A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1131  
Old December 10th 10, 05:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DirtRoadie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,915
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 9, 10:18*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

*We need to preserve our right to ride those
streets safely.

- Frank "Never let the man keep you down" Krygowski


I'm next expecting Frank's full blown second amendment argument about
what "equipment" cyclists should carry. This is "tech" after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velo-dog
DR
Ads
  #1132  
Old December 10th 10, 06:19 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jay Beattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,322
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 9, 8:23*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:46*am, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Dec 8, 9:03*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:


On Dec 8, 9:00*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:


On Dec 8, 4:38*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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/...aking-with-bob...


Yes, they're wrong -- at least in Oregon. *I know that because of
this:


"Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for impeding traffic,
even though defendant's conviction involved his use of bicycle and
definition of offense referred only to motor vehicles; nothing in
vehicle code provided that such offense be applied only to motor
vehicles. ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
185 Or.App. 81."


So, go ahead and impede traffic in Ohio, but not here. *You'll get
busted. *


First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. *Both of
you are in PDX, IIRC.


Why would I? *I can read statutes, in fact, I've even written a few.


Um... perhaps because law is more complicated than that? *If statutes
could be perfectly understood by only one lawyer reading and
understanding, there would never be a need to have two opposing
lawyers in court, would there?

Besides, law has many specialties. *I don't know what's your area of
practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. *One lawyer I know well
does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
indicate not all attorneys are equal!

Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions.
If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. *There's no
guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
(And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. *Or the
near-useless LAB.)


A bicycle is treated identically to a motor vehicle for most purposes,
including the impeding statute. *Sorry, that's the law. *The opinion
was correctly decided, and there is no impetus for changing the law.


Hmm. *Correct me if I'm wrong; but ISTM that you're effectively
claiming that if a cyclist can't keep up with the motor vehicles in a
narrow lane, he's not allowed to ride that road.

Correct? *Because you're saying that O.R.S. § 811.130 , although it
specifically says "motor vehicle," must apply also to bicycles. *And
you're saying a cyclist has to ride as far right as "practicable" even
though that statute, § 814.430, *specifically grants permission to a
cyclist "to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is
too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side."

So by your logic, is cycling in Oregon legal only where there is
enough pavement width to share side by side with a motor vehicle, or
maybe on downhills?

Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. *I absolutely controlled
the lane many times, as always. *I specifically remember doing that at
5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
one example. *Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. *I didn't get busted.


I do all sorts of stupid things and don't get busted. All the streets
you mentioned are narrow and slow, and typically I'm trying to get
around traffic, particularly riding east (downhill).


You specifically said if I impeded traffic in Oregon (i.e., controlled
a lane that was too narrow to share) I'd get busted. *Sorry, Jay, I
did so many times in Oregon, and saw countless other cyclists do the
same, and nobody got busted. I have to do this at least a little on
every bike ride I take, and I never get busted.

And incidentally, the "stupid thing" would be to squeeze into a door
zone or into a gutter to let someone pass by brushing my left elbow.

Get with Mionske. *See what he says. *Seriously.


The Court of Appeals has answered the question. *I don't need to talk
to Bob...


I think it would be a really good idea. *If nothing else, ask him if
he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. *Ask him why.
You could then report back to us about what he says. *It would be
interesting, don't you agree?

- Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Frank, I blew by your mention of the section below, thinking you were
talking about bikes riding side-by-side. So, once again, it is
permitted to ride in the lane:


(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid
hazardous conditions including, but not limited
to, fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals,
surface hazards or other conditions
that make continued operation along the
right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe
operation in a lane on the roadway that is
too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel
safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph
excuses the operator of a bicycle from the
requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the
penalties for failure to comply with those requirements


The statute specifically states that bicyclist are not excused from
complying with ORS 811.425, which provides:

ORS 811.425 Failure of slower driver to
yield to overtaking vehicle; penalty. (1) A
person commits the offense of failure of a
slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle
if the person is driving a vehicle and the
person fails to move the person’s vehicle off
the main traveled portion of the highway
into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:
(a) The driver of the overtaken vehicle is
proceeding at a speed less than a speed established
in ORS 811.105 as prima facie evidence
of violation of the basic speed rule;
(b) The driver of the overtaking vehicle
is proceeding at a speed in conformity with
ORS 811.105;
(c) The highway is a two directional,
two-lane highway; and
(d) There is no clear lane for passing
available to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.
(2) This section does not apply to the
driver of a vehicle in a funeral procession.
(3) The offense described in this section,
failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking
vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation.

