Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/7/2010 3:33 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 7, 6:12 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/6/2010 10:05 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:



On 12/6/2010 8:43 PM, James Steward wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Of course, there aren't _always_ trucks waiting to pass me. There are
frequently cars, though, and it makes little difference; a ten foot
lane is far too narrow to be safely shared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adTpGj2MFec

I really am amazed to find so much fear in this group.

- Frank Krygowski

You and Tom Sherman will like this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GNEU5cil_E&NR=1

I would have been tempted to ram the car with my large chain ring.

I would have followed them into the drive and gave them some
grief.


It never ceases to amaze me the way a cager will give you the
business... then show you where they (try to ;-) sleep at night.

One dark morning out in the middle of nowhere, I was kind of buzzed by
a big truck at high speed on a two-lane road with nobody else for
miles around. A few miles later I saw him getting fuel in town. I
rode up a little hot under the collar, but explained to him that I was
just another guy trying to make it to work and then back home safe to
his family. From then on, he always gave me room - and sometimes a
friendly honk.

There are a few truck drivers who exhibit clear disdain for me and my
bike, but so far none have been homicidal about it. If one ever is,
it ain't gonna matter what line I pick.

I had one tailgaiting me over an overpass last season. I posted
something here about it. I was more worried about the cars in the
left lane trying to pass the truck as they were jumping in front
of him where I was. He was blocking me from their site lines. This guy
was being a prick but I think it's pretty rare. Usually it's
incompetence or a loss of attention that causes me problems with cars.

On Dec 7, 12:45*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 7, 11:08*am, Duane Hébert wrote:

There are clear rules that say where everyone should be, at least here
in Oregon. *Bikes have to be as far right as is "practicable."

That the language here too.

Vehicles must pass at a safe distance, which is defined by statute and
based on the fall-arc of the bike. *Vehicles may cross a solid center
line to pass an "obstacle." *And, finally, slow moving vehilces must
yield. *You put all this together, and you get a bicyclist riding as
far right as is safe and not impeding traffic, and you get cars
crossing the center line to go around -- which most do. *In fact, cars
frequently cross the center line to pass me when I am riding on the
shoulder -- on HWY 101 on the coast for example. *Very odd. It's like
a 12 foot passing distance.

I don't find that so odd. When I'm driving it seems only natural to
give cyclists a much wider berth than stationary objects or other
vehicles. 3 feet is mandated, that doesn't seem quite sufficient to
me. And I'm saying that from my "driver's" perspective not as a
cyclist.
But I have no illusions that all drivers make the same distinction.

DR

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Wow. Let me try to cover details I thought were obvious.

Take your choice: either a two-lane road, one lane in each direction,
each lane being ten feet wide, with 20 feet between the curbs.

Or a four-lane road, two lanes in each direction, each lane being ten
feet wide, with 40 feet between the curbs.

If you attempt to ride anywhere in that right lane, you can't possibly
be safe unless the truck at least partially leaves the lane. Right?
The math is: 10' - 8.5' is 18", but your shoulders and/or handlebars
are wider than 18", and you cannot safely ride with your wheel
immediately next to a curb.

Leigh Egan beat Rob Crowe in a road race sprint I recall, by jumping
onto the gutter and sprinting there.

He did this because Rob had him boxed in on the gutter and there was no
where else to go.

Rob rode in the Barcelona Olympics amongst other things. Leigh is an ex
BMX champion and body builder, now road and track cyclist.

JS.

"Tad McClellan" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tad McClellan" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
Edward Dolan wrote:
I just realized I will not see a response to this post unless I make
sure
it
comes to RBS. I do not monitor RBT.

It has become obvious to me that you are not a "technology person".

I can't figure out why I am getting this message since I am only
monitoring
RBS and you only posted to RBT? What a mystery!


I did not post only to RBT.

What makes you think that I did?

Do you even know how to examine the headers of a Usenet post?

My followup to you has this as one of the header lines:

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.soc

So it was posted to both newsgroups.

I finally figured out what is going on. When I hit Reply Group, your message
comes up and it is at that point that I only see rec.bicycles.tech. It has
happened again with this message, so I will have to add rec.bicycles.soc.
This has never happened before with any other message. Is this some
peculiarity of your newsreader I wonder? What is this item which follows
your address above: ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
[...]

I do not see the point of using a web based newsreader if your OS is
already giving you one.


Who suggested using a web based newsreader?

Neither I nor Tom Sherman did that I can see...

"He uses Thunderbird. Thunderbird is free software." - Tad McClellan

"I paid $0.00 for Mozilla Thunderbird.
http://www.mozilla.org/ " - Tom Sherman

Mr. Sherman is using a newsreader from Mozilla. That is a website, is it
not? Or is Thunderbird located on the OS as a result of having been
downloaded without having first to go to the website each and every time in
order to use it? If that is the case, I still wonder what the advantages are
compared to Windows Mail?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tad McClellan" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tad McClellan" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
Edward Dolan wrote:
I just realized I will not see a response to this post unless I make
sure
it
comes to RBS. I do not monitor RBT.

It has become obvious to me that you are not a "technology person".

I can't figure out why I am getting this message since I am only
monitoring
RBS and you only posted to RBT? What a mystery!


I did not post only to RBT.

What makes you think that I did?

Do you even know how to examine the headers of a Usenet post?

My followup to you has this as one of the header lines:

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.soc

So it was posted to both newsgroups.

I finally figured out what is going on. When I hit Reply Group, your message
comes up and it is at that point that I only see rec.bicycles.tech.


