Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 1:06 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 11, 1:38 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:


It would have been quite easy to say "Roughly six feet from the curb,"
or "Four feet" or "One foot" or whatever. I don't recall getting that
from anyone.
Mostly because nobody here is so stupid as to think that the "footage"
measurement has much relevance to safe and/or legal riding.

+1


I got lots of "It depends," or "I'd get out of there" or (from DR)
"**** you."

Let's stop right there. That's a lie, plan and simple.
If you are not "making this up out of whole cloth," you should readily
be able to find where I (1) responded to you (2) in this thread (3)
regarding your hypothetical (4) with the quote you claim.

Frank has problems with words - either reading them or writing
them, I don't know for sure. But I was the one that told him to
get ****ed. Not you.

I'll give you until tomorrow morning to come up with a link.
And, no, something similar doesn't count.
We need a direct quote or an acknowledgement that your misquote is the
result of your biased/sloppy paraphrasing and/or misinterpretation of
what your read.
Nothing new there.

Have at it.

On Dec 11, 6:22*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:35*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:





"Phil W Lee" wrote in messagenews:g677g6hv7o6vkvspreldpdoec1hcbholb1@4ax .com...

DirtRoadie considered Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:01:42
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 10, 10:09 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Look: *When I take a typical bike ride, I'm probably passed by
hundreds of motorists. *I know all about that situation. *The typical
motorist around here probably doesn't pass even one cyclist per day.

Holy crap! *No wonder you think you can get away with the **** you do.
On many of the roads around here a half hour drive would probably take
a driver past 50 or more cyclists. If even a few of them tried your
antics regularly there would be an army of hostile drivers.

It may seem strange, but it seems that the more cyclists there are on
the road, the more willing motorists are to give them proper
consideration.
Maybe it's just that as cycling increases, the chances of any
individual motorist being a cyclist as well also rise, along with the
chance of them knowing or being related to some number of cyclists.
It may also be that when there are a lot of cyclists, it becomes
obvious to more people that the road would not have the capacity for
the same number of cars, and it's the bikes they have to thank for
keeping the roads moving at all.

Bingo.- Hide quoted text -

Not really. *I ride to work every morning in heavy traffic with lots
of bikes in the mix, and they can really, really slow things down
because the promenaders (Bohemian chics with bag dresses and sandal,
dudes on Schwin Suburbans, etc.) sit in the middle of the lane and
ride slowly. *They ride the speed of traffic because they are
dictating the speed of traffic -- including my speed because I get
boxed in behind everyone dodging these fools. *It takes me a while to
salmon by, but ultimately I do. *These bicycles take more than the
space of a car with all the gaps that open up, so really, if people
car-pooled, you could get four people in that same space in a car. Now
if we were bunched together in a lane going a decent speed, then yes,
it would be space saving. -- Jay Beattie.

The point being that it is not motor vehicles vs. cyclists, especially
legally speaking.
I drive a motor vehicle, but probably less than most because I have no
commute at all. I ride a bicycle quite a bit but most of that is for
my own enjoyment and/or fitness.

Let me offer for discussion a cycling related non-commuting
hypothetical based up a real world bicycle/motor vehicle occurrence.
Let me know your thoughts.
I will also say that I have my own observations, but no agenda.
To the extent possible I will answer factual questions based upon the
event as I know it to have occurred. If you'd like I can even
provide a location via Google Earth "street view."
Heres the event:
1. Bike club conducts a low-key time trial series several times a
month on open public roads. Participants range from newbies/casual to
categorized/pro racers.
2. During one such event one rider is proceeding (probably 30+ mph) S
on a long, straight, open stretch of false flat downhill on two lane
county road (think "rural"). No shoulder.
3. There is rarely any notable traffic on the road in question.
(Generally it is at least "minutes" between vehicles.
4. A car traveling the opposite direction pulls off toward its LEFT
side (USA) of the road and stops (to check mailbox located at road
edge).
5. Cyclist collides head-on with the stopped car, cartwheels over the
car and suffers injuries.
6. Car sustains damage in the form of right front dents, broken
headlight/windshield.

