|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1061
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 8, 7:56 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On Dec 8, 9:40 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Dec 8, 11:26 am, RobertH wrote: On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, Tēm ShermĒn °_° 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. So, Robert: Of course, I know you'd be ever alert, well prepared, extremely skillful and always taking responsibility for your own safety, etc. But in a 10 foot lane, curb at the right, with an 8.5 foot truck behind you, where exactly would you ride? Probably the same place he always rides, being that very few people shift their position in the lane based on vehicles approaching from the rear. "Oh, look, its an Escalade, better get left." "No, its just a Prius, I should ride further right." "But wait, its a Kenworth, better go down the center." Really, I'm riding a bike, not a yoyo. Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle must yield" laws. 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... AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield" law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited. I'm pushing the "where would you ride" question because certain posters were exaggerating the danger of bicycling, implying that one can't trust motorists not to smash you. I'm trying to see who really dives into the gutter or onto the sidewalk whenever a vehicle approaches. I chose those dimensions because they're common in my area, and there's no rational way to try to share that lane - at least, not in my view nor according to any cycling instructional material I know of. Based on that, I would control that lane and not try to share the lane to let the truck squeeze by. Do you agree? By the way, Frank, I don't necessarily disagree with your proposition that sometimes the only safe thing to do is take the lane -- or a larger part of it. I DO take a larger portion of the lane to prevent busses from passing me in certain places because they will squeeze me in to the curb, and probably with great satisfaction. There is also a down hill, off camber turn out of down town where cars tend to hug the inside curb, and I ride out in the lane there, although I'm usually going about the speed of traffic. In your truck scenario, I might ride farther out in the road if I were approaching a turn where the truck likely would cut the curve, if only innocently. On one lane roads, I just ride to the right but not in the gutter, and cars and trucks seem to get by without scaring me too often. I would never take the whole road just because some people might pass me too closely. +1 (the whole thing) |
Ads |
#1062
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Medical Costs
In article ,
Tēm ShermĒn °_° " wrote: On 12/7/2010 9:39 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 12/7/2010 8:12 AM, Tēm ShermĒn °_° 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. I see. The standards for becoming a physician should be lower than they are? This would make health care safer and more effective? Maybe we shouldn't require four years of college, four years of medical school and 7-12 years of internships and residencies. Hell, how hard can neurosurgery be, anyway? -- Gotta make it somehow on the dreams you still believe. |
#1063
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Medical Costs
In article
, Jay Beattie wrote: On Dec 7, 4:27*pm, Tim McNamara wrote: In article , *T m Sherm n _ " 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. Insurance policies and premiums are approved by state regulators. Premiums are set based on actuarial data, and annual increases must be approved. Insurance companies are treated like regulated utilities and not cartels in the sense that they are competitors engaged in illegal price fixing or other monopoly-like activity. The problem is that there are too few insurers competing for business, so there is no real choice for consumers. There are at least a dozen competing health insurance companies in my state. Four of them split up most of the market share and another four or five take most of what's left with a few smaller players. What's the minimum threshold for effective competition? There are three times as many insurance companies as there are paid TV signal providers here (and many people spend as much or more on TV service than they do on health insurance premiums). Patent rights may give drug companies "monopolies" on certain drugs in the same way that Shimano has a monopoly on Di2, but the drug companies are not "monopolies." Since we are talking about multiple competitors, it would have to be a trust or a cartel in any event. Drug companies have legal monopolies on drugs covered by patent protection, and then maintain those monopolies as long as possible once the patents expire by tying up the generic drug with lawsuits over things like pill coatings. Another favored technique is to modify the delivery system to get new patent protection for an old drug (Advair is a great example of this). The problem is that market forces are very, very weak in the health care industry. The capitalist model does not work well. I am pushing for a complete overhaul: socialized voo-doo. -- Jay Beattie. Fine by me. Simple, straightforward, universal coverage. -- Gotta make it somehow on the dreams you still believe. |
#1064
