Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/8/2010 12:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 12:06 pm, Duane wrote:

Like I've said countless times here, I definitely prefer to NOT ride
with cars. When I'm on my weekend rides, I look for routes without much
traffic. Even some with bike paths paralleling the road. Seems like
more fun going down the mountain at 60k in a lane without cars.

But when I commute to work I have little choice. And when I do ride
with cars, what I will do in any given circumstance depends.

So are you, too, one of those guys who frequently ride the sidewalks
because the road makes them nervous?


Just out of curiosity, how do you get that from the lines I posted?

Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 7:51 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 1:08 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:
[...]
Education is always good but there is a push here to get a couple of
questions on the driver test.[...]

Currently in most of the US, there are no re-occurring testing
requirements for licensing beyond vision tests.


I know. My last driver's test was my first one. Even moving
to Quebec, I just showed my US license to get a Quebec license.
But at least the kids taking their first test may see these questions.
And those taking driving courses may get some training. Here the actual
test is pretty difficult so most people take the course.

Putting information in journals etc. is good but there needs to be some
mandatory mechanism.

The licensing of drivers seems to work about as well as
prohibition (alcohol, marijuana etc) or gun control laws.

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

On Dec 8, 10:43*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 11:10*am, RobertH wrote:

On Dec 7, 10:37 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I don't ride in door zones, period. *If there are parked cars, I'm a
good six feet away from them. *Yes, sometimes that puts me at the left
side of the lane. *This isn't difficult.

But what if there are no parked cars. Why not ride further left?
Wouldn't that be more effective?

It can be. *Sometimes I do. *"Down the middle" doesn't mean anybody's
used a tape measure.

So Robert, where would you ride?

- Frank "My way or the hightway" Krygowski

Frank, why is it necessary for you to be SO confrontational?
Do you badger your students the same way?
DR

On Dec 8, 1:18*pm, AMuzi wrote:
Duane H bert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 7:51 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 12/7/2010 1:08 PM, Duane H bert wrote:
* [...]
Education is always good but there is a push here to get a couple of
questions on the driver test.[...]

Currently in most of the US, there are no re-occurring testing
requirements for licensing beyond vision tests.

I know. *My last driver's test was my first one. *Even moving
to Quebec, I just showed my US license to get a Quebec license.
But at least the kids taking their first test may see these questions.
And those taking driving courses may get some training. *Here the actual
test is pretty difficult so most people take the course.

Putting information in journals etc. is good but there needs to be some
mandatory mechanism.

The licensing of drivers seems to work about as well as
prohibition (alcohol, marijuana etc) or gun control laws.

That could be changed.

We have to verify, to reasonable accuracy anyway, that we have money
whenever we use a debit card. Seems to me the technology could be
applied inside cars. Swipe a valid driver's license (or leave it in
the dash slot), and you get to drive the car.

It wouldn't be foolproof, but it would be better than what we have
now. And it might restore the idea of driving being a privilege, not
a right.

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 8, 1:17*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/8/2010 12:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 8, 12:06 pm, Duane H *wrote:

Like I've said countless times here, I definitely prefer to NOT ride
with cars. *When I'm on my weekend rides, I look for routes without much
traffic. *Even some with bike paths paralleling the road. *Seems like
more fun going down the mountain at 60k in a lane without cars.

But when I commute to work I have little choice. *And when I do ride
with cars, what I will do in any given circumstance depends.

So are you, too, one of those guys who frequently ride the sidewalks
because the road makes them nervous?

Just out of curiosity, how do you get that from the lines I posted?

I didn't really "get that." I was trying to clarify what this meant:
"And when I do ride with cars, what I will do in any given
circumstance depends." Did it mean "If I get nervous about cars, I
ride the sidewalk"?

I'm getting the impression a lot of people either

1) don't want to admit they take the lane when necessary, perhaps
because they don't want to admit they agree with me; and/or

2) don't want to admit they ride sidewalks, because they know the data
and the image make that strategy look bad.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 1:18 pm, AMuzi wrote:
Duane H bert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 7:51 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 12/7/2010 1:08 PM, Duane H bert wrote:
[...]
Education is always good but there is a push here to get a couple of
questions on the driver test.[...]
Currently in most of the US, there are no re-occurring testing
requirements for licensing beyond vision tests.
I know. My last driver's test was my first one. Even moving
to Quebec, I just showed my US license to get a Quebec license.
But at least the kids taking their first test may see these questions.
And those taking driving courses may get some training. Here the actual
test is pretty difficult so most people take the course.
Putting information in journals etc. is good but there needs to be some
mandatory mechanism.
The licensing of drivers seems to work about as well as
prohibition (alcohol, marijuana etc) or gun control laws.