So is there fault? One party? Both parties? Neither party ("****
happens")? Try to avoid speculation about facts. As I said I will do
what I can to fill in anything missing without making it up.
And if you feel compelled to claim "racers are idiots" or "motorists
are idiots" at least be prepared to show how that applies to the
event.
DR

On Dec 11, 12:06 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 11, 1:38 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:



Apparently you're either in the middle of the lane or hugging the curb.
Boolean logic. You know, black/white, true/false no gray.

I tried mightily to get a non-Boolean answer out of several of you.
The question was: ten foot lane, 8.5 foot truck behind, where would
you ride?

It would have been quite easy to say "Roughly six feet from the curb,"
or "Four feet" or "One foot" or whatever. I don't recall getting that
from anyone.


Initially, that's because - unless your primary objective is some
screwball thing like deliberately blocking traffic - it entirely
depends on infinite unspecified circumstances.

Since it is not my objective to block traffic, when another vehicle
comes up behind, I'm going to assess conditions to the right and ride
as far that way as is practicable. Where exactly this is really
depends. Is there debris over there? What kind? Generally, I prefer
not to ride in road debris if I can help it, but I can handle some if
it gets a big truck off my back.. It depends.

You say only 10 feet, no more, of the lane is usable, but you don't
say the other lane is not usable. If the truck itself is almost as
wide as the lane there's no way he's going to try to drive it around
me in that lane no matter where I am (duh!) If he can leave the lane,
we'll both approeciate the extra space to work with me further right.
If he can't leave the lane but I can get off the road (e.g. onto the
shoulder), that works, too.

Then you added the curb, and I then said very specifically in that
case I'd probably be about one to two feet off the curb (basic space
to avoid storm drains, gutter seam, and have some wiggle room), and
sizing up bailout options. He's not going to pass in that
circumstance unless he can leave the lane, and while most drivers do
leave the lane pretty much completely, many do not, and we'll both
appreciate the extra space between us if I am using less of the lane.

(In my experience, if the truck does mean to pass, he often *does*
move at least a little into the oncoming lane even when there is other
traffic there, anticipating that they see what is going on and will
accomodate.)

Do you see how long this is getting trying to account for all the
unknown variables, and I'm still heavily generalizing. The answer
is: It depends.

That you seem to be able to say pretty much absolutely where you would
be - conditions notwithstanding - shows that your intention.
(Hallelujah, Krygowski's here to instruct everyone the right proper
way!) Then you scorn and ridicule us for not having the same agenda.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...ef1058ba963b78

I got lots of "It depends," or "I'd get out of there" or (from DR)
"**** you." Neither Duane nor Dan nor DR nor Robert wanted to discuss
specifics. Barry did, and the conversation was amicable.


It *does* depend. And what's wrong with getting out of there?
(Doesn't that best solve the *real* problem for everybody?) I never
even mentioned a sidewalk, but when you did, and I said it would be a
considerable option, I get, "So we can put you down [ha-ha] as a
sidewalk cyclist", and "just so everybody knows whether or not to take
you seriously". That you treat it as utterly out of the question says
way more about you than me.

Why don't you just say there's only one lane, nobody can get out of
it, and there's a big truck coming behind with only eighteen inches to
work with. In that case it doesn't matter where I am in the lane and
I'm just gonna go ahead and take what I think is the optimal line as
if there was no truck - but only until one of us *can* get out of
there.

Seems to me the Boolean logic you're using is this: Whatever I say
must be totally condemned...

Paranoid much?

... , despite my data, citations or
corroboration.

Substantially inane.

Whatever the four of you say...

Wow! You actually enumerate the dissent.

... must never be disagreed
with, whether or not you have facts to back it up.