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 8, 10:43 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But what if there are no parked cars. Why not ride further left? Wouldn't that be more effective? It can be. Sometimes I do. Under what circumstances. "Down the middle" doesn't mean anybody's used a tape measure. Wait, are you now saying you always aim for the general middle of the lane in lane-controlling mode, but that sometimes you are a little sloppy so you end up on the left? Or do you consciously decide to ride further left than middle? So Robert, where would you ride? Depends primarily on what's happening on the right edge of the road. Ten feet is an extremely narrow lane. Most people don't understand how narrow ten feet is. To compare, the Cherry Creek bike path here in Denver is never less than eleven or twelve feet across. Riding in the middle of such a lane gives a five-foot buffer to right side hazards, less than the width of a standard suburban sidewalk. |
#1065
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
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. 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.) Third, the bicycle section of the Oregon law specifically permits controlling a lane. That's in the section 2c that you quoted yourself. 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. Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously. - Frank Krygowski |
#1066
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 8, 11:52*pm, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:43 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: But what if there are no parked cars. Why not ride further left? Wouldn't that be more effective? It can be. *Sometimes I do. Under what circumstances. In a ten foot lane? If there's any hazard at all at the right. That includes things like a motorist quickly approaching a stop sign from the right, because if he doesn't stop, I'll value the maneuvering room. Ditto a car backing out of a drive. Ditto road surface that's too rough. Slippery wet leaves. A pedestrian walking toward me in the road. Etc. "Down the middle" doesn't mean anybody's used a tape measure. Wait, are you now saying you always aim for the general middle of the lane in lane-controlling mode, but that sometimes you are a little sloppy so you end up on the left? Or do you consciously decide to ride further left than middle? I have NEVER said I always "aim for," or ride in, the middle of a lane. I have many times said I share a lane whenever it's safe to do so. However, it's not safe to do so in a ten foot lane, unless perhaps the passing vehicle is a motorcycle or other bicycle. So Robert, where would you ride? Depends primarily on what's happening on the right edge of the road. Ten feet is an extremely narrow lane. Absolutely. Yet common in older eastern cities. Riding in the middle of such a lane gives a five-foot buffer to right side hazards, less than the width of a standard suburban sidewalk. So you seem to be saying you, too, would ride in the middle of that lane when a truck is behind. Don't be shy about saying that. - Frank Krygowski |
#1067
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
Frank Krygowski wrote:
DR picked you up on this once already today. I have NEVER said I always "aim for," or ride in, the middle of a lane. I have many times said I share a lane whenever it's safe to do so. However, it's not safe to do so in a ten foot lane, unless perhaps the passing vehicle is a motorcycle or other bicycle. In a previous post in this thread you wrote: I'm going to continue to ride in the center of the lane, and I'm not going to cede my legal right to the road out of fear the trucker is really a murderer. Need you be reminded of your own words twice in one day? Or does "middle" not also mean "centre" in your dictionary? JS. |
#1068
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/8/2010 11:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...] even the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions [...] When you load a court with activist Christofascists, what do you expect? -- Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#1069
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
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. 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. Third, the bicycle section of the Oregon law specifically permits controlling a lane. *That's in the section 2c that you quoted yourself. No it doesn't. Read again, and read all the relevant sections. They work perfectly together. 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). Get with Mionske. *See what he says. *Seriously. The Court of Appeals has answered the question. I don't need to talk to Bob, and if I want an expert on bicycle law, I would talk to Ray Thomas anyway. No offense to Bob. -- Jay Beattie. |
#1070
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Medical Costs
In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote: Per Tim McNamara: That does happen; indeed, it happened with some family members in a hospital. I challenged the charge and had it removed. Always get an itemized bill, go over it and look for weird charges. Call for an explanation; if they cannot show the documentation for the charge, demand to have it removed from the bill. A looong time ago the son of our civic association's president fell out of a tree and broke his arm. He'd broken the other arm a few years before and the family doc had set it and put a cast on it for something like the cost of an extended office visit plus materials. This time, somebody called 911 and they took the kid to the nearest hospital. The father came to the hospital, found the kid alone in a hallway with a cast on his arm, half-conscious, laying on a gurney about 3 feet off the concrete floor, with no side rails, and plaster splattered all over him. Father took the kid home, and the feeding frenzy began. Bill-after-bill-after-bill for totally BS stuff. Being a direct sort of person, the guy went down to the hospital, located the person in charge, and said "If I get one more goddamn bill from this hospital I'm gonna come back and punch your lights out." The bills stopped... And the police arrived. -- Michael Press |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |