Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

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 Krygowski

On Dec 10, 8:55*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 1:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 9, 12:52 pm, Duane H *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?

Ground meat again eh? *If those are the two choices,
I know which I will take.

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

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/10/2010 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:49 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/10/2010 12:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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?

Driving is NOT a right, and of course I never said it was. On the
contrary, I've said that society needs to emphasize that it's a
privilege.

Here cycling is given the same definition as driving with the exception
of the few lines that I pointed out in the Quebec Highway code.
The actual licensing of bikes is up to the municipality, mine being one
that chooses to take the opportunity to tax me. Since this is not the
case across the province, they can't really enforce it as they don't
know which city I'm from when they see me riding.

Read the first two chapters of Mionske's _Bicycling& The Law_ for
discussion of rights to the road.

He doesn't seem to be offering a free copy at his website so why don't
you tell me what it says?
Or better yet, tell us which states have the right to ride a bicycle
spelled out in their law as in Ohio?
It doesn't sound like Oregon does and I'm pretty sure that Louisiana,
New York and Massachusetts don't. As we see, Quebec certainly doesn't.

I'm actually hoping to find that you're right and most states do. But
I'm afraid that most states probably treated bike as vehicles. I don't
know though.

On 12/10/2010 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:55 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/10/2010 1:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 9, 12:52 pm, Duane H 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?

Ground meat again eh? If those are the two choices,
I know which I will take.

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

- Frank Krygowski
**** you.

On Dec 10, 9:07*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 1:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 10, 12:19 am, Jay *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

If that graph showed that too-close passes happen ONLY when you're too
close to the right and then you were in the middle of the lane and
someone passed you too closely, would that be enough for you to say that
the graph was incorrect? *Of would you think that you were having an out
of body experience or something?

You ask me why I don't read what you post. *When I'm in the middle of
the lane on a two lane road, the car behind me is going to pass me to
the left when there's no oncoming traffic. *What keeps him from passing
just as close? *In fact, it seems to me that since he has to move
farther to the left, the chances are better. *And if he's annoyed
because I'm in his way, he may do it intentionally. *I've certainly had
them pass too close.

If you want to say that it's less likely that you will be passed too
closely when you're in the middle of the road, maybe you have a point.
But you can't say that it happens ONLY when you're close to the right.

I'm telling you my experience, and that my experience corroborates the
data from that study. If you have contrasting data, let's see it.

Besides, if I were (say) five feet from the right edge and a passing
vehicle and a passing vehicle came too close on my left, I'd have
maneuvering room to avoid him. Just another benefit of staying a bit
further left.

Here's another benefit:
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...e-positioning/

or http://tinyurl.com/29qgrj8

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 9, 9:43 am, Frank Krygowski 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.

Anticipation and crash avoidance (eg swerving and panic stops) are two
completely different animals.

If you're swerving or panic stopping, your anticipation has failed
you.

What does VC have to say about anticipating the mistakes of other road
users?

On Dec 9, 2:56 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/9/2010 12:55 AM, RobertH wrote:

On Dec 8, 6:50 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/8/2010 10:26 AM, RobertH wrote:

On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, T m Sherm n _

How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
traffic.

False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles..
Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
driver.

What is there in "defensive driving" useful to cyclists that is not
covered under vehicular/effective cycling?

Sure, Tom, I'll take that one.

Defensive driving emphasizes the specific ways that _lawful_ vehicle
operators are victimized in garden-variety collisions (In terms of
cycling, a 'looked-but-failed-to-see error' by a left-turning driver
has the most serious damage x frequency vector) and teaches strategies
to avoid them. Defensive driving emphasizes the need for awareness
above and beyond simply following the rules of the road. The
foundational assumptions of defensive driving are strongly supported
by factual evidence.

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.
Vehicular Cycling emphasizes assertiveness and rule-following over
defensiveness. In Vehicular Cycling, a defensive mindset is in fact
viewed as superfluous and unnecessary. Riders who express the
necessity for defensive posture in traffic are berated and ridiculed
until they go away shaking their heads in wonder and disgust at their
fellow man.

Which planet is it that you live on?

--
T m Sherm n - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.


If you have specific objections to my characterization, express them
so we can begin to dismantle your little belief system.

On 12/10/2010 11:06 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:07 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/10/2010 1:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 10, 12:19 am, Jay 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

If that graph showed that too-close passes happen ONLY when you're too
close to the right and then you were in the middle of the lane and
someone passed you too closely, would that be enough for you to say that
the graph was incorrect? Of would you think that you were having an out
of body experience or something?

You ask me why I don't read what you post. When I'm in the middle of
the lane on a two lane road, the car behind me is going to pass me to
the left when there's no oncoming traffic. What keeps him from passing
just as close? In fact, it seems to me that since he has to move
farther to the left, the chances are better. And if he's annoyed
because I'm in his way, he may do it intentionally. I've certainly had
them pass too close.

If you want to say that it's less likely that you will be passed too
closely when you're in the middle of the road, maybe you have a point.
But you can't say that it happens ONLY when you're close to the right.

I'm telling you my experience, and that my experience corroborates the
data from that study. If you have contrasting data, let's see it.

No you're not. Your lecturing as if it's a fact:
"Gutierrez showed in the graph I posted earlier) that too-close passes
happen only when I'm close to the right. "


What part of the word "only" don't you understand?

On Dec 9, 11:33*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

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
surrounding circumstances must be taken into account.
And then he had to backpedal again and acknowledge that speed is
another one of those surrounding circumstances.

Frank is annoyingly persistent but not very consistent and not very
bright.

DR

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.