Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/14/2010 10:10 PM, DirtRoadie Who? wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:05 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/14/2010 9:58 PM, DirtRoadie Who? wrote:





On Dec 14, 4:05 pm, Jay wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:03 pm, Michael wrote:

In article
,

wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:55 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:40 AM, Duane H bert wrote:
On 12/11/2010 4:23 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 12/11/2010 12:29 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"T m Sherm nT " wrote in
...
On 12/11/2010 8:29 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"T?m Sherm?n? " wrote in
...
On 12/10/2010 11:28 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:

Hmm. Given your fears, I suppose Quebec must have special Ground
Meat
Crews to scrape away all the dead cyclists!

- Frank Krygowski

**** you.

+1

Good to see the maturity and civility of the group being preserved.

/sarcasm

Calling me a coward is bad enough but making light
of the dead cyclists here, some of which were friends
and all of which were persons, was a bit much.

And lying/libel is not a bit much?

Are you talking to me?

No, it is a different Frank-Basher who hides behind a pseudonym while
lying and committing libel by falsifying quotations. However, for some
reason, this immoral behavior draws much less ire than Frank Krygowski's
above board argumentation.

Sorry Tom but just because Frank hasn't used profanity doesn't make
his personal attacks any less irksome. As to your reference to DR,
I'm not exactly sure which of his comments you're referring to.

Look in this thread, and you will find multiple occasions where
"DirtRoadie" altered quotations - I pointed out several of them in
responses. No one else objects to this behavior, except for Phil W. Lee.

Bingo!
Tom has no grasp of parody (and does not even understand the word
"libel" which he erroneously uses frequently) and has taken it upon
himself to rid the world of his perceived moral outrage. He stalks the
"perpetrators" in support of his role model for truth and virtue,
Frank Krygowski.

Look through this thread for any of my posts followed by a post from
Tom. See if you see ANY suggestion of Tom offering substantive
discussion.
Some say he has a sense of humor. Perhaps he does, but I think he's
just a fat angry old man with nothing to do but complain about how
poorly the world treats him and those like him.

I must step in here and disagree with the very last.
Recumbent cyclists are shabbily treated indeed. It
may become necessary to pass a hate law forbidding
malicious denigration of recumbent cyclists.

Hate on this!http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm
Hardly a fat old man, ...

He sure sounds fat and old in his posts.
DR

http://www.teachnet.ie/dcorcoran/Photos/jersey.jpg

Your school portrait?
DR

http://www.strongpunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/tumblr_krx608Yv501qznrhuo1_500.jpg

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Are you talking about fatalities among cyclists who are riding in
daytime? Or are you talking about fatalities among cyclists riding at
night with proper lights (including, as I do, with a taillight)? Or
are you including the cyclists killed while riding non-urban roads at
night with no proper lights or reflectors? And how are you counting
those killed at night where lights or reflectors are not included one
way or other in the accident report?

How does this information change your opinion about "controlling
lanes?"

Well, since a) I'm sure the great unlit (and often inebriated) masses
are included in those counts, and b) even if they were not, the "one
quarter" would mean a minimum of 35 million miles ridden, on average,
between those sorts of fatalities, it doesn't change my opinion at
all. I don't expect to get anywhere near 35 million miles before I
die of other causes.

I am certain that even among proper, sober and well-lit bicyclists,
straight up hits from behind accounted for far, far more fatalities
than "dangerous passes." It doesn't matter, does it? What you have
there is a belief system, an ideology, based on fantasy, and rather
than alter or evolve your beliefs in the face of contrary facts, those
contrary facts must instead be actively ignored, attacked and banished
to protect the precious beliefs..

FACT: Even though relatively few American bicyclists "take the lane,"
bicyclists here (even sober, well-lit ones) are far, far more likely
to be killed by a driver who doesn't see them at all and rams into
them from behind than by one who sees them but fails to pass
correctly.

But how about you? In a previous post, you pointed out that you were
largely agreeing with me. Remember? You said "If there is any
oncoming traffic, anybody behind me will just have to travel my speed
for a bit, no matter where I ride in a 10-foot lane."