I saw this message in r.b.t.

I do not subscribe to r.b.s.

I will not see any followups unless they are sent to r.b.t.

So I set the Followup-To header to r.b.t to ensure that I see
any followups that are made to my posts.


This has never happened before with any other message.


Then nobody else has ever set a Followup-To header in reply to
one of your posts.


Is this some
peculiarity of your newsreader I wonder?


No.


What is this item which follows
your address above: ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
[...]


That lets everybody know that followups will go to only r.b.t.


I do not see the point of using a web based newsreader if your OS is
already giving you one.


Who suggested using a web based newsreader?

Neither I nor Tom Sherman did that I can see...

"He uses Thunderbird. Thunderbird is free software." - Tad McClellan


Thunderbird is not a web based newsreader!

(google groups is an example of a web based newsreader)


"I paid $0.00 for Mozilla Thunderbird.
http://www.mozilla.org/ " - Tom Sherman

Mr. Sherman is using a newsreader from Mozilla.


That is where Thunderbird can be downloaded.


That is a website, is it
not?


It is a website that allows programs to be downloaded for installation.


Or is Thunderbird located on the OS


After you download it, you install it.


as a result of having been
downloaded without having first to go to the website each and every time in
order to use it?


Of course not, that would be silly.


If that is the case,


That is not the case.

You download it once.

You install it once.

You use it millions of times without ever needing to go to
http://www.mozilla.org/ ever again.


I still wonder what the advantages are
compared to Windows Mail?


I do not know what features Windows Mail nor Thundebird have, so
I cannot comment on that.

But in general, a purpose-built tool (Thunderbird) is better than
a jack-of-all-trades tool (Windows Mail).


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

"Tad McClellan" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
I finally figured out what is going on. When I hit Reply Group, your
message
comes up and it is at that point that I only see rec.bicycles.tech.


I saw this message in r.b.t.

I do not subscribe to r.b.s.

But others who were contributing to this thread do belong to RBS, not just
RBT.

I will not see any followups unless they are sent to r.b.t.

But if I send my response according to your rule, only RBT will see it. You
are creating difficulties for others.

So I set the Followup-To header to r.b.t to ensure that I see
any followups that are made to my posts.

Yes, but that creates a complication for others since they will prefer that
all the groups see the message, not just RBT. It is no fun to play around
with headings for newsgroups.

This has never happened before with any other message.


Then nobody else has ever set a Followup-To header in reply to
one of your posts.

Nope, I have never seen it before to one of my posts nor to anyone else's
posts. It seems you do not like a post you are contributing to to go to any
group but RBT. Why not leave the newsgroup headings alone. If someone does
not want a message to go to RBT, then he can delete that newsgroup.

What is this item which follows
your address above: ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.bicycles.tech.]
[...]


That lets everybody know that followups will go to only r.b.t.

But I don't want my reply going to only RBT. You are forcing me to play
around with newsgroup headings. Is that what you like to do?

I wonder what Mr. Sherman thinks of all this? As far as I am concerned, he
is the expert on newsgroup etiquette.
[...]

I do not see the point of using a web based newsreader if your OS is
already giving you one.


Who suggested using a web based newsreader?

Neither I nor Tom Sherman did that I can see...

"He uses Thunderbird. Thunderbird is free software." - Tad McClellan


Thunderbird is not a web based newsreader!

(google groups is an example of a web based newsreader)

I thought Thunderbird was like Google Groups. What a pain that was to have
to go there to read and write. It is a wonder to me that anyone has the
patience for it. My Windows Mail is a thousand times better than Google
Groups.

In any event, many thanks for explaining Thunderbird to me. I will use that
newsreader if I ever tire of Windows Mail. After all, if it is good enough
for Tom Sherman, then it is good enough for me.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

In article ,
Tºm Shermªn� °_° " wrote:

On 12/6/2010 11:04 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
Peter wrote:
[...]
Medicine, in the US, via a number of mechanisms, is pretty much
a cartel.
Bull****. But you have to stop mixing things up to be able to
understand that.


The financing of medical care in the US is a cartel.

You'd have to prove collusion between insurance companies to prevent
competition or inflate prices to demonstrate that health care finance is
a cartel. It may very well be, and if so it is one of many (along with
the oil industry, the cell phone industry, the music industry, the movie
industry, the...). Drug companies, OTOH, operate as monopolies rather
than as cartels.

--
Gotta make it somehow on the dreams you still believe.

In article ,
Clive George wrote:

On 07/12/2010 05:04, Tim McNamara wrote:

I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions about the benefits
of EMRs and overlooking the problems. This may be the result of
perspective- you're a computer programmer and not a health care
provider.

I'm a computer programmer too, and I don't share Peter's belief in
the magic power of computers :-)

I must be over-generalizing. Wouldn't be the first time and probably
won't be the last.

--
Gotta make it somehow on the dreams you still believe.

On 12/7/2010 9:39 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:12 AM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/6/2010 11:04 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
Peter wrote:
[...]
Medicine, in the US, via a number of mechanisms, is pretty much a
cartel.
Bull****. But you have to stop mixing things up to be able to
understand that.


The financing of medical care in the US is a cartel.


It doesn't stop there.

Indeed, the artificial barriers to becoming a provider are almost on the
level of the old medieval guilds.

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

On 12/6/2010 10:22 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
[...]
No, Frank not afraid, just bored and exercising a bit of restraint.[...]

Exercising restraint when the urge to lie by falsifying quotations comes
about would be a better idea.

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