Some lives matter. Some don't

On 1/28/2018 1:22 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:14:12 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Personally I ride in groups of one as it eliminates the necessity of
paying attention to all the problems of riding in a peloton and just
roll along smelling the roses and watching the birds :-)

I ride in groups of one because nobody else in the county is both able
to ride twenty miles and content to do so at an average speed of 5
mph.

Riding more slowly than one's natural speed is almost as tiring as
riding faster than one is able. On foot, walking slowly is even more
tiring than walking fast, as anyone who has taken a toddler for a walk
can attest.

Well, it probably depends on the speed differential.

We have one dear friend who is reluctant to ride with us because, she
says, she can't ride as fast as we do. I try hard to convince her that
I'm capable of riding very slow.

I'd guess her typical average speed is about 10 mph. Mine is probably 15
these days. But I still enjoy our rides together.

And I think there's great fun in riding with a 5-year-old grandkid who's
on a 12" wheel bike, spinning well over 150 rpm!


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/28/2018 7:19 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

But first, instead of having the victim's family pay inefficient lawyers to
operate in sh*thole Boston, why not instantly auction off a killer truck,
proceeds going to the victim's heirs?

An excellent idea!

But in a greedy world full of spiteful couples and unconscionable clans,
it's totally impractical: The amount of "lihop / mihop" incidents involving
expensive vehicles would just skyrocket.

On 1/27/2018 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 17:26:26 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 4:54:33 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 14:37:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2018 1:09 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 22:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/26/2018 7:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:01:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo

Yes, horrific.

And yet we have people here saying a cyclist should always stay far
right, that controlling a lane is dangerous.

If she had been in front of the trucker, he'd have seen her and slowed.

But if a cyclist can't bring himself/herself to do that, at least NEVER
put yourself to the right of a vehicle that might turn right. Especially
a large vehicle like a truck or bus.

Right hooks are deadly. (Left hooks in drive-on-left countries.)

A few years ago there was a huge outrage about cyclist deaths in London
(even though, as usual, far more pedestrians died). It came out that
most of those deaths were left hooks, usually women, who pulled up along
big lorries. Some said the women were too "polite" to avoid the curb and
get in the traffic lane.

I am a bit puzzled with these right/left hooked accidents. Don't
people turn their heads to look and see what is creeping up beside
them? I certainly do - every driveway turning onto "my street"; every
corner, every junction, I look to see what is coming. Shoot, I even
look back over my shoulder to see what is coming up behind me.

Don't other people?

See if you can get a chance to sit in a big truck's cab. The blind spots
are huge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...-about-trucks/

I'm not a truck driver but I did maintain them up to about 35 ton dump
trucks so I'm fairly aware of the view from the cab.

But the fact that a vehicle has blind spots should, to a knowledgeable
cyclist, cause the cyclist to treat them with even more caution than a
more conventional vehicle.

In fact one might even say that a cyclist who isn't aware of the
limited vision from the cab of many large motor vehicles, I include
buses and most trucks, is probably lacking the necessary skills to
ride on the public highways.

Well, I'm all in favor of education.

But education doesn't get much attention from "bicycling advocates" in
the U.S. These days they're all about "protected cycle tracks." In other
words, if you were in a "protected cycle track" just before you rode
into that intersection, the right turning truck would not have run you over.

Perhaps the solution is some form of limited access bikeway. No
walkers, no dogs, just bicycles all traveling in the same direction at
the same speed. I could even envision one where tunnels existed under
all intersections where larger vehicles crossed the bikeway

The "same speed" part is vexing -- speaking as someone
who rides in a city with a high bike mode share and dopey facilities.
I hate conga lines. I preferred it when I was just dodging cars, and
it was me and maybe five other guys on bikes.
https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

-- Jay Beattie.

I threw that in as I've, so often, read cyclists complaining about
multi speed people and things invading "their" MUP.

Personally I ride in groups of one as it eliminates the necessity of
paying attention to all the problems of riding in a peloton and just
roll along smelling the roses and watching the birds :-)

My wife and I both get great pleasure out of riding with friends. I
think that's where our friends and we have our best conversations.