That could be changed.

We have to verify, to reasonable accuracy anyway, that we have money
whenever we use a debit card. Seems to me the technology could be
applied inside cars. Swipe a valid driver's license (or leave it in
the dash slot), and you get to drive the car.

It wouldn't be foolproof, but it would be better than what we have
now. And it might restore the idea of driving being a privilege, not
a right.


My pessimism comes from reading a couple of daily newspapers
for many years. The killers drunk driving through red
lights are often under administrative permanent revocation,
which stops them not at all.

How about no license whatsoever?
http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/ma...rticle=7919704

Besides common incompetence, there are telephones, video,
coffee. It's hopeless. Wait until they are mesmerized by the
rear-camera image on the dashboard!

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

On 12/8/2010 3:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 1:17 pm, Duane wrote:
On 12/8/2010 12:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 8, 12:06 pm, Duane H wrote:

Like I've said countless times here, I definitely prefer to NOT ride
with cars. When I'm on my weekend rides, I look for routes without much
traffic. Even some with bike paths paralleling the road. Seems like
more fun going down the mountain at 60k in a lane without cars.

But when I commute to work I have little choice. And when I do ride
with cars, what I will do in any given circumstance depends.

So are you, too, one of those guys who frequently ride the sidewalks
because the road makes them nervous?

Just out of curiosity, how do you get that from the lines I posted?

I didn't really "get that." I was trying to clarify what this meant:
"And when I do ride with cars, what I will do in any given
circumstance depends." Did it mean "If I get nervous about cars, I
ride the sidewalk"?

If you don't really "get that" WTF makes you say that? It's damned
insulting.

What is there to clarify about that statement anyway? You say that you
ride in the middle of the lane regardless of any circumstances because
you control the lane. I say that I do what is best for me, given the
circumstances.

For example, when the truck is tailgaiting me I'm going to pull to the
side and give him **** as he passes. I'm not going to continue in the
center of the lane ignoring him.

This happens and that's exactly what I've done. I've explained why.
The last time that this exact thing happened to me, the cars behind the
truck didn't see me, thought the truck was driving too slow, jumped into
the left lane, passed the truck and pulled back into the lane in front
of him where I was. If I would have stayed there "controlling the lane"
I would have been hit. This is ONE EXAMPLE OF A dangerous situation and
I dealt with it, based on the circumstances. Not on some
stupid technique that I read in a manual that purported to be a panacea
for all circumstances.

I'm getting the impression a lot of people either

1) don't want to admit they take the lane when necessary, perhaps
because they don't want to admit they agree with me; and/or

Although I can understand that one would not be happy to agree with you,
it's probably your definition of "when necessary" that's in question.
For you, this seems to mean "in every case" but for everyone else it
seems that it's not necessary to take the lane when they find it wise
to not do so.

2) don't want to admit they ride sidewalks, because they know the data
and the image make that strategy look bad.

Riding on the sidewalk here is illegal except for children. It's
insulting of you to make the claim that if I don't do what you do,
I'm riding like a child.

On 12/8/2010 3:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 1:18 pm, AMuzi wrote:
Duane H bert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 7:51 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 12/7/2010 1:08 PM, Duane H bert wrote:
[...]
Education is always good but there is a push here to get a couple of
questions on the driver test.[...]
Currently in most of the US, there are no re-occurring testing
requirements for licensing beyond vision tests.
I know. My last driver's test was my first one. Even moving
to Quebec, I just showed my US license to get a Quebec license.
But at least the kids taking their first test may see these questions.
And those taking driving courses may get some training. Here the actual
test is pretty difficult so most people take the course.
Putting information in journals etc. is good but there needs to be some
mandatory mechanism.
The licensing of drivers seems to work about as well as
prohibition (alcohol, marijuana etc) or gun control laws.

That could be changed.

We have to verify, to reasonable accuracy anyway, that we have money
whenever we use a debit card. Seems to me the technology could be
applied inside cars. Swipe a valid driver's license (or leave it in
the dash slot), and you get to drive the car.