You've got it completely ass-backwards, man. *We're* not
superciliously pronouncing from on high the one proper way, taking
inventory of dissent, and then obsessively heaping derision trying to
cover every trace of it with ****. (Heck, even Andre has mostly let
up on that.)

If you want to offer helpfull suggestions FWIW without denouncement to
anyone's particular way of life - great. Got data and/or reasoning to
explain *your* perception of their worth - fine. Knock yourself out.
Just don't expect that should make any of it necessarily relevent to
me.

Have a little respect for your fellow man. There's a million things
to be; you know that there are.

On Dec 11, 8:38*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:06 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 11, 1:38 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

Apparently you're either in the middle of the lane or hugging the curb.
Boolean logic. *You know, black/white, true/false no gray.

I tried mightily to get a non-Boolean answer out of several of you.
The question was: ten foot lane, 8.5 foot truck behind, where would
you ride?

It would have been quite easy to say "Roughly six feet from the curb,"
or "Four feet" or "One foot" or whatever. I don't recall getting that
from anyone.

Initially, that's because - unless your primary objective is some
screwball thing like deliberately blocking traffic - it entirely
depends on infinite unspecified circumstances.

Since it is not my objective to block traffic, when another vehicle
comes up behind, I'm going to assess conditions to the right and ride
as far that way as is practicable. *Where exactly this is really
depends. *Is there debris over there? *What kind? *Generally, I prefer
not to ride in road debris if I can help it, but I can handle some if
it gets a big truck off my back.. *It depends.

You say only 10 feet, no more, of the lane is usable, but you don't
say the other lane is not usable. *If the truck itself is almost as
wide as the lane there's no way he's going to try to drive it around
me in that lane no matter where I am (duh!) *If he can leave the lane,
we'll both approeciate the extra space to work with me further right.
If he can't leave the lane but I can get off the road (e.g. onto the
shoulder), that works, too.

Then you added the curb, and I then said very specifically in that
case I'd probably be about one to two feet off the curb (basic space
to avoid storm drains, gutter seam, and have some wiggle room), and
sizing up bailout options. *He's not going to pass in that
circumstance unless he can leave the lane, and while most drivers do
leave the lane pretty much completely, many do not, and we'll both
appreciate the extra space between us if I am using less of the lane.

(In my experience, if the truck does mean to pass, he often *does*
move at least a little into the oncoming lane even when there is other
traffic there, anticipating that they see what is going on and will
accomodate.)

Do you see how long this is getting trying to account for all the
unknown variables, and I'm still heavily generalizing. *The answer
is: *It depends.

That you seem to be able to say pretty much absolutely where you would
be - conditions notwithstanding - shows that your intention.
(Hallelujah, Krygowski's here to instruct everyone the right proper
way!) *Then you scorn and ridicule us for not having the same agenda.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...ef1058ba963b78

I got lots of "It depends," or "I'd get out of there" or (from DR)
"**** you." *Neither Duane nor Dan nor DR nor Robert wanted to discuss
specifics. *Barry did, and the conversation was amicable.

It *does* depend. *And what's wrong with getting out of there?
(Doesn't that best solve the *real* problem for everybody?) *I never
even mentioned a sidewalk, but when you did, and I said it would be a
considerable option, I get, "So we can put you down [ha-ha] as a
sidewalk cyclist", and "just so everybody knows whether or not to take
you seriously". *That you treat it as utterly out of the question says
way more about you than me.

Why don't you just say there's only one lane, nobody can get out of
it, and there's a big truck coming behind with only eighteen inches to
work with. *In that case it doesn't matter where I am in the lane and
I'm just gonna go ahead and take what I think is the optimal line as
if there was no truck - but only until one of us *can* get out of
there.

Seems to me the Boolean logic you're using is this: *Whatever I say
must be totally condemned...

Paranoid much?

... , despite my data, citations or
corroboration.

Substantially inane.

Whatever the four of you say...