And there are folks who fear riding alone! They think it's safer being
in a bigger and more visible group, and perhaps having supportive
witnesses if idiots attack. Many also like the possibility of help in
case of a mechanical problem. (I'm amazed by people who can't fix their
own flat.) And it's often nice to have someone lead you on a new and
especially pleasant route.

But there's no denying that riding in groups complicates things. I
recall some data from the 1980s, at least, that said serious injuries
from bike-bike collisions are as common as from car-bike collisions.

Then there are the problems of getting multiple riders through traffic,
for example left turns, or traffic lights with short green cycles. I've
seen club riders stop when only the front half of their group made it
though on green; then after ten seconds of antsy waiting, decide to
crash the red. That despite the lead group waiting up ahead at the next
red light.

But all in all, I think the benefits of riding with (compatible) others
outweigh the detriments.

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:01:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo

Yes, horrific.

And yet we have people here saying a cyclist should always stay far
right, that controlling a lane is dangerous.

If she had been in front of the trucker, he'd have seen her and
slowed.

Since she was clealy visible to the driver for 16 seconds before he
killed her, I don't know that what you say is true. He might have still
run her over.

The interesting thing is that while the driver was celarly and obviously
at fault and broke multiple laws, 100% of the blame has been put on the
cyclist. Apparently hit and run is legal, leaving the scene, etc., is
now legal.

"I didn't see her" holds up as a valid defense in a court of law (or to
the cop who declines to write a ticket, make an arrest, etc., and it
never goes to court).

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:42:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/27/2018 11:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2018 11:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 02:04:27 +0100, Sepp Ruf

wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:07:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/26/2018 6:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:01:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo

Yes, horrific.

The ignoramus police, too.

Certainly Sir. The logical answer is simply to eliminate
the police
force. Think of the tax savings, why the New York police
force costs
the tax payer in the neighborhood of $130,769 annually
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...b_7659496.html


Think of how happy "Mr. Average Man" will be without the
ignoramus
police and the horrendous tax bill.

I strongly support police when they're correct and competent.

I can't support a system that provides no serious punishment
when a motorist takes another's life.

At a bare minimum, the trucker should never again operate a
motor vehicle on a public road.


pffft.
How in the hell would that be enforced?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3783246

Well, one of the proven ways of reducing illegal acts is by an active
police presence..... The old fashioned cop on the beat is an often
mentioned example.

Of course this results in a large number of "ignoramus police"
comments. You know, "The stupid cop. He gave me a ticket and I was
only going 15 miles over the speed limit".

It appears that there are two forms, and effects from, law enforcement
systems. A strict system where all laws are vigorously enforced and
penalties imposed for law breakers and, secondly, a layed back legal
system where law enforcement is lax and legal codes are loosely
applied... "Come on Herb... he only ran over two bicycles and you want
to put him in Jail?"

Take your choice. In one the public feels safe and secure and has
confidence in their law enforcement system. in the other they don't.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 14:27:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/28/2018 10:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/27/2018 11:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2018 11:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 02:04:27 +0100, Sepp Ruf

wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:07:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/26/2018 6:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:01:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo

Yes, horrific.

The ignoramus police, too.

Certainly Sir. The logical answer is simply to eliminate
the police
force. Think of the tax savings, why the New York police
force costs
the tax payer in the neighborhood of $130,769 annually
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...b_7659496.html



Think of how happy "Mr. Average Man" will be without the
ignoramus
police and the horrendous tax bill.

I strongly support police when they're correct and competent.

I can't support a system that provides no serious punishment
when a motorist takes another's life.

At a bare minimum, the trucker should never again operate a
motor vehicle on a public road.


pffft.
How in the hell would that be enforced?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3783246

As a first step, I can envision laws imposing crushing fines on a
company that hires a driver who has no valid license.


I can't comment on New York but in most countries I have lived in a
trucking company who employed an unqualified drivers would be
responsibility for anything said driver did while employed as well as
additional charges for employing an illegal driver.

I remember a friend who had a small trucking company in California
once saying something about a company could loose their operating
license for using unlicensed drivers.


Beyond that, well, driving a motor vehicle usually requires working
hands and one working foot...
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/28/2018 8:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:42:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/27/2018 11:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2018 11:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 02:04:27 +0100, Sepp Ruf

wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:07:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/26/2018 6:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:01:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo

Yes, horrific.

