Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 15, 12:03*am, RobertH wrote:
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.

Robert, you just said "... I am certain..." with no citations, no
mention of data, no corroboration but your own belief system. Get
some data and cite it, or don't talk to be about belief systems,
ideology, fantasy or whatever.

Again: What would be needed is good data on hits from directly behind
either in daylight, or at night with properly lit and reflectorized
cyclists. Also needed would be data that accurately counts fatalities
from people passing too closely who do not hit directly from behind.
If you have those numbers, why not give them?

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.

Fact or belief? Numbers, please. Citations.

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.

You claim (or believe) that lane position doesn't matter in that
case. OTOH, Forester's _Effective Cycling_ disagrees. Franklin's
_Cyclecraft_ disagrees. Allen't _Street Smarts_ disagrees. Pein's
"Road Vogue" disagrees. LAB's "Smart Cycling" curriculum disagrees.
The traffic laws of many, if not most, states disagree. Hell, the Boy
Scouts of America' "Cycling" merit badge pamphlet disagrees!

And my experience, and that of cyclists I know, disagrees. Back when
I tried to keep right in such a situation, a passing motorist would
often move barely into the next lane despite oncoming cars. They'd
force me dangerously close to the edge, and in some cases force
oncoming cars to evade them. Since I learned the lane control
strategy, that almost never happens. And if it does, I've got
somewhere to go to avoid being grazed or worse.

In reality, the hardcore "skulker" "controls the lane" just
as effectively as the professor riding right down the middle.

Not in the reality here. As described, I've known "skulkers" who
converted to "controllers" and they report way fewer close calls or
other problems.

Are we in agreement yet again? *I hope so!

So you now agree that:

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

I guess we're not in agreement. I disagree strongly with that,
because I control lanes very frequently and very effectively, and I
know many others who do the same.

-- 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.

I'm surprised you're so militant on that point! Personally, on that
point, I'd say "It depends." I'll let others argue with you, though.

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

Hmm. You know, there are other people here who are very sensitive to
the idea of ridicule. They may become enraged at your very
suggestion! I think only DirtRoadie is allowed to actually ridicule,
with James, Duane and Dan providing support.

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

If we accept the common bicycling definition of "narrow" as "not
enough room to safely share," then you're advocating giving up
personal safety to save a motorist a few seconds. In my view, that's
certainly not "taking responsibility for your personal safety." I'm
shocked you'd even suggest such a move!

-- 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.

I much prefer this: "This means that, on a narrow side street lined
with parked cars, the fast-moving rider might take a position right
down the middle of the street..."

Or this: "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."

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/15/2010 12:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:03 am, wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, Frank 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.

Robert, you just said "... I am certain..." with no citations, no
mention of data, no corroboration but your own belief system. Get
some data and cite it, or don't talk to be about belief systems,
ideology, fantasy or whatever.

Again: What would be needed is good data on hits from directly behind
either in daylight, or at night with properly lit and reflectorized
cyclists. Also needed would be data that accurately counts fatalities
from people passing too closely who do not hit directly from behind.
If you have those numbers, why not give them?

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.

Fact or belief? Numbers, please. Citations.

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.

You claim (or believe) that lane position doesn't matter in that
case. OTOH, Forester's _Effective Cycling_ disagrees. Franklin's
_Cyclecraft_ disagrees. Allen't _Street Smarts_ disagrees. Pein's
"Road Vogue" disagrees. LAB's "Smart Cycling" curriculum disagrees.
The traffic laws of many, if not most, states disagree. Hell, the Boy
Scouts of America' "Cycling" merit badge pamphlet disagrees!

And my experience, and that of cyclists I know, disagrees. Back when
I tried to keep right in such a situation, a passing motorist would
often move barely into the next lane despite oncoming cars. They'd
force me dangerously close to the edge, and in some cases force
oncoming cars to evade them. Since I learned the lane control
strategy, that almost never happens. And if it does, I've got
somewhere to go to avoid being grazed or worse.

In reality, the hardcore "skulker" "controls the lane" just
as effectively as the professor riding right down the middle.

Not in the reality here. As described, I've known "skulkers" who
converted to "controllers" and they report way fewer close calls or
other problems.

Are we in agreement yet again? I hope so!

So you now agree that:

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

I guess we're not in agreement. I disagree strongly with that,
because I control lanes very frequently and very effectively, and I
know many others who do the same.

-- 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.

I'm surprised you're so militant on that point! Personally, on that
point, I'd say "It depends." I'll let others argue with you, though.

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

Hmm. You know, there are other people here who are very sensitive to
the idea of ridicule. They may become enraged at your very
suggestion! I think only DirtRoadie is allowed to actually ridicule,
with James, Duane and Dan providing support.

That added a lot of factual basis to your argument. I imagine
you have him convinced now.

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

If we accept the common bicycling definition of "narrow" as "not
enough room to safely share," then you're advocating giving up
personal safety to save a motorist a few seconds. In my view, that's
certainly not "taking responsibility for your personal safety." I'm
shocked you'd even suggest such a move!