Wow! *You actually enumerate the dissent.

... must never be disagreed
with, whether or not you have facts to back it up.

You've got it completely ass-backwards, man. **We're* not
superciliously pronouncing from on high the one proper way, taking
inventory of dissent, and then obsessively heaping derision trying to
cover every trace of it with ****. *(Heck, even Andre has mostly let
up on that.)

If you want to offer helpfull suggestions FWIW without denouncement to
anyone's particular way of life - great. *Got data and/or reasoning to
explain *your* perception of their worth - fine. *Knock yourself out.
Just don't expect that should make any of it necessarily relevent to
me.

Have a little respect for your fellow man. *There's a million things
to be; you know that there are.

+ 1
With an edit
Wow! *You actually enumerate the dissent.

That's "Majority"
Frank Krygowski is the SOLE member of the dissent/minority
DR

On 12/11/2010 6:13 PM, DirtRoadie Who?:
On Dec 11, 4:50 pm, Phil W wrote:
considered Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:17:20
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 11, 9:39 am, Frank wrote:
On Dec 11, 2:14 am, Phil W wrote:

But there IS a clear distinction between the use of "vehicles" which
is all encompassing, and "motor vehicles" which is not.
The statute you quote says you must conform to the requirements for
vehicles, but does not say that you must conform to those requirements
for motor vehicles.
Sadly, (and maybe not surprisingly) English is a foreign language to
Americans, so maybe that's why their lawyers have difficulties in
understanding it.

It is amazing that such a simple point causes confusion, isn't it?

Only for those who have no grasp of how law is written and
interpreted. You would do well to do some reading about statutory
interpretation and how the result of an appellate decision
interpreting a term forecloses rehashing arguments about what the term
means.

Simple example:
Older laws are often referred to as "motor vehicle codes" and
contained references to "motor vehicles." As those evolved typically
they dropped the title "motor vehicle code" in favor of the more
complete and/or accurate "vehicle code" or "traffic code."

But sometimes the older term "motor vehicle" still lingers in sections
of law that were not completely revised or rewritten. But, as we have
seen, the newer laws typically provide that bicycles are subject to
the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. So that,
and an appellate court saying "yes, the term 'motor vehicle' in that
section means bicycles, too," that's the end of it. "Motor vehicle"
means bicycles too.

You can legislate that horses are dogs, but it still doesn't make it
correct.

One does not find typically legislation that dictates the equivalent
of "horses are dogs." But much legislation says the equivalent of
"wherever the term 'dog' appears it shall be understood to include all
four legged animals, including horses."

Wrong is wrong, no matter what seniority of judge said it.

Yes, wrong is wrong and you are wrong.
YANAL. And have proven it.

Legal does not mean moral. Legal means what the authorities impose on
the people.

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

On 12/11/2010 6:46 PM, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:52 pm, "Duane wrote:
"T m Sherm n _ " wrote in
...

On 12/11/2010 4:18 PM, RobertH Who?:
[...]
It's particularly fun when he [Frank Krygowski] starts making
**** up, out of whole cloth, and gets called on it. [...]

Citation?

At least twice in a thread about helmets (you were prominent in
that discussion with your foam hat repertoire), he accused
me of verbally attacking him. This was more annoying before
I actually did but still. I called him on it and he admitted
that he was "mistaken"


He admitted he was mistaken? That's a new feature!

Once he accused me of making up sockpuppet identities to agree with
myself. I called him on it, and he then made up an entire backstory
with posters and threads that did not exist to cover his original lie.
Good times!

Typically his dishonesty is less blatant, making up fake quotes and
arguing against them rather than what someone actually says. It's good
to see he still can't go two posts without doing that.

Convienently located in the thread already linked:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...2b6cbcf5152adf

Yet "RobertH" aka "r15757" has no comment when another poster in this
very thread has repeatedly falsified quotes! Why is this, the world
wonders?