These sections are curious when construed together -- you can take the
lane if it is too narrow for a car and a bike to ride safely side by
side, but you have to yield to overtaking vehicles. This means you
have to pull over in to a place for safe turn out. So take the road,
but be prepared to pull off when cars or trucks approach from the
rear. Makes for a long ride home.

It also begs the question of what is "safe." Like I said, I don't
disagree with you about taking the lane sometimes, I take the lane on
the Sellwood Bridge and some of the lane on Barbur Blvd as indicated
in my prior posts, but coming home this evening when all the traffic
was stopped on Barbur due to flooding (I got to ride home through
giant lakes again), I can pass cars on the right (which is legal here)
even in the narrowest portions of the road. Again, I think the better
part of discretion is staying out of the lane to the extent possible
to let vehicles pass except those vehicles with a track record of
mayhem (TriMet) or in those places where even the innocent can run you
down due to road features (the off camber, hard right turn I mentioned
in a prior post). 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. -- Jay Beattie.
  #1133  
Old December 10th 10, 06:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 9, 3:39*pm, Duane Hébert 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.

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.

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.

So, you have my sympathy.

- Frank Krygowski
  #1134  
Old December 10th 10, 06:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 9, 12:11*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/9/2010 11:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 9, 1:55 am, *wrote:


Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.


Nope, that's a lie. *We've been over this repeatedly.


If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
techniques.


I was curious about what the Quebec Highway code says about your
controlling the lane so I looked it up.

--First your idea about having a right to be on the road is relative:

295. The person responsible for the maintenance of a public highway may,
by means of the proper signs or signals,

* (1) indicate traffic stops;
* (2) prohibit U-turns at such locations as may be determined by him;
* (3) lay out pedestrian walkways;
* (4) reserve traffic lanes for certain manoeuvres or for the exclusive
use of bicycles, certain classes of road vehicles or road vehicles
carrying the number of passengers indicated by proper signs;
* (4.1) regulate bicycle traffic in a cycle lane;
* (4.2) prohibit, limit or otherwise regulate bicycle traffic in lanes
used by road vehicles or in places used by pedestrians;

-- 4.2 should be of note as far as your right to the road.

--Second, a car is not allowed to pass a bike in the same lane unless
it's safe to do so (not sure who determines safe...) and if he has to
cross a solid line he can:

341. No driver of a road vehicle may pass a bicycle within the same
traffic lane unless there is sufficient space to allow him to do so in
safety.
--snip
Exceptions.
344. The driver of a road vehicle may cross a line described in section
326.1 providing that he can do so in safety, to pass a farm tractor or
other farm machine, a road vehicle carrying a slow-moving vehicle sign,
a horse-drawn vehicle or a bicycle.

--And specific to your riding in the middle of the lane, it doesn't look
like it's going to get big support he

487. Subject to section 492, every person on a bicycle must ride on the
extreme right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic,
except where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left
turn.

491. Subject to section 479, no person may ride a bicycle on a public
highway on which the maximum speed allowed is over 50 km/h unless

* (1) he uses a cycle lane separated from the roadway and specially laid
out to prevent vehicles from crossing over from the roadway to the cycle
lane or vice versa, or having that effect
* (2) he is 12 years of age or over; or
* (3) he is taking part in an excursion led by a person of full age.

Cycle lane.
492. Where the public highway includes a cycle lane, persons riding a
bicycle other than a power-assisted bicycle must use the cycle lane.

