the vehicles with
their lights on and the two obvious cyclists standing at the edge of
the photo it looks more like it was after dark and the "usual colours'
was black.



Yes it looks like the ambulance was there at 9:15 which is just after dusk
this time of year. I'm not sure what time the accident happened but it
wasn't dark if it was before 9. And if they were riding in the dark
without lights that would have been the headline.

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.
--
cheers,

John B.


--
duane

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 12:12:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
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

Back in the day when "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was being
touted a lot, the intent of that message was "Don't expect motoristss to
see you". Around the same time many books were telling bicyclists to make
eye contact with motorists. However, experiments proved that even though
a bicyclist thought they'd made eye contact with a motorist tthe fact was
that the motorist did NOT see the bicyclist. It was tthen taught to watch
the car wheels as that was far more accurate in determining if the
motorist saw you. In other words "Ride like you're invisible to
motorists" was a warning that you needed to ride defensively because in
reality a lot of motorists did not see bicyclists even though tthe
bicyclist thought they were in plain view of the motorist. Add to that
the other fact that many motorists can't accurately judge the speed of a
bicycle you can see why a bicyclist needs to watch for other vehicles.
It's called maintaining situational awareness and is no way a sign tthat
the bicyclist is either timid or a scardy cat.

Cheers

Exactly. Riding as if you're invisible means riding as if the driver
doesn't see you. To ride defensively. It doesn't mean to be somehow
inferior. That's just more hyperbole.

--
duane

On 7/5/2015 12:30 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 12:12:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
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

Back in the day when "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was being touted a lot, the intent of that message was "Don't expect motoristss to see you". Around the same time many books were telling bicyclists to make eye contact with motorists. However, experiments proved that even though a bicyclist thought they'd made eye contact with a motorist tthe fact was that the motorist did NOT see the bicyclist. It was tthen taught to watch the car wheels as that was far more accurate in determining if the motorist saw you. In other words "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was a warning that you needed to ride defensively because in reality a lot of motorists did not see bicyclists even though tthe bicyclist thought they were in plain view of the motorist. Add to that the other fact that many motorists can't accurately judge the speed of a bicycle you can see why a bicyclist needs to watch for other vehicles. It's called maintaining situational awareness and is no way a sign tt
hat the bicyclist is either timid or a scardy cat.



I've said this before, but: When you're trying to teach somebody
something, it's important to give them easy and _accurate_ catch
phrases. IOW, things they can mentally repeat to themselves when
needed, and that remind them of their proper proper strategy.

"Watch the motorist's wheels" or "Be ready to evade a motorist mistake"
are concise and correct. "Ride so as to make yourself visible" is even
better. "Ride as if you're invisible" is just wrong.



--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/5/2015 6:31 AM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 12:12:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/4/2015 11:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
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

Back in the day when "Ride like you're invisible to motorists" was being
touted a lot, the intent of that message was "Don't expect motoristss to
see you". Around the same time many books were telling bicyclists to make
eye contact with motorists. However, experiments proved that even though
a bicyclist thought they'd made eye contact with a motorist tthe fact was
that the motorist did NOT see the bicyclist. It was tthen taught to watch
the car wheels as that was far more accurate in determining if the
motorist saw you. In other words "Ride like you're invisible to
motorists" was a warning that you needed to ride defensively because in
reality a lot of motorists did not see bicyclists even though tthe
bicyclist thought they were in plain view of the motorist. Add to that
the other fact that many motorists can't accurately judge the speed of a
bicycle you can see why a bicyclist needs to watch for other vehicles.
It's called maintaining situational awareness and is no way a sign tthat
the bicyclist is either timid or a scardy cat.

Cheers

Exactly. Riding as if you're invisible means riding as if the driver
doesn't see you. To ride defensively. It doesn't mean to be somehow
inferior. That's just more hyperbole.

I know the usual intent of the advice "Ride like you're invisible."
Yes, the competent cyclists who spout it generally mean things like "Be
ready to evade a crash if a motorist doesn't see you."

But a great many cycling crashes seem to happen to cyclists who are
afraid to _make_ themselves visible by their lane position. If a novice
- or any less competent cyclist - is repeatedly told that motorists will
normally look at him and not see him, that novice is very unlikely to
ride in a prominent road position. His own fear is likely to generate
the problem he fears, and it's caused at least in part by the bad advice.

Let's speculate a bit. What do you suppose is the difference between my
riding style and that of Scharf and Joerg? I'm the one who's ridden
avidly for over 40 years, in 47 states plus about a dozen foreign
countries, and never been hit by a car. I've almost never had a close
call. Personally, I think it's largely because I tend to ride in a
prominent lane position.

How about SMS and Joerg? They claim LOTS of near misses from motorists
that pull out in front of them; and that they've _greatly_ reduced (they
don't say eliminated!) these near misses by using very bright daytime
lights. Scharf even uses a horizontal flag to get lateral clearance.
Personally, I strongly suspect that they hug the gutter and are afraid
to control a lane, and they pay the price with near misses or worse.

If you tell a novice "Ride like you're invisible," which of those two
strategies are they more likely to adopt?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/5/2015 6:31 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:


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.

Except that looking at the photograph showing all the vehicles with
their lights on and the two obvious cyclists standing at the edge of
the photo it looks more like it was after dark and the "usual colours'
was black.

Yes it looks like the ambulance was there at 9:15 which is just after dusk
this time of year. I'm not sure what time the accident happened but it
wasn't dark if it was before 9. And if they were riding in the dark
without lights that would have been the headline.

IME, lack of lights on bicycles never makes headlines, and is seldom
mentioned in relevant articles. And locally, the only time the word
"helmet" doesn't make it into a bike crash article is when the rider did
wear one, but it failed to save his or her life.

Maybe that's just the local paper's policy.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2015-07-04 3:22 PM, 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

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


That's cheating. This is the real way to do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwmRudKii3E

And watch your speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtpsG--V3I


... 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.


"Grandpa tooled around in his Studebaker and it didn't even have safety
belts".


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.


See? :-)

Wait until the night after many of those pickup truck jockeys had 5-6
pints plus a few shotglasses of the hard stuff.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/