Meaning, it's physically impossible to pass a cyclist within a 10-foot
lane in an 8.5-foot truck, even if the bicyclist decides to "skulk"
next to the curb. It simply doesn't matter where you ride, not a bit,
if there is any oncoming traffic the dude can't pass without running
you down. In reality, the hardcore "skulker" "controls the lane" just
as effectively as the professor riding right down the middle.

Are we in agreement yet again? I hope so!

So you now agree that:

-- The entire idea of "controlling a lane" is absurd.

-- Five feet is a pathetic and inadequate buffer to right side
hazards, if there are any. In the absence of same-direction traffic,
you should be riding much further left.

-- The concept of Primary Position and Secondary Position is
nonsensical and should be ridiculed, then abandoned.

-- Bicyclists should help drivers pass by moving toward the right,
even on narrow streets.

-- Bicyclists who fixate on close passes and "preventing dangerous
passes" etc. have misplaced fears. Traffic management philosophies
based on such misguided fears should be ridiculed and abandoned at
first opportunity.

Glad we could clear all that up.

On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:21 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote:
You're echoing Duane's worries about the road
he showed in the street view - the one that looked like our metro
park, or like the ones my club members and I seek out for rides in the
country.

Leave me out of your attempts to force everyone else to do what
you want.

Sorry, Duane, but you're not making sense. I'm not attempting to force
anyone to do anything, because there's no way I could do that. Even
if you choose to ride wrong-way down a freeway at night without
lights, I can't force you not to.

This is a discussion group. I'm discussing what I think is correct
cycling, and why - including data, citations, quotes and logic.
You're always free to ignore all that and ride as you like.


Stop pouring your derision on it, please.

On Dec 14, 8:50*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:34*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:





On Dec 13, 11:20*pm, RobertH wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:55 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Robert, IIRC you never did answer the question I asked.

No you do not RC. I did answer it, multiple times, with specifics.
Here's a helpful link:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...20c84269d8cbc1

It's at this point where I start to wonder, has Frank really missed my
multiple answers to his question, or is he just playing a pathetic
game to avoid the issues I raised in those posts? IIRC this has been a
pattern with Frank.

AGAIN: I would ride further left than you. Primary position doesn't do
it for me. If the space is available, use it.

Then, if a truck wanted to pass, I would probably drift right to
enable an easier pass, *he would pass in the typical fashion on narrow
streets/roads of going way over the center line, and everybody would
go along their way without incident. If there is any oncoming traffic,
anybody behind me will just have to travel my speed for a bit, no
matter where I ride in a 10-foot lane. Some people have trouble
visualizing how narrow that really is.

Ah. *So your disagreement with me is that when I ride in the middle of
the lane, I'm _still_ too far to the right! *But you agree with me
that when the lane is too narrow *for safe passing, you'd be far
enough out to prevent unsafe in-lane passing and cause those behind
you to just travel at your speed.

That's good. *Thanks.

I wonder if you'll now be attacked by others calling you things like
"hall monitor."

- Frank "OAFAAF" Krygowski

"Hall Monitor Syndrome" *- I guess we will see, but I see RH
describing quite different scenario from you, Frank. This is part of
why I see you having severe tunnel vision.
Your one and only focus is your position in the lane, *down to the
foot. And you have foolishly demanded of others that they give a
"footage" measurement to describe how they ride.
I addressed that previously by noting "... nobody here is so stupid as
to think that the 'footage' measurement has much relevance to safe and/
or legal riding."

In contrast RH describes the surrounding circumstances. *Yes, he uses
a lane but his understanding is far more comprehensive and he does not
remotely suggest that he is trying to (or could) control traffic nor
that his position in the lane has any bearing on whether a following
vehicle can pass safely some.

RH himself or others can comment.

Done
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...17916910?hl=en



And, Frank, your rhetorical
questions are childish. If you want to tell us something, tell us.