--I've trimmed things that didn't pertain to bikes so here's the link if
you want to read the whole thing:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gou...rch/telecharge....

I doubt that Quebec is the only place in North America that has these
laws but will you now claim that everyone riding legally in Quebec is
skulking on the "Extreme" right of the road?


If those are the laws in Quebec, then (as I just said in another post)
you have my sympathy. Things are _far_ better in most US states,
including mine. A few states I've ridden in have mandatory sidepath
laws, and I've experienced the stupidity they produce, but most do
not.

So again: my sympathy to you.

- Frank Krygowski
  #1135  
Old December 10th 10, 06:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 9, 12:14*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/9/2010 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here's a graph showing the results of one study on that specific
topic. *The author says the further he was left, the more clearance he
got. *The closest passing happened when the cyclist was furthest to
the right, and they were all in-lane passes, i.e. people who figured
they could sqeeze by without going over the line.


http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...2009/04/passin...


Didn't ask YOU for a study, I asked the guy that I was responding to
what he felt personally.


Duane, at this point, you don't have to tell me you don't want to look
at the results of a study! Of _course_ you don't want to look at the
results of a study! You've said many times you're not interested in
reading anything about the issues we discuss. I'm astonished you
bothered to look up your own laws!

- Frank Krygowski
  #1136  
Old December 10th 10, 07:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 9, 12:52*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/9/2010 12:37 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:


If that's the case, you are going to be ground meat whichever part of
the road you are using, since the truck will only have 9" each side in
the lane.


In which case I'm getting out of the way.


Onto the sidewalk again, eh?

- Frank Krygowski
  #1137  
Old December 10th 10, 07:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 9, 12:56*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:23*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. *Both of
you are in PDX, IIRC.


Why would I? *I can read statutes, in fact, I've even written a few..


Um... perhaps because law is more complicated than that? *If statutes
could be perfectly understood by only one lawyer reading and
understanding, there would never be a need to have two opposing
lawyers in court, would there?


Besides, law has many specialties. *I don't know what's your area of
practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. *One lawyer I know well
does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
indicate not all attorneys are equal!


Your point? *"Bicycle law" is hardly a specialty -- it's just run of
the mill fender bender work from the bicyclists perspective. *I do
"bicycle law" -- products work for Specialized, Trek and others, but
their products break so infrequently, I rarely get a file. I've also
done a few plaintiffs cases for bicyclists, but the injuries are
rarely significant, and most of the time, there is huge comparative
fault, at least in the cases I've handled. *I'm identified with the
defense bar and do not get high profile plaintiffs' cases (too bad, I
could use a contingent fee).


Again, I'm not a lawyer. But for an engineering parallel, if I were
(say) very experienced with robotics, but as part of a project had to
design a four bar linkage to produce a very specific motion, I'd be
willing to talk to someone who specialized in designing four bar
linkages. I may know the fundamentals of it, but I would never say "A
robot is a mechanism, so I'll be as good as he is."

Or to put it more succinctly, I'd be astonished if you knew as much
about bicycle law as Mionske does, or Magas does, and could interpret
the law as well.

Hmm. *Correct me if I'm wrong; but ISTM that you're effectively
claiming that if a cyclist can't keep up with the motor vehicles in a
narrow lane, he's not allowed to ride that road.


No, you ride as far right as practicable. *If you want to take the
lane, then you have to be travelling at the speed of traffic. *If you
cannot travel at the speed of traffic, then you have to yield, viz.,
get out of the lane or off the road.


The legal issue is the definition of "practicable." The consensus
among the lawyers and the law enforcement people who are my cycling
friends is that we _do_ have a right to the road, and that we are not
required to put ourselves at undue risk; and that frequently, riding
far enough out to prevent in-lane passing is a necessary tactic.

You can operate bicycles side by side so long as you do not impede
traffic: "(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one
other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a
single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic."

*That is really clear, but I could talk to an expert to see if it
actually means something other than the plain language.


I think you should. I've named a couple for you.

And incidentally, the "stupid thing" would be to squeeze into a door
zone or into a gutter to let someone pass by brushing my left elbow.