It wouldn't be foolproof, but it would be better than what we have
now. And it might restore the idea of driving being a privilege, not
a right.


My pessimism comes from reading a couple of daily newspapers for many
years. The killers drunk driving through red lights are often under
administrative permanent revocation, which stops them not at all.

How about no license whatsoever?
http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/ma...rticle=7919704


Besides common incompetence, there are telephones, video, coffee. It's
hopeless. Wait until they are mesmerized by the rear-camera image on the
dashboard!


Not to mention GPS. Either they're busy looking at it or they
take a left down the wrong way because it tells them too.

On Dec 8, 1:41*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I didn't really "get that." *I was trying to clarify what this meant:
"And when I do ride with cars, what I will do in any given
circumstance depends." *Did it mean "If I get nervous about cars, I
ride the sidewalk"?

Frank have you ever actually read ANYTHING that anybody else said
without having to inaccurately rephrase it to your moronic
undertstanding?
Duane was perfectly clear to anyone but you.
Quick example of what "circumstance" can mean: Speed of traffic and/or
cyclist - 15 mph or 50 mph. It makes a huge difference. And that is
just ONE example.

I'm getting the impression a lot of people either ...

Yes, old news. Your classic false dichotomy. You rarely "get" any
impressions other than your imbecilic ones.

DR

On Dec 8, 1:02 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/8/2010 3:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 8, 1:17 pm, Duane H wrote:
On 12/8/2010 12:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 8, 12:06 pm, Duane H wrote:

Like I've said countless times here, I definitely prefer to NOT ride
with cars. When I'm on my weekend rides, I look for routes without much
traffic. Even some with bike paths paralleling the road. Seems like
more fun going down the mountain at 60k in a lane without cars.

But when I commute to work I have little choice. And when I do ride
with cars, what I will do in any given circumstance depends.


I'm in it quite bit, too. Fortunately, most of my miles are in the
countryside, but even in town I have learned and am still learning
many places to ride that no cars go.

So are you, too, one of those guys who frequently ride the sidewalks
because the road makes them nervous?

Just out of curiosity, how do you get that from the lines I posted?

I didn't really "get that." I was trying to clarify what this meant:
"And when I do ride with cars, what I will do in any given
circumstance depends." Did it mean "If I get nervous about cars, I
ride the sidewalk"?

If you don't really "get that" WTF makes you say that? It's damned
insulting.


:-)

What is there to clarify about that statement anyway? You say that you
ride in the middle of the lane regardless of any circumstances because
you control the lane. I say that I do what is best for me, given the
circumstances.


I thought he only does it when a car comes up behind and wants to
pass, so needs his instruction.

For example, when the truck is tailgaiting me I'm going to pull to the
side and give him **** as he passes. I'm not going to continue in the
center of the lane ignoring him.

This happens and that's exactly what I've done. I've explained why.
The last time that this exact thing happened to me, the cars behind the
truck didn't see me, thought the truck was driving too slow, jumped into
the left lane, passed the truck and pulled back into the lane in front
of him where I was. If I would have stayed there "controlling the lane"
I would have been hit. This is ONE EXAMPLE OF A dangerous situation and
I dealt with it, based on the circumstances. Not on some
stupid technique that I read in a manual that purported to be a panacea
for all circumstances.

I'm getting the impression a lot of people either

1) don't want to admit they take the lane when necessary, perhaps
because they don't want to admit they agree with me; and/or

Although I can understand that one would not be happy to agree with you,
it's probably your definition of "when necessary" that's in question.
For you, this seems to mean "in every case" but for everyone else it
seems that it's not necessary to take the lane when they find it wise
to not do so.

2) don't want to admit they ride sidewalks, because they know the data
and the image make that strategy look bad.

Riding on the sidewalk here is illegal except for children. It's
insulting of you to make the claim that if I don't do what you do,
I'm riding like a child.

Here we enjoy pedestrian legal status while riding with no speed limit
on sidewalks - we just have to slow to a normal walking pace at
crosswalks, and at driveways where a car is coming, and we have to
give audible warning to and right-of-way to pedestrians.

Frank likens it to "skulking" :-)

I guess a lot of cities have local rules specifically prohibiting
bikes on some sidewalks, though. There are usually markings on the
curb cuts at intersections.