NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Monday, November 11, 2013 2:14:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 1:19:24 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:59:58 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 11/11/2013 6:35 AM, John B. wrote:

In other words, someone paints a stripe on the road and immediately
all the bicycle riders disavow any responsibility for their own safety
and throw the entire burden of whether they will survive the trip onto
the shoulders of the motorists?

Sorry, I can't handle that concept, I've always assumed that the
ultimate responsibility for one's survival was oneself.

Don't worry, it's a fictional concept anyway.

IOW, those people who get nailed in bike lanes by right hooks (or left
hooks in London) don't really exist?

I'll grant you one thing: Many of them don't exist any longer. But
their families aren't happy about that.

No the disavowing any responsibility for their own safety schtick of yours.

You may not consider it disavowing any responsibility for their own safety, but I'm sure that there are people who assume they are safe because they are in a bike lane.

What _do_ you think about those people (e.g. in London, in Portland) who have died while passing trucks on their curb side, in bike lanes? How about the people who have gotten doored while riding in bike lanes? Seems to me they were wrongly convinced that they were safe because of the bike lane.

Or are you still unaware such people exist - or existed?


It's your way oversimplified explanation for people riding alongside a
big truck where they can get creamed by it turning right:

"In some cases, they've been told 'We've painted a bike lane for you. If you're in the bike lane, you're safe.'"

You're right that a false sense of security is very probably a factor,
but it's inconceivable to thinking people that it could be so absolute
as your characterization implies. If it were... calling Mr. Darwin...

(Such characterization seemingly intended to damn the bike lane.)

Personally, a bike lane *usually* gives me an added sense of
security, but I keep it in realistic perspective. I know the
white line won't repel the mass and inertia that might squash
my body (DUH!), but it *does* communicate to the majority of
drivers who pay attention to such things to stay out of that
space (which is nice).

Also keeping it in realistic perspective, I know that very few
drivers anticipate a bike coming up from behind, since there are
so few bikes, and that many of those don't know it's the law for
them to yield to overtaking bikes in a bike lane, and some just
don't care anyway; so of course my sense of protection from the
bike lane is essentially zero in that situation.

I realize there is great variation in such thinking, but come on,
surely everybody has *some* sense of realistic perspective.

Anyway, I've consistently said nothing wrong with education, and
that it's great for those whom it may do any good; but lack of
*formal* education is *not* the root of all "evil".

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:43:33 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:11:33 +0200, davethedave
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:50:28 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 12:10:19 AM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:

I rarely have any reason to pass a stopped motor vehicle. When
there's a red light or other reason for them to stop, I believe that
demonstrating I have the same rights and responsibilities as they do
is worth a lot more than getting a ten-second advantage on the light.

I agree completely.

I disagree completely. Being from the land of your ancestors, [1][2] and
a well trained motorcyclist and cyclist. We have always been told to
make progress and filter. If we stop behind a car and wait the police
will speak to us and ask why we are sat there like a lemon taking up
valuable car space, instead of making our way to the front.

Must be that British upper lip.. or something.

Years ago, long before Miami, Florida became a Cuban city :-) I was
worming my way up to the front of a long line of motorists who were
stopped at a drawbridge. I was on my Harley and this was in the days
when the average car did not have air conditioning so people had their
windows down and I was roundly cursed by most of the drivers.

Jealousy. Pure and simple. I used to have a similar problem. I commuted
20miles into London in a car. Everyday I watched motorcycles whizz past
my window while I sat stationary in traffic. I came to the conclusion I
could never beat them so I bought a motorbike.


[1] the UK Damn that George dude, eh?
[2]I suspect though that you, Frank, may have ancestry involving the
land of pierogi, ?ywiec, Zubrowka, Szymanowski and a "W" sounding "?". I
could of course be wrong.

This from a race that largely descended from a group of North Germanic
thieves and pirates?

And your point is?
--
davethedave

Dan O wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 2:14:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 1:19:24 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:59:58 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 11/11/2013 6:35 AM, John B. wrote:

In other words, someone paints a stripe on the road and immediately
all the bicycle riders disavow any responsibility for their own safety
and throw the entire burden of whether they will survive the trip onto
the shoulders of the motorists?