I don't disagree with that, and in fact, avoiding door swing may put
you in traffic, but you're not in traffic to "control it" -- you're in
traffic to avoid getting hit by a door. *The whole idea of being a
traffic hall monitor is ridiculous.


Riding a bit further left to prevent close, in-lane passing is just as
justified as riding a bit further left to avoid door zones. I remain
astonished that anyone fails to understand that point.

*You apparently have not gotten
the flip side of hall monitor activity from cars -- people who want to
cut you off or slow you down because they think you are violating the
law, which they usually do not understand anyway.


I've had a couple motorists yell at me because they thought I should
be further right. I've had assholes honk their horns at me when I was
driving, because they wanted me to exceed the speed limit for their
benefit. When people get to a certain level of assholeness (to coin a
word) they're best ignored.



Get with Mionske. *See what he says. *Seriously.


The Court of Appeals has answered the question. *I don't need to talk
to Bob...


I think it would be a really good idea. *If nothing else, ask him if
he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. *Ask him why.
You could then report back to us about what he says. *It would be
interesting, don't you agree?


No. *I could care less what he says, really. Why waste my time?


Is learning really considered a waste of time around here?

- Frank Krygowski
  #1138  
Old December 10th 10, 07:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 9, 1:28*pm, "Barry" 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. As mentioned, cars approaching stop signs
at my right cause me to move a bit left, for extra conspicuity and for
more emergency room should he fail to stop, even though that's
extremely rare. Absent such risk factors, my lane position is often
determined by pavement smoothness. Why not ride where it's
smoothest? If it's all perfectly smooth, I'd probably be about 3 or 4
feet from the right. Riding with another cyclist (like my wife) I'm
usually side by side in that situation, and I'm the one further left.

What if the lane was 14 feet wide instead of 10 feet?


I think 14 feet is usually a shareable lane, assuming normal width
vehicles are passing. If so and if the pavement is good, I'd be about
three or four feet from the normal right edge of the vehicles. Even
then, I don't like to get real close to the gutter. I think it helps
safety to be a presence on the road, so to speak.

There's a part of my mind that pays attention to lane position. It's
largely automatic, but it does pay attention and adjust most of the
time.

In all of these cases, I think I'd ride in the same place - as far right as I
deem practicable, probably about 3 feet from the edge if there are no issues
with debris or road surface. *Maybe a little closer if there's an unpaved
shoulder instead of a curb.


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.

- Frank Krygowski
  #1139  
Old December 10th 10, 07:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 10, 12:19*am, Jay Beattie wrote:

Like I said, I don't
disagree with you about taking the lane sometimes...


Good. And I assume you no longer think I'll "get busted" if I do that
in Oregon.

.... I take the lane on
the Sellwood Bridge and some of the lane on Barbur Blvd as indicated
in my prior posts...
*Again, I think the better
part of discretion is staying out of the lane to the extent possible
to let vehicles pass except those vehicles with a track record of
mayhem (TriMet) or in those places where even the innocent can run you
down due to road features (the off camber, hard right turn I mentioned
in a prior post).


There is always judgment involved. But in general, I've found (as Dan
Gutierrez showed in the graph I posted earlier) that too-close passes
happen only when I'm close to the right. I factor that in. There
still are, occasionally, times I try to share a lane that I shouldn't,
and get rewarded by an uncomfortably close pass. That's an example of
"no good deed going unpunished."

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.

- Frank Krygowski
  #1140  
Old December 10th 10, 08:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

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?

JS.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reduce fatalities or danger rates instead? Doug[_3_] UK 3 September 19th 10 08:05 AM
Three cycling fatalities in London last month. Daniel Barlow UK 4 July 7th 09 12:58 PM
Child cyclist fatalities in London Tom Crispin UK 13 October 11th 08 05:12 PM
Car washes for cyclist fatalities Bobby Social Issues 4 October 11th 04 07:13 PM
web-site on road fatalities cfsmtb Australia 4 April 23rd 04 09:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.