-- 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.

I much prefer this: "This means that, on a narrow side street lined
with parked cars, the fast-moving rider might take a position right
down the middle of the street..."

Or this: "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."

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 15, 9:16*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:03*am, RobertH wrote:





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.

Robert, you just said "... I am certain..." with no citations, no
mention of data, no corroboration but your own belief system. *Get
some data and cite it, or don't talk to be about belief systems,
ideology, fantasy or whatever.

Again: What would be needed is good data on hits from directly behind
either in daylight, or at night with properly lit and reflectorized
cyclists. *Also needed would be data that accurately counts fatalities
from people passing too closely who do not hit directly from behind.
If you have those numbers, why not give them?

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.

Fact or belief? *Numbers, please. *Citations.

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.

You claim (or believe) that lane position doesn't matter in that
case. *OTOH, Forester's _Effective Cycling_ disagrees. *Franklin's
_Cyclecraft_ disagrees. *Allen't _Street Smarts_ disagrees. *Pein's
"Road Vogue" disagrees. *LAB's "Smart Cycling" curriculum disagrees.
The traffic laws of many, if not most, states disagree. Hell, the Boy
Scouts of America' "Cycling" merit badge pamphlet disagrees!

I don't think anyone disagrees that lane position matters, its just a
matter of when you take the lane and for how long. The predictable
reaction of the majority of this NG is that (1) riding in a narrow
lane does not automatically make passing "unsafe" thus justifying
riding in the middle of the lane (cars will and do go over the center-
line to pass and will pass "safely"), (2) bicyles are subject to some
version of the "slow moving vehicle," yield to faster traffic or
obstruction laws -- and common sense -- and cannot sit in the middle
of the lane blocking traffic forever; (3) there are times when taking
the lane is the correct option, and those times depend on
circumstances (traffic, sight lines, road condition, width, etc.), and
(4) riding as far right as is practicable is the general rule since it
allows efficient roadway use, particularly when same-direction traffic
is not wide trucks but ordinary cars, motorcycles and other bicycles.
-- Jay Beattie.

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

DirtRoadie Who? wrote:
He sure sounds fat and old in his posts.

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
http://www.teachnet.ie/dcorcoran/Photos/jersey.jpg

James wrote:
Nice earrings!

meh.
Holstein-Friesians are better looking than Jerseys:
http://www.cfgphoto.com/img11386.htm

Besides the ear ornaments, she's hiding a cow magnet!

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

AMuzi wrote:

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
http://www.teachnet.ie/dcorcoran/Photos/jersey.jpg

James wrote:
Nice earrings!

meh.
Holstein-Friesians are better looking than Jerseys:
http://www.cfgphoto.com/img11386.htm

Besides the ear ornaments, she's hiding a cow magnet!


Udderly gorgeous!

JS.

RobertH wrote:

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.


I tried a bit of lane taking last night. About 8pm, still light thanks
to daylight savings, and we were two abreast on a road with two lanes
each way. Traffic was light. We had stopped at a traffic light, then
rode off, still two abreast. I was furthest from the gutter, about
middle of the lane.

Yup, there you have it. Some utter prick decides to buzz the tower.
They don't make rulers short enough to measure such small distances as
he left between his car mirror and my handlebars.

To top it off, the ass hole beeped his horn as he skimmed passed.

So much for take the lane, it makes them leave bigger gaps!

Or will Frank say, lucky I wasn't skulking in the gutter, he probably
would have hit me - nah, impossible. Fear from the rear doesn't exist,
right Frank?

JS.

Phil W Lee wrote:
RobertH considered Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:03:41 -0800
(PST) the perfect time to write:

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.

Not really.
If the oncoming vehicle is a 6.5 foot car, the truck may decide that
he can safely encroach 2 feet into the opposing lane, leaving a whole
42 inches for the cyclist.

I don't recall Frank ever mentioning that in his hypothetical scenario
the road had an opposing lane. You're making it up as you go along ;-)

I imagined a one way street, like this. http://tinyurl.com/39puzhl


JS.

On Dec 15, 10:25*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/15/2010 12:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:03 am, *wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, Frank *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.

Robert, you just said "... I am certain..." with no citations, no
mention of data, no corroboration but your own belief system. *Get
some data and cite it, or don't talk to be about belief systems,
ideology, fantasy or whatever.

Again: What would be needed is good data on hits from directly behind
either in daylight, or at night with properly lit and reflectorized
cyclists. *Also needed would be data that accurately counts fatalities
from people passing too closely who do not hit directly from behind.
If you have those numbers, why not give them?

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.

Fact or belief? *Numbers, please. *Citations.

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.

You claim (or believe) that lane position doesn't matter in that
case. *OTOH, Forester's _Effective Cycling_ disagrees. *Franklin's
_Cyclecraft_ disagrees. *Allen't _Street Smarts_ disagrees. *Pein's
"Road Vogue" disagrees. *LAB's "Smart Cycling" curriculum disagrees.
The traffic laws of many, if not most, states disagree. Hell, the Boy
Scouts of America' "Cycling" merit badge pamphlet disagrees!