The ignoramus police, too.

Certainly Sir. The logical answer is simply to eliminate
the police
force. Think of the tax savings, why the New York police
force costs
the tax payer in the neighborhood of $130,769 annually
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...b_7659496.html


Think of how happy "Mr. Average Man" will be without the
ignoramus
police and the horrendous tax bill.

I strongly support police when they're correct and competent.

I can't support a system that provides no serious punishment
when a motorist takes another's life.

At a bare minimum, the trucker should never again operate a
motor vehicle on a public road.


pffft.
How in the hell would that be enforced?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3783246

Well, one of the proven ways of reducing illegal acts is by an active
police presence..... The old fashioned cop on the beat is an often
mentioned example.

Of course this results in a large number of "ignoramus police"
comments. You know, "The stupid cop. He gave me a ticket and I was
only going 15 miles over the speed limit".

It appears that there are two forms, and effects from, law enforcement
systems. A strict system where all laws are vigorously enforced and
penalties imposed for law breakers and, secondly, a layed back legal
system where law enforcement is lax and legal codes are loosely
applied... "Come on Herb... he only ran over two bicycles and you want
to put him in Jail?"

Take your choice. In one the public feels safe and secure and has
confidence in their law enforcement system. in the other they don't.

My post a few days ago mentioned that, regarding bike share schemes in
Australia vs. Singapore. Apparently Singaporeans expect a strict system.
Australians take the laws as vague suggestions. I'd say America is about
the same as Australia. I've been told Italy is worse, although we didn't
notice when we were there.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:15:26 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:01:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo

Yes, horrific.

And yet we have people here saying a cyclist should always stay far
right, that controlling a lane is dangerous.

If she had been in front of the trucker, he'd have seen her and
slowed.

Since she was clealy visible to the driver for 16 seconds before he
killed her, I don't know that what you say is true. He might have still
run her over.

The interesting thing is that while the driver was celarly and obviously
at fault and broke multiple laws, 100% of the blame has been put on the
cyclist. Apparently hit and run is legal, leaving the scene, etc., is
now legal.

"I didn't see her" holds up as a valid defense in a court of law (or to
the cop who declines to write a ticket, make an arrest, etc., and it
never goes to court).


https://itstillruns.com/massachusett...t-6405256.html

In Massachusetts, there are a few instances when passing on the right
is permitted.

Left Turn

If the car in front of you is making a left turn and is clearly
stopped and signaling as such, you are permitted to pass it on the
right. It is not possible at that point to pass the car on the left
(as it is turning), so passing on the right is allowed.
One-Way Street

If you are driving on a one-way street, and the car in front of you is
in the left lane, you are permitted to pass on the right. As always,
it is important to clearly signal and obey speed limits when doing
this.
Restricted Passage

If traffic is restricted in a left lane, forcing cars to pass on the
right, then passing on the right-hand side is permitted. Please pay
careful attention to any instructions posted in such situations and
keep in mind that safety comes first.
Safety First and Obey the Law

Keep in mind that safety always comes first. If hazardous conditions
on the road leave no other option than to pass on right, then you are
allowed to do so. Also, if there is clear, official signage expressing
The permission to pass on right, then you are allowed to do so.

by Taboola
link
Mass.gov: Rules of the Road
link
The Unofficial DMV Guide
link
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: State "Keep Right" Laws

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 22:57:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/28/2018 8:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:42:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/27/2018 11:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2018 11:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 02:04:27 +0100, Sepp Ruf

wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:07:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/26/2018 6:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:01:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo

Yes, horrific.

The ignoramus police, too.

Certainly Sir. The logical answer is simply to eliminate
the police
force. Think of the tax savings, why the New York police
force costs
the tax payer in the neighborhood of $130,769 annually
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...b_7659496.html


Think of how happy "Mr. Average Man" will be without the
ignoramus
police and the horrendous tax bill.

I strongly support police when they're correct and competent.

I can't support a system that provides no serious punishment
when a motorist takes another's life.

At a bare minimum, the trucker should never again operate a
motor vehicle on a public road.


pffft.
How in the hell would that be enforced?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3783246

Well, one of the proven ways of reducing illegal acts is by an active
police presence..... The old fashioned cop on the beat is an often
mentioned example.

