#21
|
|||
|
|||
rural amusement
"BrettS" wrote in message
... Duncan wrote: "Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message ... In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000 asterope wrote: "great way to get yourself killed, love." i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard. I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so hard to see". He's got a point. I mainly lurk here but when you were deciding on a bike I almost piped up to talk you out of a recumbent. For a lot of drivers they're practicaly invisible, they're less manouverable and wider so more likely to be clipped. A flag doesn't cut it, a burning flare might be a better option. If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I think the RTA's eyesight test needs work. As you yourself have pointed out it's not about eyesight, it's about processing what you see. People just aren't looking for recumbents so they won't see them. I've seen recumbents so low they don't make it up to a cars window, on top of that they keep getting stuck lane splitting. A driver could do everything right and still hit them. Well I would suggest that the driver wouldn't have done *everything* right then. Especially as you just pointed out - you can see them. I don't drive a car but if a recumbent lower than your window split up on your left side how are you going to see it? This may be rare but I've seen it happen. How is a recumbent (even a low one like your talking about) different from other similar sized objects likely to be found on the roads such as: * Children? * Domestic animals? * Wheelie bins? Well they can all be hard to see which is exactly my point. Do you think it's always a good idea for children, animals or wheelie bins to be on the road? I don't want to ban any of these things, just realise the dangers. Saying that someone is putting themselves in greater danger because they ride a bike which is deemed too small/narrow to be seen properly is a cop out. The SMIDSY phenomenon is alive and well putside of cycling circles. You only have to see the number of people who drive into the back of other cars, busses and trucks to know that size doesn't make a scrap of difference. You're saying there is no increased danger with decreased visibility? I'm not convinced. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
rural amusement
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:55:40 +1000
Duncan wrote: An upright is a lot taller and is wide at the level of a drivers eyes. You know we used to have a sports car that had a roof at about the level of most car's doorhandles. Didn't seem to be a problem. People see all the time. what they don't do, as you said, is process. Which isn't about how much they can see. People seem to have very little problem seeing the light bar on top of cop cars for example. Ages ago I had a motorcycle with a white fairing. Amazing how visible that was. Got quite a few comments about "thought you were a cop bike". Not everybody is going to be vocal about it. I judge by the actions, not the words. Do I have near misses? No. Do I have swerves or props, or close passes? No. In the rare case I mentioned where a bike is 100% obscured it may be a valid excuse. I didn't mean to suggest that otherwise it was a valid excuse at all. So "he has a point" isn't "what he says is valid". OK. It's been my experience that people process the bent just fine. If I ride with my brain in gear, act predictably, and don't put myself in silly positions. It's not a risk I'd personaly be prepared to take on a regular basis and I'm not known for living a risk free life.. You do ride a bicycle hmm? So you think the difference between a high racer and an upright in traffic is that much? Obviously it's not an opinion I share. I also think that it's a very funny one, in that the vast majority of people consider 2 wheels of any kind, powered or no, too dangerous. To argue that to ride an unpowered upright two wheeler is OK, but one that has the seat a foot lower isn't, is odd to me. I presume you consider BMX and lowslung trials type bikes killers too? What people are supposed to do is irrelevant when your saftey is on the line. It doesn't take too many experiences to realise that a significant portion of drivers are not paying enough attention. By decreasing your visibility you're dramaticaly increasing the number of people who aren't paying enough attention to see you. My "visibility" is either "the light bounces off me and hits their retina" or it is "They process me". THere's no doubt the light bounces off me and hits their retina, so it's about processing. In 20 years of riding 2 wheelers with 2 traffic crashes in that time (one a 5kmh nudge from behind, the other my own fault due to poor braking skills) I have some idea of how to tell if they are processing me. I've had many more fail to process on the uprights - powered and unpowered - than on the bent so far. I've had many more miles on them too, so it's not particularly valid. But I do feel that experience trumps theory in this case. So tell ya what.... YOu ride a highracer bent in traffic for 1000km or so and get back to me. traffic for 1000 Zebee |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
rural amusement
Duncan wrote:
"BrettS" wrote in message ... Duncan wrote: "Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message ... In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000 asterope wrote: "great way to get yourself killed, love." i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard. I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so hard to see". He's got a point. I mainly lurk here but when you were deciding on a bike I almost piped up to talk you out of a recumbent. For a lot of drivers they're practicaly invisible, they're less manouverable and wider so more likely to be clipped. A flag doesn't cut it, a burning flare might be a better option. If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I think the RTA's eyesight test needs work. As you yourself have pointed out it's not about eyesight, it's about processing what you see. People just aren't looking for recumbents so they won't see them. I've seen recumbents so low they don't make it up to a cars window, on top of that they keep getting stuck lane splitting. A driver could do everything right and still hit them. Well I would suggest that the driver wouldn't have done *everything* right