Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 11, 4:52 pm, "Duane Hebert" 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

On Dec 11, 4:58*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
DirtRoadie considered Sat, 11 Dec 2010 08:17:17
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 11, 8:59*am, Phil W Lee wrote:

That's almost all roads here.
But can you explain how a driver is more inconvenienced by a cyclist
using the lane properly,

Properly? This is a trick question right? Properly means keeping to
the right (on this side of the Atlantic.

Properly means using as much of the lane as necessary to ensure their
own safety. *As advised by almost all cycle safety training schemes.

Almost all? So even they do not agree?
In any case, the _legal_ obligation is to ride to the side except as
may be "reasonably necessary" for reasons of safety etc. "
"Reasonably necessary" does include "I am Frank Krygowski and _I_ am
the only one who decides whether the vehicle behind is ENTITLED to
pass me."

But a cyclist riding in the center of the lane can make a safe passing
opportunity less so.
As I said:
"(forcing the driver completely into the other lane in order to pass)"

How does it make any difference if the driver has to move completely
into the other lane instead of only partly? *(s)he still shouldn't do
so unless the lane is clear, and if it is clear, how much difference
does it make how much of it (s)he uses?

Again, there are issues such as the size of the gaps in oncoming
traffic. When a vehicle passes a cyclist ( providing sufficient
clearance), it requires a far more radical maneuver and/or more time
for the vehicle to fully change lanes than it does to merely avoid a
cyclist riding to he side of the road,

The only reason drivers expect cyclists to hug the kerb is because so
many do.
Nobody said anything about "hugging a curb." There are no curbs on the
roads I described.

It doesn't make any difference what particular type of edge the road
has, the term is clear to everyone who isn't looking for things to
nit-pick.

I wasn't nit picking but I wanted to be sure you weren't either. You
seem to want to argue for the sake of argument.
In any case you have my explanation.
DR

On Dec 11, 3:50*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
DirtRoadie considered Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:17:20
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:





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

Wrong is wrong, no matter what seniority of judge said it.- Hide quoted text -

I think we should re-name all the animals just to switch things up.
We should call alligators "hamsters." As long as we all agree, it
makes no difference. Hamsters don't care.

The UVC does distinguish between "vehicles" and "motor vehicles" (the
are defined differently), and there are actually statutes that deal
with "motor vehicles" and bicycles together and obviously
differentiate between the two -- even though a bicycles is a "vehicle"
under the UVC. The drunk driving statute in Oregon, however, applies
to all vehicles and not just "motor vehicles." The requirement of
yielding to faster moving traffic applies to "vehicles" and is cross-
referenced in the bicyle statute (the one that says you must ride as
far right as is practicable). There is no question that "driving"
includes driving a bike and that the "yield to faster moving traffic"
statute applies to bikes.

You are right, though, that the "impeding traffic"statute refers to
"motor vehicles." I don't think it is really necessary to Frank's
discussion of lane-taking, but at least in Oregon, the courts have
held that the "impeding" statute applies to bike on account of the
section of our UVC extending the motor vehicle laws to bicycles except
where it would not makes sense to do so (like requiring seatbelts).
That statute has also worked to the benefit of bicyclists. There is a
reported case where a cyclist in traffic preparing to make a left turn
was run down, and the court held that the bicycle had the same rights
as a car to be out in the middle of the road. By the same token,
though, the bike cannot be in the middle of the road promenading. --
Jay Beattie.

On Dec 11, 3:18*pm, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:36 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:





"RobertH" wrote in message

....

On Dec 10, 7:55 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

Your response was much more polite than mine. *You must be new dealing
with
this
guy.

Truthfully I first experienced the whole ordeal maybe 10 or more years
ago. The ordeal loses its effect after you've experienced it 30 or 40
times.

So you can eventually ignore him?

His verbal, what you might call tactics lost any power to personally
annoy once I realized that he's been responding the exact same way
(using the exact same words in many cases) to everyone, without fail,
for many many years.

It's kind of like arguing with a recorded message.

With, IMHO, about the same level of intelligence on the other side

It's particularly fun when he starts making **** up, out of whole
cloth, and gets called on it. More often than not he just sticks to
the script.

On Dec 11, 4:52*pm, "Duane Hebert" 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

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.

On Dec 11, 6:08*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:


but at least in Oregon, the courts have
held that the "impeding" statute applies to bike on account of the
section of our UVC extending the motor vehicle laws to bicycles except
where it would not makes sense to do so (like requiring seatbelts).

For Phil's benefit - Just emphasizing the portion of JB's comment that
mirrors what I was saying.

The point is that the apparent language of a statute may be a good
starting point, but is not always conclusive of what the statute
means. Other things come into play such as the "bigger picture",
legislative intent, consistency with other similar language or other
portions of the same code.
And if a court is "wrong," the legislature can simply correct the
"error" by clarifying/revising the statute. In the absence of such
revision the court's interpretation is the law.

DR

On Dec 11, 2:23*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 12:29 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:



"T m Sherm nT _ " *wrote in
...
On 12/11/2010 8:29 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"T?m Sherm?n? " * wrote in
...
On 12/10/2010 11:28 PM, DirtRoadie WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:

Hmm. *Given your fears, I suppose Quebec must have special Ground
Meat
Crews to scrape away all the dead cyclists!

- Frank Krygowski

**** you.

+1
DR

Good to see the maturity and civility of the group being preserved.

/sarcasm

Calling me a coward is bad enough but making light
of the dead cyclists here, some of which were friends
and all of which were persons, was a bit much.

And lying/libel is not a bit much?

Are you talking to me?

No, it is a different Frank-Basher™ who hides behind a pseudonym while
lying and committing libel ..

Citation?
Nobody knows (myself included) knows WTF you are ranting about.

DR

On Dec 11, 1:06*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.
Mostly because nobody here is so stupid as to think that the "footage"
measurement has much relevance to safe and/or legal riding.

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.

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.

DR

"Jay Beattie" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 10:35 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
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.


I remember riding down a road where two cyclists were side by
side chatting at about 15kph. Speed limit 50. Pretty annoying
to everyone. I was on my bike next to a car and the driver asked
me why cyclists thought that they owned the road. I pointed out to him
that I was stuck in the same traffic that he was and we both laughed.

I think that increased cycling presence is good but you have
to share the road.