Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 10, 9:44*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 11:38 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:





On Dec 9, 11:33 pm, Frank *wrote:
On Dec 9, 1:28 pm, *wrote:

I have some questions for Frank.

As I understand, in a 10-foot wide lane (no shoulder), with an 8.5-foot wide
truck behind you, you'd ride in the middle of the lane. *This would put you 5
feet from the right edge.

Where would you ride if there was no vehicle behind you?

What if instead of a big truck, it was a small car or a motorcycle behind you?

First, if there is no vehicle behind me, my road position is
determined by other things.

You mean that *ALL the surrounding circumstances come into play?
What a concept!

That's a good point - the specifics of what's further right affect
things. *A dropoff "ledge" at the pavement's edge will push me further
left, too.

Again, *ALL the surrounding circumstances come into play.
What was so hard about acknowledging that in the first place Frank?

Frank seemed to have great trouble with this concept when he first
proposed his hypothetical. And he had to subsequently impose a curb
and a sidewalk on all those who were pointing out that ALL the

I think the sidewalk was installed exclusively for my benefit.
That way he can tell me what a coward I am because I would jump on the
sidewalk before being turned into ground meat.

Don't you wish you could get governmental entities to respond so
quickly with infrastructure?

The sidewalk thing is interesting, especially with the "taking into
account all surrounding circumstances" theme. There is a bridge here I
ride across regularly where the sidewalk IS the simple way to stay out
of traffic. The particular sidewalk section is also incorporated as a
portion of a 7 mile riverfront all purpose trail. And (in contrast to
the bridge JB described) it's wide enough for opposing bike/
pedestrian traffic to pass. I don't "bail out" onto the sidewalk,
that's usually where I ride.
Just a further example of how foolish Frank is with his tunnel vision
and "control" obsession.

DR

On Dec 10, 8:53*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:50*am, James wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:47*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:19*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On the twisting climbs through the West Hills, I
always just pull way over and let cars pass and do not attempt to
control traffic by riding in the middle of the road on a 10% climb at
8mph. On any narrow road downtown, I'm travelling at or above the
speed of traffic.

Speed does make a difference, both absolute speed and relative
speed.

I don't recall mention of speed in your hypothetical. *Did I miss
that?

That case was constructed so it didn't matter. *There is no safe speed
for an 8.5 foot truck to pass a moving bicyclist in a ten foot wide
lane.

Frank, I think we have already established that it is physically
impossible "for an 8.5 foot truck to pass a moving bicyclist in a ten
foot wide lane."

DR

On 12/10/2010 12:53 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:44 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/10/2010 11:38 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:





On Dec 9, 11:33 pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 9, 1:28 pm, wrote:

I have some questions for Frank.

As I understand, in a 10-foot wide lane (no shoulder), with an 8.5-foot wide
truck behind you, you'd ride in the middle of the lane. This would put you 5
feet from the right edge.

Where would you ride if there was no vehicle behind you?

What if instead of a big truck, it was a small car or a motorcycle behind you?

First, if there is no vehicle behind me, my road position is
determined by other things.

You mean that ALL the surrounding circumstances come into play?
What a concept!

That's a good point - the specifics of what's further right affect
things. A dropoff "ledge" at the pavement's edge will push me further
left, too.

Again, ALL the surrounding circumstances come into play.
What was so hard about acknowledging that in the first place Frank?

Frank seemed to have great trouble with this concept when he first
proposed his hypothetical. And he had to subsequently impose a curb
and a sidewalk on all those who were pointing out that ALL the

I think the sidewalk was installed exclusively for my benefit.
That way he can tell me what a coward I am because I would jump on the
sidewalk before being turned into ground meat.

Don't you wish you could get governmental entities to respond so
quickly with infrastructure?

LOL

The sidewalk thing is interesting, especially with the "taking into
account all surrounding circumstances" theme. There is a bridge here I
ride across regularly where the sidewalk IS the simple way to stay out
of traffic. The particular sidewalk section is also incorporated as a
portion of a 7 mile riverfront all purpose trail. And (in contrast to
the bridge JB described) it's wide enough for opposing bike/
pedestrian traffic to pass. I don't "bail out" onto the sidewalk,
that's usually where I ride.


There's an overpass that I take that's quite busy in rush hour.
(the one where I had my battle with the trucker that time) There's
a sidewalk next to it but the curb is high. You'd have to get off the
bike to get on it so I stay on the street. I don't think the cops would
bother me at the particular one, even though it's not legal to
ride on the sidewalk.

