A Word to Recumbent Riders

This really belongs in RBS and/or RBM, not RBR(ides).

RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 20, 2:56 pm, "Papa Tom" wrote:
Hey, this has probably been discussed here before, but if I can save one
recumbent rider's life with it, it's worth being accused of beating a dead
horse....

As someone who rides on the road a lot and is constantly on the look-out for
bicyclists when I get behind the wheel of a car, I have to tell you guys
that you are just as good as invisible when you pull alongside an automobile
of any size. I nearly crushed a bent rider last week when I had to make a
quick shift to the right lane to avoid a vehicle stopped in a turn lane.
This guy, barely two and a half feet off the ground, came from nowhere. It
might have been his last ride across that street had I not miraculously
glimpsed the top of his helmet over my right shoulder just in time.

That is failure to pay proper attention. The lane change should not be
made unless the driver is certain that the lane is clear.

I think bents and other low-rider bikes are cool, but I have to say that I
don't think they belong on the road any more than an empty hitch does. Yes,
I'm for sharing the road with all kinds of vehicles, but only as long as
they meet basic requirements designed to maintain the safety of all road
users. In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window
level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too
dangerous for everyone.

How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at
the same height as an automobile driver.

Perhaps those of you who insist on staying on the road should consider some
type of safety flags that rise into the air a few feet?

Perhaps those who insist in driving steel cages should use more caution.

How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle
or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van?

It is not different.

It's entirely the driver's responsibility to insure there's nothing in
their way when they change lanes. It's also the driver's
responsibility to maintain a suitable following distance so they can
stop safely when the vehicle ahead of them does something stupid
(which of course it will).

Indeed.

I understand that you're a rider and you're trying to warn other
riders, but half the warning should be lofted in the driver's
direction, no?

All the warning in this case.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman wrote:
In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the
window
level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too
dangerous for everyone.

How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at
the same height as an automobile driver.


Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"?
Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom?

How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle
or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van?

It is not different.


It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much
lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are.


--
Lower, faster...
My homebuilt FWD recumbent
-- http://piotrowiak.info/poziom
jid:live_evil[]jabber.ru gg:6373907

live_evil wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window
level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too
dangerous for everyone.

How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is
at the same height as an automobile driver.


Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"?
Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom?

Not in the US. More typical is something like a RANS V-Rex or Easy
Racers Tour Easy with seat heights in the 45-60 cm range.

How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle
or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van?

It is not different.


It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much
lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are.

From your pictures, it looks like your head is a little bit higher than
a NoCom rider's.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

live_evil wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window
level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too
dangerous for everyone.

How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is
at the same height as an automobile driver.


Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"?
Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom?

How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle
or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van?

It is not different.

It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much
lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are.

My car's rear view mirris give me a pretty good view of the tarmac
behind the car: you're not lower than the road surface, are you?

As a driver, I see rabbits, cats, squirrels, crows etc. on the roads,
and they're a lot lower than a NoCom. I even see potholes and surface
floods, and they're even lower.

#1 FUD point against 'bents is that you're too low to be easily visible.
No shortage of low trikes that don't have any trouble getting seen,
it's FUD.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
live_evil wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window
level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too
dangerous for everyone.

How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is
at the same height as an automobile driver.


Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"?
Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom?

How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle
or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van?

It is not different.

It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much
lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are.

My car's rear view mirris give me a pretty good view of the tarmac
behind the car: you're not lower than the road surface, are you?

As a driver, I see rabbits, cats, squirrels, crows etc. on the roads,
and they're a lot lower than a NoCom. I even see potholes and surface
floods, and they're even lower.

#1 FUD point against 'bents is that you're too low to be easily visible.
No shortage of low trikes that don't have any trouble getting seen,
it's FUD.

Tom Sherman and Peter Clinch are both a couple of crazy loons. The fact is
that motorists do not see you as well when you are lower than what they
expect to see.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Peter Clinch" wrote
live_evil wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window
level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They are just too
dangerous for everyone.

How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is
at the same height as an automobile driver.


Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"?
Are typical they who ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom?

How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle
or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van?

It is not different.

It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much
lower than usualy car's rear view mirrors are.

My car's rear view mirris give me a pretty good view of the tarmac
behind the car: you're not lower than the road surface, are you?

As a driver, I see rabbits, cats, squirrels, crows etc. on the roads,
and they're a lot lower than a NoCom. I even see potholes and surface
floods, and they're even lower.

#1 FUD point against 'bents is that you're too low to be easily visible.
No shortage of low trikes that don't have any trouble getting seen,
it's FUD.

It never ceases to amaze the kind of stupid arguments people try to mount
against those things which for some reason they find objection to. Reason
is completely out the window in the face of utter nonsense.

Peter Clinch wrote:

In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the
window level of an automobile do not belong on the road. They
are just too dangerous for everyone.

How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider
is at the same height as an automobile driver.

Can you define "a typical recumbent rider"? Are typical they who
ride Optima Baron or Velokraft NoCom?

How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard
bicycle or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van?

It is not different.

It is different, many drivers don't see me, because my bike is much
lower than usual car's rear view mirrors are.

My car's rear view mirrors give me a pretty good view of the tarmac
behind the car: you're not lower than the road surface, are you?