Sorry, I can't handle that concept, I've always assumed that the
ultimate responsibility for one's survival was oneself.

Don't worry, it's a fictional concept anyway.

IOW, those people who get nailed in bike lanes by right hooks (or left
hooks in London) don't really exist?

I'll grant you one thing: Many of them don't exist any longer. But
their families aren't happy about that.

No the disavowing any responsibility for their own safety schtick of yours.

You may not consider it disavowing any responsibility for their own
safety, but I'm sure that there are people who assume they are safe
because they are in a bike lane.

What _do_ you think about those people (e.g. in London, in Portland) who
have died while passing trucks on their curb side, in bike lanes? How
about the people who have gotten doored while riding in bike lanes?
Seems to me they were wrongly convinced that they were safe because of the bike lane.

Or are you still unaware such people exist - or existed?


It's your way oversimplified explanation for people riding alongside a
big truck where they can get creamed by it turning right:

"In some cases, they've been told 'We've painted a bike lane for you. If
you're in the bike lane, you're safe.'"



Frank said, " In other words, someone paints a stripe on the road and
immediately
all the bicycle riders disavow any responsibility for their own safety
and throw the entire burden of whether they will survive the trip onto the
shoulders of the motorists?" And I said to another poster that this was
fantasy.

Frank replied, "IOW, those people who get nailed in bike lanes by right
hooks (or left
hooks in London) don't really exist? "

And I actually made the mistake of replying to him to tell him explicitly
what I said. And then he still closes saying that I think right hooks
don't happen in bike lanes.

Typical Krygowski BS. Claiming someone said something that they didn't and
then going on and on about it.



You're right that a false sense of security is very probably a factor,

Why? **** happens. Any proof that right hooks happen more in bike lanes
than to riders keeping to the right of a road without them?

but it's inconceivable to thinking people that it could be so absolute
as your characterization implies. If it were... calling Mr. Darwin...


No this is about the take the lane thing that he's always on about. Even
where this is illegal or implausible.

(Such characterization seemingly intended to damn the bike lane.)


In order to preach that cyclists ride in the center of the lane.

Personally, a bike lane *usually* gives me an added sense of
security, but I keep it in realistic perspective. I know the
white line won't repel the mass and inertia that might squash
my body (DUH!), but it *does* communicate to the majority of
drivers who pay attention to such things to stay out of that
space (which is nice).

Also keeping it in realistic perspective, I know that very few
drivers anticipate a bike coming up from behind, since there are
so few bikes, and that many of those don't know it's the law for
them to yield to overtaking bikes in a bike lane, and some just
don't care anyway; so of course my sense of protection from the
bike lane is essentially zero in that situation.

I realize there is great variation in such thinking, but come on,
surely everybody has *some* sense of realistic perspective.


Not everyone.

Anyway, I've consistently said nothing wrong with education, and
that it's great for those whom it may do any good; but lack of
*formal* education is *not* the root of all "evil".

No stupidity is the root of all evil.

--
duane

On 13/11/13 05:58, davethedave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:22:48 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 11-11-2013, 20:08, John B. wrote:
wrote:
Actually around here nobody does. It's amazing how many people you see
looking a bit confused in a broken car parked in somebody’s wall or a
shop. Those funny coloured 3 light things also seem to be a bit
misunderstood.

Which of course is why we need driver training :-)

Or maybe driver beating.

No. Driver training I think.

To get a driving licence here you have to sit some kind of exam about
traffic signs, lights etc. Really basic stuff. Then you have to drive a
car about 200 yards in a straight line using all the gears and stop...

That's it!

Then you have a licence and can learn to drive or not. This high standard
of training makes the roads very interesting.

Where is "here" again? I'd like to note to avoid, or at least be on
full crash avoidance consciousness!

--
JS

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:29:58 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 2:14:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 1:19:24 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:59:58 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 11/11/2013 6:35 AM, John B. wrote:

In other words, someone paints a stripe on the road and immediately
all the bicycle riders disavow any responsibility for their own safety
and throw the entire burden of whether they will survive the trip onto
the shoulders of the motorists?