My boss was using it but she doesn't wear cleats or anything so it's
easier for her to get up the curb. Anyway, she nearly got clobbered by
an oncoming "cyclist" going the wrong way so she's trying to deal with
the traffic instead.

Just a further example of how foolish Frank is with his tunnel vision
and "control" obsession.

I'm getting pretty tired of his asinine insults anyway. He thinks that
everyone is his student and completely Fred-like.

On 12/10/2010 1:22 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:53 am, Frank wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:50 am, wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:47 pm, Frank wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:19 am, Jay wrote:
On the twisting climbs through the West Hills, I
always just pull way over and let cars pass and do not attempt to
control traffic by riding in the middle of the road on a 10% climb at
8mph. On any narrow road downtown, I'm travelling at or above the
speed of traffic.

Speed does make a difference, both absolute speed and relative
speed.

I don't recall mention of speed in your hypothetical. Did I miss
that?

That case was constructed so it didn't matter. There is no safe speed
for an 8.5 foot truck to pass a moving bicyclist in a ten foot wide
lane.

Frank, I think we have already established that it is physically
impossible "for an 8.5 foot truck to pass a moving bicyclist in a ten
foot wide lane."

Even if the cyclist is not in the center.

On Dec 10, 11:28*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 12:53 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
* Just a further example of how foolish Frank is with his tunnel vision
* and "control" obsession.

I'm getting pretty tired of his asinine insults anyway. *He thinks that
everyone is his student and completely Fred-like.

Frank knows knows law better than lawyers or courts, trauma better
than ER doctors, bike racing better than bike racers, and statistical
studies better than their authors. And in each of these fields all the
"experts" agree with him (for that is what makes them experts). They
need not, of course, actually express their own opinions, Frank merely
adopts them as his supporters (whether they know it or not) and speaks
for them.

It amazing that he wastes any time relying on other authority at all.

DR

On 12/10/2010 2:38 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:34:24
+1100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:12:08
+1100 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay wrote:
Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
must yield" laws.
Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?

http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-1...ase-revisited/

http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/...-question_9772

AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.
Victorian Road Law.

quote
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians

(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver
or a pedestrian.
Penalty: 2 penalty units.
Note: Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.

(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
another driver or a pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other
vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slow in the
circumstances).

Example of a driver driving abnormally slow
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a
length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per
hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
at that speed on the length of road.
/quote

So a cyclist riding at 20 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and taking up the lane
would be considered to be abnormally slow. This is precisely the
circumstance on the Maroondah Hwy going over the Black Spur that I
posted a link to earlier.

Don't be more stupid than you can help.
The law as you state it above states quite clearly "a driver does not
unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only
because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles"

and even clarifies that in the example by stating: "when there is no
reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road."

I can't think of any more persuasive reason for the driver to be
driving at that (low) speed than that it is the maximum speed of which
the vehicle is capable.

Any other reasoning would put the statute at odds with the laws of
physics, and would have the effect of saying that any vehicle that
cannot travel at the speed limit is not allowed to use that stretch of
road.

So that law cannot possibly be applied if the vehicle operator is
driving as fast as the circumstances, or his vehicle's capabilities
(which includes his own, particularly if there is no power
assistance), allow.

The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and
tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of
other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others
pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane.

People towing caravans and tractor drivers and most cyclists do just
this. It's common courtesy.

Are you stupid enough to crawl along in the middle of the lane and hold
up a tonne of traffic?

When the road conditions make passing unsafe, I will take the lane.
I usually make it fairly obvious that I'm going as fast as I
reasonably can, so I can get past the narrow section with the least
delay to those vehicles behind as possible. Once I am into an area
where it is safe for them to pass, I move over to allow them and give
a wave of thanks for their patience. I frequently receive an
acknowledgement.
I'm sure the weight of traffic that has to slow behind me in some
locations runs into hundreds of tonnes - a single articulated truck
can be 44, and in the mile length of the main road through the village
I live in, I could easily collect a dozen such trucks behind me, but
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
My right to use the roads is not dependant on traffic conditions, and
any delay to them is at least as much because of the size of their
vehicles as the speed of mine (smaller vehicles could pass me without
difficulty or danger).
Stupid would be to give them the impression that they can safely pass
me, or that I am expecting them to - I know perfectly well that there
is insufficient space between pinch points for a 55ft truck to get
past me, so I take care to avoid giving them the idea that they can.
One thing that is clear is that far too many truck drivers dismiss
anything they are passing as soon as their cab is level with it, and
will move back in FAR too soon. If that happens, you have to brake
hard, and the following traffic will then leave you blocked against
the kerb, shaving extremely close, because many will be driving too
close to the vehicle in front to have sufficient view along the
kerbside to where you have been stranded.