As a driver, I see rabbits, cats, squirrels, crows etc. on the
roads, and they're a lot lower than a NoCom. I even see potholes
and surface floods, and they're even lower.

#1 FUD point against 'bents is that you're too low to be easily
visible. No shortage of low trikes that don't have any trouble
getting seen, it's FUD.

I suppose we are all in the "too low to be seen" category for the
drivers of jacked up SUV's and huge pickup trucks, not to mention
large commercial vehicles.

http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg

I found drivers and bicyclists in London conspicuously more skilled
than ones I meet locally, they being able to pass and accept
bicyclists who respond to traffic signs and signals pragmatically.
The large double decked buses did well with riders in the bus lane
(that is also marked as bicycle lane). I saw no riders with rear view
mirrors, probably because they offer no useful information in dense
traffic other than to terrorize riders who believe they have an affect
on traffic with that knowledge.

Jobst Brandt

On Aug 20, 6:40*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
This really belongs in RBS and/or RBM, not RBR(ides).

RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 20, 2:56 pm, "Papa Tom" wrote:
Hey, this has probably been discussed here before, but if I can save one
recumbent rider's life with it, it's worth being accused of beating a dead
horse....

As someone who rides on the road a lot and is constantly on the look-out for
bicyclists when I get behind the wheel of a car, I have to tell you guys
that you are just as good as invisible when you pull alongside an automobile
of any size. *I nearly crushed a bent rider last week when I had to make a
quick shift to the right lane to avoid a vehicle stopped in a turn lane.
This guy, barely two and a half feet off the ground, came from nowhere.. *It
might have been his last ride across that street had I not miraculously
glimpsed the top of his helmet over my right shoulder just in time.

That is failure to pay proper attention. The lane change should not be
made unless the driver is certain that the lane is clear.

I think bents and other low-rider bikes are cool, but I have to say that I
don't think they belong on the road any more than an empty hitch does. *Yes,
I'm for sharing the road with all kinds of vehicles, but only as long as
they meet basic requirements designed to maintain the safety of all road
users. *In my opinion, bikes that cannot be clearly seen above the window
level of an automobile do not belong on the road. *They are just too
dangerous for everyone.

How are they too dangerous to everyone? A typical recumbent rider is at
the same height as an automobile driver.

Perhaps those of you who insist on staying on the road should consider some
type of safety flags that rise into the air a few feet?

Perhaps those who insist in driving steel cages should use more caution.

How is the recumbent/car situation different than a standard bicycle
or motorcycle being in the blind spot of a truck or van?

It is not different.

It's entirely the driver's responsibility to insure there's nothing in
their way when they change lanes. *It's also the driver's
responsibility to maintain a suitable following distance so they can
stop safely when the vehicle ahead of them does something stupid
(which of course it will).

Indeed.

I understand that you're a rider and you're trying to warn other
riders, but half the warning should be lofted in the driver's
direction, no?

All the warning in this case.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

It seems to me that If a driver can see the white lines on the road,
they should be able to see a person on a 'bent.

That, of course, presupposes that the driver is not drinking coffee,
smoking a cigarette and sending a text message. :-)

Lewis.

*****

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
[...]
It never ceases to amaze the kind of stupid arguments people try to mount
against those things which for some reason they find objection to. Reason
is completely out the window in the face of utter nonsense.

Stupid people make stupid arguments. So what else is new?

Anyone who thinks you are going to be seen when you are low as opposed to
being high is stupid. But why do folks think like this? Because they have
low bikes which they have spent thousands of dollars on and don't want to be
thought stupid. Hey, if I can see you, then you can see me ... right? Wrong!
Seeing has everything to do with perception and not much to do with physical
reality. Small animals are constantly being run over by morotorists because
they are not looking that low.

However, it is interesting to see how Tom Sherman and Peter Clinch seek to
justify their stupidity for getting low to the ground bikes. I have several
myself, but I do not fool myself that I am well seen by motorists when I am
on them. Jeff Grippe of ARBR is the poster child for the kind of accident
that can easily happen when you are riding a low bike (trike in his case) in
heavy traffic. But until you are hit and run over by a motorist, you think
you are safe - when you are anything but! Yea, that sure does define
stupidity in my book.

Regrads,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Once again, a motorist - a member of a large class of people that have
a demonstrated propensity to run over and kill 44,000 people each
year (most of whom are other motorists) is claiming that the people
that they are running over and killing are somehow producing the
element of danger by being in a place where a motorist might wish to
motor.

There is coffee brewing, wake up and smell it you ****ing morons: cars
are dangerous; cars are dangerous to pedestrians, cars are dangerous
to bicyclists, cars are dangerous to motorists most of all.

The situation is that either these 44,000 deaths in the US each year
are merely accidents and no one is at fault (it could have happened to
anyone), in which case everyone that operates a motor vehicle is
equally culpable for these deaths whether they were involved in such
an incident or not (because it could have happened to anyone that was
driving one of these murderous contraptions). Or these incidents are
situations in which a motor vehicle operator was negligent and should
be held accountable for their actions (hang 'em!). Neither of these
situations involve the idea of blaming the non-motoring public for
being run over by these reckless, mindless idiots.