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

On 12/11/2010 7:15 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
On Dec 11, 4:52 pm, "Duane wrote:
"T m Sherm n _ " wrote in
...

On 12/11/2010 4:18 PM, RobertH Who?:
[...]
It's particularly fun when he [Frank Krygowski] starts making
**** up, out of whole cloth, and gets called on it. [...]

Citation?

I presume you are "Goggle capable."
Find references in this group to "Danger! Danger!" or claims that
cycling is "Extremely dangerous". Frank has repeatedly claimed that
others have said such things. It simply isn't so.
DR

This is rich, coming from a poster who has falsified quotes on multiple
occasions.

Frank Krygowski was making a judgment about the implied meaning of what
others were writing, not claiming exact quotes that were never made.
Does DirtRoadie not understand this, or is he merely, once again, trolling?

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

On Dec 11, 10:26*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 6:13 PM, DirtRoadie Who?:





On Dec 11, 4:50 pm, Phil W *wrote:
*considered Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:17:20
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 11, 9:39 am, Frank *wrote:
On Dec 11, 2:14 am, Phil W *wrote:

But there IS a clear distinction between the use of "vehicles" which
is all encompassing, and "motor vehicles" which is not.
The statute you quote says you must conform to the requirements for
vehicles, but does not say that you must conform to those requirements
for motor vehicles.
Sadly, (and maybe not surprisingly) English is a foreign language to
Americans, so maybe that's why their lawyers have difficulties in
understanding it.

It is amazing that such a simple point causes confusion, isn't it?

Only for those who have no grasp of how law is written and
interpreted. You would do well to do some reading about statutory
interpretation and how the result of an appellate decision
interpreting a term forecloses rehashing arguments about what the term
means.

Simple example:
Older laws are often referred to as "motor vehicle codes" and
contained references to "motor vehicles." As those evolved typically
they dropped the title "motor vehicle code" in favor of the more
complete and/or accurate "vehicle code" or "traffic code."

But sometimes the older term "motor vehicle" still lingers in sections
of law that were not completely revised or rewritten. But, as we have
seen, the newer laws typically provide that *bicycles are subject to
the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. So that,
and an appellate court saying "yes, the term 'motor vehicle' in that
section means bicycles, too," that's the end of it. "Motor vehicle"
means bicycles too.

You can legislate that horses are dogs, but it still doesn't make it
correct.

One does not find typically legislation that dictates the equivalent
of *"horses are dogs." But much legislation says the equivalent of
"wherever the term 'dog' appears it shall be understood to include all
four legged animals, including horses."

Wrong is wrong, no matter what seniority of judge said it.

Yes, wrong is wrong and you are wrong.
YANAL. And have proven it.

Legal does not mean moral. *Legal means what the authorities impose on
the people.

What's your point? That it is immoral that bicycles may be subject to
the same rights and responsiblities as motor vehicles?
Yes it's probably time to see if the Pope can arrange for divine
intervention.
DR

On Dec 11, 10:34*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
Yet "RobertH" aka "r15757" has no comment when another poster in this
very thread has repeatedly falsified quotes! *Why is this, the world
wonders?

The world? To the extent that there is any evidence of such a concern
it would seems to be just one old fat cult member who has these
irrational delusions.

DR

On Dec 11, 9:07*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

I'll give you until tomorrow morning to come up with a link.
And, no, something similar doesn't count.

Turns out Hebert originated and you immediately piled on.
From
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...9df3afaded37c4
======================
Duane Hebert wrote: ...
**** you.

+1
DR

=====================

I suppose we'll hear now that "+1" means something different than what
I thought.

But it goes well with the month-long steady stream of content-free
abuse you've spewed whenever I post. I'm talking about your grade-
school-bully insults, and your threats to attack me professionally.
Also it's incredibly stupid of you to pretend I misrepresented your
statement, after the countless times you've deliberately forged or
falsified what I've said.

- Frank Krygowskii