And my experience, and that of cyclists I know, disagrees. *Back when
I tried to keep right in such a situation, a passing motorist would
often move barely into the next lane despite oncoming cars. *They'd
force me dangerously close to the edge, and in some cases force
oncoming cars to evade them. *Since I learned the lane control
strategy, that almost never happens. *And if it does, I've got
somewhere to go to avoid being grazed or worse.

In reality, the hardcore "skulker" "controls the lane" just
as effectively as the professor riding right down the middle.

Not in the reality here. *As described, I've known "skulkers" who
converted to "controllers" and they report way fewer close calls or
other problems.

Are we in agreement yet again? *I hope so!

So you now agree that:

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

I guess we're not in agreement. *I disagree strongly with that,
because I control lanes very frequently and very effectively, and I
know many others who do the same.

-- 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.

I'm surprised you're so militant on that point! *Personally, on that
point, I'd say "It depends." *I'll let others argue with you, though.

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

Hmm. *You know, there are other people here who are very sensitive to
the idea of ridicule. *They may become enraged at your very
suggestion! *I think only DirtRoadie is allowed to actually ridicule,
with James, Duane and Dan providing support.

That added a lot of factual basis to your argument. *I imagine
you have him convinced now.

No it's not the "facts," its the clear corroboration he has cited.
That includes the vague "cyclists he knows, who disagree."
He has already established that the population of cyclists in his area
is nearly non-existent. So apparently he can speak for the other
cyclists. We already know about Fred, for one. And of course we know
from our own experience that he would NEVER misstate anyone else's
position.

And then he conveniently references, without identifying, the
"converted skulkers." (Do you suppose that's a twelve step program?)

We can all readily see that Frank's imaginary friends all add
SIGNIFICANT corroboration to his belief system.

I should add that all cyclists in China support what ever I say. Yeah,
that's the ticket!

Strange though, that in this discussion Frank himself has no
supporters, just stalkers acting on his behalf to stir up the mud.
Even when others agree with a point or two, Frank continues his rant
because they have not agreed with his complete "Mission from God"

Frank cleverly conceals any occasionally accurate fact with his
smarmy, tendentious, condescending, patronizing and otherwise largely
inaccurate rants. He just can't get used to the fact that "it depends"
and that "his way" has serious flaws and is so small a part of the big
picture as to be insignificant.

Hey Frank, you whine about ridicule of your rants.
But you are the one providing the ridiculous content including your
ridicule of others

DR

On 12/15/2010 3:43 PM, James wrote:
RobertH wrote:

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.


I tried a bit of lane taking last night. About 8pm, still light thanks
to daylight savings, and we were two abreast on a road with two lanes
each way. Traffic was light. We had stopped at a traffic light, then
rode off, still two abreast. I was furthest from the gutter, about
middle of the lane.

Yup, there you have it. Some utter prick decides to buzz the tower. They
don't make rulers short enough to measure such small distances as he
left between his car mirror and my handlebars.

To top it off, the ass hole beeped his horn as he skimmed passed.

So much for take the lane, it makes them leave bigger gaps!

Or will Frank say, lucky I wasn't skulking in the gutter, he probably
would have hit me - nah, impossible. Fear from the rear doesn't exist,
right Frank?

Aren't you happy that you had that extra distance to the right to
maneuver in the split second that this happened?

I tried to ask for personal opinions about this and Frank jumped in with
his stats and I didn't really get an answer. To me, it seems that
drivers do exactly what you describe more often when I'm further to the
left and when I'm toward the right they seem to be more cooperative more
often.

On Dec 15, 2:07*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/15/2010 3:43 PM, James wrote:





RobertH wrote:

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.

I tried a bit of lane taking last night. About 8pm, still light thanks
to daylight savings, and we were two abreast on a road with two lanes
each way. Traffic was light. We had stopped at a traffic light, then
rode off, still two abreast. I was furthest from the gutter, about
middle of the lane.

Yup, there you have it. Some utter prick decides to buzz the tower. They
don't make rulers short enough to measure such small distances as he
left between his car mirror and my handlebars.

To top it off, the ass hole beeped his horn as he skimmed passed.

So much for take the lane, it makes them leave bigger gaps!

Or will Frank say, lucky I wasn't skulking in the gutter, he probably
would have hit me - nah, impossible. Fear from the rear doesn't exist,
right Frank?

Aren't you happy that you had that extra distance to the right to
maneuver in the split second that this happened?

I tried to ask for personal opinions about this and Frank jumped in with
his stats and I didn't really get an answer. *To me, it seems that
drivers do exactly what you describe more often when I'm further to the
left and when I'm toward the right they seem to be more cooperative more
often.

Somehow, Frank seems to think that giving drivers _less_ room to pass
will make them stay farther away.

DR