Sorry, I can't handle that concept, I've always assumed that the
ultimate responsibility for one's survival was oneself.

Don't worry, it's a fictional concept anyway.

IOW, those people who get nailed in bike lanes by right hooks (or left
hooks in London) don't really exist?

I'll grant you one thing: Many of them don't exist any longer. But
their families aren't happy about that.

No the disavowing any responsibility for their own safety schtick of yours.


You may not consider it disavowing any responsibility for their own
safety, but I'm sure that there are people who assume they are safe
because they are in a bike lane.

What _do_ you think about those people (e.g. in London, in Portland) who
have died while passing trucks on their curb side, in bike lanes? How
about the people who have gotten doored while riding in bike lanes?

Seems to me they were wrongly convinced that they were safe because of the bike lane.

Or are you still unaware such people exist - or existed?


It's your way oversimplified explanation for people riding alongside a
big truck where they can get creamed by it turning right:

"In some cases, they've been told 'We've painted a bike lane for you. If
you're in the bike lane, you're safe.'"



Frank said, " In other words, someone paints a stripe on the road and
immediately
all the bicycle riders disavow any responsibility for their own safety
and throw the entire burden of whether they will survive the trip onto the
shoulders of the motorists?"

Erm... looks like an attribution snafu (similar thing happened to me
with Sorni once); I think John was paraphrasing Frank's outlandish
characterization and posing it back for clarification.

And I said to another poster that this was
fantasy.

Frank replied, "IOW, those people who get nailed in bike lanes by right
hooks (or left
hooks in London) don't really exist? "

And I actually made the mistake of replying to him to tell him explicitly
what I said. And then he still closes saying that I think right hooks
don't happen in bike lanes.

Typical Krygowski BS. Claiming someone said something that they didn't and
then going on and on about it.

Oooo... (in light of above) he may try to have a little field day
with that.

You're right that a false sense of security is very probably a factor,

Why? **** happens. Any proof that right hooks happen more in bike lanes
than to riders keeping to the right of a road without them?


but it's inconceivable to thinking people that it could be so absolute
as your characterization implies. If it were... calling Mr. Darwin...

No this is about the take the lane thing that he's always on about. Even
where this is illegal or implausible.


He is extremely anti-facility, and works backward from that to
create "facts" that fit. In doing so, utterly outlandish
characterizations emerge as essential parts of the whole.

Much of his views make exceptionally good sense. It's just that
on the whole he goes off the rails. Nothing wrong with that in and
of itself (I take a ride on the crazy train myself), but it's not
cool to... (running out of metaphors here)

snip

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:37:58 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2013 4:04:58 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:


Just blast right through!

That can be done a couple of ways - dumb, or thinking. Since the
cops can't tell which is which...

Even the person doing it can't tell which is which! IOW, every person blatantly violating a traffic law (blowing through a stop sign or red light, riding facing traffic, riding at night without lights, etc.) is convinced that THEY are correct; that they're not being dumb, they are "thinking." I suspect that even most of those who crash come up with "It was only because _that_ time..." excuses.

And I don't doubt that many of them think they are SO much wiser than the people who go about obeying rules of the road.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:29:58 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
Dan O wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 2:14:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 1:19:24 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:59:58 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

On 11/11/2013 6:35 AM, John B. wrote:



In other words, someone paints a stripe on the road and immediately

all the bicycle riders disavow any responsibility for their own safety

and throw the entire burden of whether they will survive the trip onto

the shoulders of the motorists?



Sorry, I can't handle that concept, I've always assumed that the

ultimate responsibility for one's survival was oneself.



Don't worry, it's a fictional concept anyway.



IOW, those people who get nailed in bike lanes by right hooks (or left

hooks in London) don't really exist?



I'll grant you one thing: Many of them don't exist any longer. But

their families aren't happy about that.



No the disavowing any responsibility for their own safety schtick of yours.



You may not consider it disavowing any responsibility for their own

safety, but I'm sure that there are people who assume they are safe

because they are in a bike lane.