DR

"Tºm ShermªnT °_°" " wrote in
message ...
On 12/14/2010 6:02 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
wrote in message
...
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:29 pm, wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 3:49 pm, wrote:

It is interesting that you bring up the spectre of sudden death by
close pass. What do you think accounts for a larger portion of
cyclist
fatalities -- too-close passes or drivers completely failing to
notice
the cyclist in front of them?

That's easy. A "too close" pass is never fatal. It can't be "too
close" unless it is completed. It's the "incomplete passes" that
create problems.
DR

The only exception is when a "too close" pass causes the cyclist to
panic, wobble, loose control and crash. The air currents associated
with large fast moving vehicles are sometimes enough to cause
problems,
even to more experienced cyclists who do not panic just because of a
close call.

Agreed. I was being a bit facetious.

I could tell.

And one of my personal "too close" experiences involved taking the
passenger side extended mirror of a pickup truck against the back of
my arm. I was climbing at probably 10ish mph and the truck was
probably doing the speed limit or better - 60ish mph. I was very
thankful that the encounter was not any closer than it was.

Indeed, too close for comfort.

On occasion they've nipped passed too close in traffic, and I catch them
at the next set of lights, a good whack on the roof of their cage with
the
flat of your hand sends a clear message to them. Often they look
dumbfounded as they don't know what they did wrong to deserve a wake up
call.

You need to be careful with that. A cyclist here did that and was
nearly beaten to death. You don't know who's in the car or what they
are carrying.
http://westislandgazette.com/news/police/16340


Shoot first, ask questions later, claim self-defense.

You got that right. As soon as those slugs got out of the car.

On 12/14/2010 8:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:21 am, "Duane wrote:
"Frank wrote:

You're echoing Duane's worries about the road
he showed in the street view - the one that looked like our metro
park, or like the ones my club members and I seek out for rides in the
country.

Leave me out of your attempts to force everyone else to do what
you want.

Sorry, Duane, but you're not making sense. I'm not attempting to force
anyone to do anything, because there's no way I could do that. Even
if you choose to ride wrong-way down a freeway at night without
lights, I can't force you not to.


So attempts at humiliation and derision toward anyone disagreeing with
you is just your typical style of prose? Purposely misinterpreting
someone's statement so that you can argue against it successfully is
just your style of debate?

Thanks for pointing that out then. I thought it was something personal.
Since it's not, I can just ignore you.

This is a discussion group. I'm discussing what I think is correct
cycling, and why - including data, citations, quotes and logic.
You're always free to ignore all that and ride as you like.

Thanks for lecturing to me what usenet is. Thanks for pointing out that
what you say is only what you think. The logic part, I'm not too sure
about. And thanks bunches for allowing me to ride as I like, although
you have suggested that I stop riding at all, both bikes and cars since
I'm such a sniveling coward. I'll try to keep that in mind.

BTW, since you don't seem to understand sarcasm, that was sarcastic.

poo-tee-weet

On 12/13/2010 7:55 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:40 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/11/2010 4:23 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/11/2010 12:29 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"T�m Sherm�nT " wrote in
message ...
On 12/11/2010 8:29 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"T?m Sherm?n? " wrote in
message ...
On 12/10/2010 11:28 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:

Hmm. Given your fears, I suppose Quebec must have special Ground
Meat
Crews to scrape away all the dead cyclists!

- Frank Krygowski

**** you.

+1
DR

Good to see the maturity and civility of the group being preserved.

/sarcasm

Calling me a coward is bad enough but making light
of the dead cyclists here, some of which were friends
and all of which were persons, was a bit much.

And lying/libel is not a bit much?

Are you talking to me?


No, it is a different Frank-Basherâ„¢ who hides behind a pseudonym while
lying and committing libel by falsifying quotations. However, for some
reason, this immoral behavior draws much less ire than Frank Krygowski's
above board argumentation.


Sorry Tom but just because Frank hasn't used profanity doesn't make
his personal attacks any less irksome. As to your reference to DR,
I'm not exactly sure which of his comments you're referring to.