then. Especially as you just pointed out - you can see them. I don't drive a car but if a recumbent lower than your window split up on your left side how are you going to see it? This may be rare but I've seen it happen. How is a recumbent (even a low one like your talking about) different from other similar sized objects likely to be found on the roads such as: * Children? * Domestic animals? * Wheelie bins? Well they can all be hard to see which is exactly my point. Do you think it's always a good idea for children, animals or wheelie bins to be on the road? I don't want to ban any of these things, just realise the dangers. Saying that someone is putting themselves in greater danger because they ride a bike which is deemed too small/narrow to be seen properly is a cop out. The SMIDSY phenomenon is alive and well putside of cycling circles. You only have to see the number of people who drive into the back of other cars, busses and trucks to know that size doesn't make a scrap of difference. You're saying there is no increased danger with decreased visibility? I'm not convinced. IMO anyone who hits any of the above deserves to be severely hurt. Hmmm I have wheely bins What did I do with those bags of cement? evil Dave |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
rural amusement
Donga wrote:
Duracell Bunny wrote: You missed a nice LA ride this morning took, Asterope. You were missed. DB what's the LardArse schedule these days? Clearly you've shifted from Friday to Monday? When and where? Never know I might make it along sometime. Donga It's currently shifting rapidly & unpredictably according to need ... -- Karen If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.' Catherine Aird |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
rural amusement
"Tamyka Bell" wrote in message ... Zebee Johnstone wrote: In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000 asterope wrote: "great way to get yourself killed, love." i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard. I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so hard to see". If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I think the RTA's eyesight test needs work. Coming from a motorcyclist it was especially funny. For some reason I didn't say "sure, when you get one, don't you know motorcycles are hard to see?" Zebee *gasp* no flag? Zebee, I'm shocked! don't tell me - oh my god you probably don't even have facial hair! Tam The above message by Tam leads me to believe that she is an aborigine. Can any of you on this confounded group enlighten me as to her true status in the human scheme of things? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
rural amusement
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tamyka Bell" wrote in message ... Zebee Johnstone wrote: In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000 asterope wrote: "great way to get yourself killed, love." i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard. I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so hard to see". If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I think the RTA's eyesight test needs work. Coming from a motorcyclist it was especially funny. For some reason I didn't say "sure, when you get one, don't you know motorcycles are hard to see?" Zebee *gasp* no flag? Zebee, I'm shocked! don't tell me - oh my god you probably don't even have facial hair! Tam The above message by Tam leads me to believe that she is an aborigine. Can any of you on this confounded group enlighten me as to her true status in the human scheme of things? Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota I can confirm that she is human yes Dave |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
rural amusement
"dave" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: "Tamyka Bell" wrote in message ... Zebee Johnstone wrote: In aus.bicycle on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +1000 asterope wrote: "great way to get yourself killed, love." i almost fell off my bike i was laughing so hard. I had a bod on a Vespa tell me I ought to get a flag cos I was "so hard to see". If he can't see something 2 foot wide, a foot longer than most bicycles, and where the rider's seat is as high as a car seat then I think the RTA's eyesight test needs work. Coming from a motorcyclist it was especially funny. For some reason I didn't say "sure, when you get one, don't you know motorcycles are hard to see?" Zebee *gasp* no flag? Zebee, I'm shocked! don't tell me - oh my god you probably don't even have facial hair! Tam The above message by Tam leads me to believe that she is an aborigine. Can any of you on this confounded group enlighten me as to her true status in the human scheme of things? I can confirm that she is human yes But if she is an aborigine, is she of our species? That is the question! I am of the opinion that the Australian aborigine is verging on a separate species of Homo. This would account for the very strange way the brain of Tamyka Bell works - as well as flyingdutch who I am convinced is an aborigine. Why is it that their messages on AB never make any sense to me? It may be that I just don't understand how the female mind works, but how do you explain flyingdutch? Nay, I think your newsgroup is riddled with aborigines. Does anyone know if it is possible for an Australian aborigine to mate with a human being and have viable offspring that are not total freaks? Ed Dolan the Great needs to know before he can ever rest peacefully in his grave. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
rural amusement
Donga wrote:
Duracell Bunny wrote: You missed a nice LA ride this morning took, Asterope. You were missed. DB what's the LardArse schedule these days? Clearly you've shifted from Friday to Monday? When and where? Never know I might make it along sometime. Consider it random. Most of the time, everyone pikes. T :P |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Art of Rural Cycling? | [email protected] | General | 39 | August 30th 05 02:22 AM |
dangers of rural roads | wafflycat | UK | 48 | May 18th 05 10:25 AM |
Setting local speed limits on rural single carriageway roads | Paul | UK | 13 | December 2nd 04 09:09 PM |
Amusement Park Unicyclist? | The_SkunkMan | Unicycling | 12 | August 22nd 04 12:16 AM |
racing 400km on dirt roads (aka Rural Bike) - Road or MTB? | Boyd Speerschneider | Racing | 5 | July 18th 03 11:57 PM |