Almost everyone here has said that they take they lane when they have
to.

On 12/10/2010 2:31 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:28 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/10/2010 12:53 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
Just a further example of how foolish Frank is with his tunnel vision
and "control" obsession.

I'm getting pretty tired of his asinine insults anyway. He thinks that
everyone is his student and completely Fred-like.

Frank knows knows law better than lawyers or courts, trauma better
than ER doctors, bike racing better than bike racers, and statistical
studies better than their authors. And in each of these fields all the
"experts" agree with him (for that is what makes them experts). They
need not, of course, actually express their own opinions, Frank merely
adopts them as his supporters (whether they know it or not) and speaks
for them.

It amazing that he wastes any time relying on other authority at all.

+1

Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 12:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 3:39 pm, Duane wrote:
You can't drive a car on a road without a license and your license
can be suspended. Drivers don't have a right to the road. They have
a privilege.

You can't ride a bicycle on any road where the authority having
jurisdiction prevents it.

I would suggest you do more reading on this issue, but I realize the
suggestion would be rejected.

Driving a car is a privilege that can be suspended for any number of
reasons and can't even be exercised without the proper licensing. How is
that a right?


And I admit, I know little about the law in Quebec. Maybe it's true
that cyclists in Quebec have no right to the road. That might go a
long way to explaining your timid, deferential attitudes and your
complaints that cycling up there is so much hell.

MV operators have no right to the road either unless they license their
vehicle, have a valid operators license, carry insurance and then they
can drive where the AHJ tells them that they can drive.
Currently in the Town of Beaconsfield where I live, I'm required to
license my bikes. Same thing when I lived in Albany NY. In New Orleans
where I grew up, there were no requirements for licensing but it wasn't
unusual to see signs where bikes were prohibited. Typically long windy
roads with high speed limits. (Think Jayne Mansfield - dead man's curve)

Ohio is very much better than that, in many ways. For example, here,
we actually do have a right to the road. We also have a law stating
that municipalities cannot enforce laws that fundamentally differ from
the state laws regarding cycling. They are specifically forbidden to
prohibit cyclists from non-freeway roads.

You should realize how lucky you are then. Based on some other
discussion here that Jay is responding to, (don't remember where
exactly) this doesn't seem to be the case everywhere in the US.
"Think Jayne Mansfield"

No decapitated cyclists I hope!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Dec 10, 1:08*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
DirtRoadie considered Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:41:14
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 9, 3:13*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jay Beattie considered Wed, 8 Dec 2010
18:00:24 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

So, putting them together,

Why put them together?

First the disclaimer that you forgot - YANAL
Second, *Jay IAL.

Third:
ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
185 Or.App. 81.

Fourth:
814.400 reads "Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every
person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions
applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any
other vehicle concerning operating on highways, ..."

If that was actually intended to cover more than the usual things like
obeying stop signs and traffic signals, it would mean you also need a
driving licence to ride a bicycle on the highway.
Do you?
If not, it is clear that there are differences, and it is equally
clear that the difference is stated in statutes by the use of
"vehicle" (which applies to ALL vehicles, and "motor vehicle" which
applies to only those vehicles which are mechanically propelled.
If they'd wanted 811.130 to cover all vehicles they would not have
included the word "motor", but they chose to do so.
Any decision which disregards this is flying in the face of the clear
intention of the legislators, as well as linguistic accuracy.

Or to put it another way, it is wrong, and could only be made by
someone with inadequate literacy for the position they hold.

Argue your head off, the issue has been decided in Oregon and your
argument lost.

No surprise if some legal decisions are wrong, but no excuse not to
right them.

You don't make any sense at all.
As I said "Argue your head off, the issue has been decided in Oregon
and your
argument lost."
I didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to do so.

DR

On 12/10/2010 3:08 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:41:14
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 9, 3:13 pm, Phil W wrote:
Jay considered Wed, 8 Dec 2010
18:00:24 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

So, putting them together,

Why put them together?

First the disclaimer that you forgot - YANAL
Second, Jay IAL.

Third:
ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
185 Or.App. 81.

Fourth:
814.400 reads "Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every
person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions
applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any
other vehicle concerning operating on highways, ..."

If that was actually intended to cover more than the usual things like
obeying stop signs and traffic signals, it would mean you also need a
driving licence to ride a bicycle on the highway.
Do you?

Neither rights nor duties to me indicate requirement for a driver's
license. Rights, to me in this context means, what I am allowed to do
and Duties, in this context means, what I am required to do.

Maybe Jay can clarify? After all, HIAL.