Look in this thread, and you will find multiple occasions where
"DirtRoadie" altered quotations - I pointed out several of them in
responses. No one else objects to this behavior, except for Phil W. Lee.


Don't think that he altered anything without saying so. But anyway,
how is that different from telling me that I skulk in the gutter like a
coward because I don't ride exactly in the middle of the lane and then
20 posts later telling someone else that they are just as afraid of
cycling as I am because they also don't agree with him?

On 12/13/2010 4:55 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 2:36 pm, wrote:
On Dec 13, 10:59 am, Frank wrote:

If there is oncoming traffic, and the trucker decides there's enough
room to squeeze by in your lane because you're at far right, you're in
a dangerous situation. You'll have a truck literally brushing your
left shoulder. You can't get more clearance by riding to the right;
that's likely to make you fall, and in that situation it could kill
you.

When Frank writes a paragraph like this, I paraphrase it as "Danger!"
Danger!"

It can mean nothing else!

Actually this is about the most hysterical sounding warning that
anybody has written in the "Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009" thread or
threadlets.

Thanks for the heads up. Once it became clear that Frank was saying
"It depends," I saw no reason to read his post in detail.

It is a shame he is so fearful.
Maybe he should consider something less dangerous than cycling.

Or driving a car. Or walking. Or falling out of bed. Or...

Per Ala:

"Hello....... You........ Have......... Reached..... The....
Slow..... Talkers..... Of....... America....... Press 1....
IF.....



bob and ray fan!

I was *wondering* if anybody would notice..... -)
--
PeteCresswell

On Dec 15, 7:43 am, Phil W Lee wrote:
[...]
Then the most important thing you can do to improve your safety is to
ride in a position which gives them the greatest chance of seeing you.
[...]

Are you familiar with the term "putting all your eggs in one basket?"

-- The entire idea of "controlling a lane" is absurd.

I've just demonstrated above how it works.

It is absurd to consider oneself "controlling the lane" in front of
approaching drivers who, for all you know, might just be 90 years old
and almost completely blind, 16 years old and sexting, fiddling with
the CD player or otherwise not looking at the road at all, etc.

I'm NOT saying "skulk" next to the curb or on the sidewalk. I'm saying
don't fool yourself. The control lies ultimately with the approaching
driver, no matter how we ride in the lane, whether we like it or not.


-- Five feet is a pathetic and inadequate buffer to right side
hazards, if there are any. In the absence of same-direction traffic,
you should be riding much further left.

Why would the presence of same-direction traffic magically change a
"pathetic and inadequate buffer" into something more reasonable?

For the same reason that your "secondary position" becomes reasonable
to you in the presence of same-direction traffic.

-- The concept of Primary Position and Secondary Position is
nonsensical and should be ridiculed, then abandoned.

I'll continue to ride safely, and the terms are useful in describing
the best way of achieving that.

I'm sure you will cling to your belief system no matter what contrary
facts are presented.

-- Bicyclists should help drivers pass by moving toward the right,
even on narrow streets.

No, that should be EXCEPT on narrow streets.

No, even on narrow streets. A street with two ultra narrow lanes
functions for all practical purposes as a single wide lane when no
oncoming traffic is present. Even a modest rightward movement by the
cyclist will make the driver's pass much easier. It is not "all the
same" (Frank) to the driver where the bicyclist is positioned.

-- Bicyclists who fixate on close passes and "preventing dangerous
passes" etc. have misplaced fears. Traffic management philosophies
based on such misguided fears should be ridiculed and abandoned at
first opportunity.

You really are trying to make things more dangerous, aren't you?
The best way to improve road safety in urban areas is to set speed
limits at levels that are attainable for all classes of vehicle,
including cyclists.
Then you reduce the need for passing and most of the conflict.

That would be great. Realistically, it's not going to happen.

Glad we could clear all that up.

Indeed, so why do you keep muddying it?

Reality is a bit messier than you and Frank seem to realize. Don't
blame the messenger.