What _do_ you think about those people (e.g. in London, in Portland) who

have died while passing trucks on their curb side, in bike lanes? How

about the people who have gotten doored while riding in bike lanes?

Seems to me they were wrongly convinced that they were safe because of the bike lane.



Or are you still unaware such people exist - or existed?





It's your way oversimplified explanation for people riding alongside a

big truck where they can get creamed by it turning right:



"In some cases, they've been told 'We've painted a bike lane for you. If

you're in the bike lane, you're safe.'"







Frank said, " In other words, someone paints a stripe on the road and

immediately

all the bicycle riders disavow any responsibility for their own safety

and throw the entire burden of whether they will survive the trip onto the

shoulders of the motorists?" And I said to another poster that this was

fantasy.

Duane, the fantasy is YOURS, in claiming I made the "disavow all responsibility" statement. Good grief, look at the attributions contained in your own post, just above!

Your trouble, Duane, is you keep making demonstrably mistaken remarks. And when I call you on them, you A) get all testy, B) kill file me, and C) never forgive me for proving you wrong.

Grow up. And read more slowly.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:29:58 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:


Typical Krygowski BS. Claiming someone said something that they didn't...

Wow, I missed that the first time. Given that Duane just did _exactly_ that, it's kind of funny, isn't it? :-)

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:16:42 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

He is extremely anti-facility, and works backward from that to
create "facts" that fit. In doing so, utterly outlandish
characterizations emerge as essential parts of the whole.

Dan, I'll remind you yet again that I am responsible (at _least_ in part) for a couple of the facilities in my own town. I am fine with facilities that make sense, when properly done.

However, I find that most facilities - especially "Innovative!!!" ones - do not make sense, and do not make things better for cyclists.

Example: When I first heard about bike boxes at intersections (not very long before Portland began implementing them), what I said in certain forums was "I don't understand how these things are going to help." I wasn't against them; I simply said I didn't understand them. I was a bit skeptical, and was asking for explanations.

I got the explanations, and decided they made very little sense. It was then that I decided I was not in favor of bike boxes, at least as implemented in the U.S. (i.e. with no signal phase exclusively for bicyclists).

Of course, Portland did implement them, illegally at first, then with back-room, string-pulling retroactive permission - permission that still required collecting data. And the data is in. And it shows that the bike boxes did NOT work, but instead, INCREASED the very type of crash they were intended to prevent.

I'm against door zone bike lanes. We know (or we _should_ know) that they guide cyclists into hazardous spaces. Do you _really_ think it's a good idea to instruct trusting riders to ride where a door can pop open in their path?

I'm against bike lanes that tell cyclists to pass cars on the right where those cars can turn to their right. Isn't that elementary logic, based on simple physics - physics of the "Matter is impenetrable" sort?

I could go on. But ISTM that most facilities advocates do no more thinking than "Oooh, we have to be safe! And oooh, they've done something special for bikes, so now I feel safe!"

Or alternately, "Actual levels of safety aren't important. It's _perceived_ safety that matters, so we can get more butts on bikes and save the world!!! So it's OK to put the cyclists in more danger, as long as we fool them about it!" I happen to think that's immoral. It would never be allowed in any similar field, like medicine, plant safety, architectural design, etc..

Much of his views make exceptionally good sense. It's just that
on the whole he goes off the rails.

When you can discuss facilities logically, based on the real physics and psychology of traffic interactions, only then will you be capable of judging when I'm "off the rails."

Meanwhile, we're still trying to get you to see that it's not advisable to ride while drunk, ride facing traffic, ride at night without lights, do wheelies and jumps across intersections, zoom on and off sidewalks at will, etc. At this point, you're really not qualified to judge much about traffic engineering.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:29:58 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:


Typical Krygowski BS. Claiming someone said something that they didn't...

Wow, I missed that the first time. Given that Duane just did _exactly_
that, it's kind of funny, isn't it? :-)

- Frank Krygowski

Yeah, accusing me of denying right hooks exist in bike lanes annoyed me.
--
duane