Of course this results in a large number of "ignoramus police"
comments. You know, "The stupid cop. He gave me a ticket and I was
only going 15 miles over the speed limit".

It appears that there are two forms, and effects from, law enforcement
systems. A strict system where all laws are vigorously enforced and
penalties imposed for law breakers and, secondly, a layed back legal
system where law enforcement is lax and legal codes are loosely
applied... "Come on Herb... he only ran over two bicycles and you want
to put him in Jail?"

Take your choice. In one the public feels safe and secure and has
confidence in their law enforcement system. in the other they don't.

My post a few days ago mentioned that, regarding bike share schemes in
Australia vs. Singapore. Apparently Singaporeans expect a strict system.
Australians take the laws as vague suggestions. I'd say America is about
the same as Australia. I've been told Italy is worse, although we didn't
notice when we were there.

As they say, you lays your money and you takes you choice. In
Singapore with it's strict legal system the society apparently has
considerable faith in its law enforcement system:
See https://tinyurl.com/ybp45edf for details of what Singapore calls
the "Community-based policing strategy
through the Neighborhood Police Post
(NPP) system in 1983 and the shift towards
community-focused policing through the
creation of Neighborhood Police Centers",
which make law enforcement practically a part of the neighborhood and
http://news.gallup.com/poll/183704/c...est-years.aspx
which contrasts Singapore with the U.S. system.

It is probably difficult, to say the least, to develop a group of law
abiding group who adhere to traffic laws and follow save riding
practices in a society that doesn't trust their own law enforcement
agency.

And it follows that it is probably very difficult to effect safe
riding practices in a group that sees no reason to obey the law.



--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:42:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/27/2018 11:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2018 11:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 02:04:27 +0100, Sepp Ruf wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:07:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/26/2018 6:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/26/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.massbike.org/anitakurmannvideo

Yes, horrific.

The ignoramus police, too.

Certainly Sir. The logical answer is simply to eliminate
the police
force. Think of the tax savings, why the New York police
force costs
the tax payer in the neighborhood of $130,769 annually
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...b_7659496.html


Think of how happy "Mr. Average Man" will be without the
ignoramus police and the horrendous tax bill.

I strongly support police when they're correct and competent.

I can't support a system that provides no serious punishment
when a motorist takes another's life.

At a bare minimum, the trucker should never again operate a
motor vehicle on a public road.

pffft.
How in the hell would that be enforced?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3783246

Well, one of the proven ways of reducing illegal acts is by an active
police presence..... The old fashioned cop on the beat is an often
mentioned example.

Of course this results

Your phantasies and examples prove no causation.

in a large number of "ignoramus police"
comments. You know, "The stupid cop. He gave me a ticket and I was
only going 15 miles over the speed limit".

You are hallucinating, aren't you? You think rbt readers don't notice your
misrepresentation of the context of "ignoramus police?" You think rbt
readers do not comprehend that you only quote the part of the Mass. law that
pertains to the cyclist's behavior, but not the trucker's?

Traffic rules are mostly constructed in a way that allows one party to make
a mistake, but an accident still getting avoided by the other party not
making a mistake. Even the legislators in Mass. understand that the burden
of extra diligence is upon the operator of dangerous motorized machinery,
thus truckers need a license, not cyclists lured into deadly traps by
territory-demarcating bicycle activists and dangerously contradictory
legislation from one province to another. After the homicide, did the
behavior of Boston police and DA indicate any of this is understood by them
and demonstrated by impartial "law enforcement?" I don't think so.

It appears that there are two forms, and effects from, law enforcement
systems. A strict system where all laws are vigorously enforced and
penalties imposed for law breakers and, secondly, a layed back legal
system where law enforcement is lax and legal codes are loosely
applied... "Come on Herb... he only ran over two bicycles and you want
to put him in Jail?"

Take your choice. In one the public feels safe and secure and has
confidence in their law enforcement system. in the other they don't.

Someone obviously needs to simplify reality by resorting to false
dichotomies. You might have forgotten during your unamericanizing Asian
adventures, King Longhorn's Johnny, but the public's trust in government is
to be earned by control by the public and government being held accountable.