Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

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, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°

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/...-question_9772

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?

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 8, 5:38*pm, Frank "Its all about ME" Krygowski
wrote:
*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.

Nor any PHYSICAL way. It is not physically possible to fit an 8.5 foot
truck and a bicycle into a 10 foot lane with a curb on one side.

Based on that, I would control that lane and not try to share the lane
to let the truck squeeze by. *Do you agree?

Stupid, stupid question.
You describe a situation where the decision is predetermined NO matter
what YOU do.

DR

On Dec 8, 4:02*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/8/2010 3:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
*I was trying to clarify what this meant:
"And when I do ride with cars, what I will do in any given
circumstance depends." *Did it mean "If I get nervous about cars, I
ride the sidewalk"?

If you don't really "get that" WTF makes you say that? *It's damned
insulting.

Do you not remember that one of your supporters in this discussion has
frequently bragged about riding sidewalks? When he said he does, and
you said "what I do depends..." then it certainly sounded to me like
you might ride sidewalks as well.

What is there to clarify about that statement anyway? *You say that you
ride in the middle of the lane regardless of any circumstances because
you control the lane.

No, I didn't say that! (If you think I did, find a quote.) I've
mentioned dozens of times over the years that I share the lane
whenever it's safe to do so. And you guys claim I misrepresent you!

But I will NOT share a lane when doing so would put me at serious
risk. Trying to let an 8.5' truck squeeze by in a 10' lane would be a
serious risk. I know that in anything approaching ordinary
circumstances, the trucker will see me and behave properly, because
I've done this many hundreds of times, and so have thousands of other
cyclists. The technique is taught in all reputable cycling courses.

*I say that I do what is best for me, given the
circumstances.

For example, when the truck is tailgaiting me I'm going to pull to the
side and give him **** as he passes. *I'm not going to continue in the
center of the lane ignoring him.

OK, fine. You're going to bail out and shake your fist. 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.

At least you don't ride on sidewalks. And at least I know where you
stand - i.e., by the side of the road. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
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/...-question_9772

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.

Victorian Road Law.

quote
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians

(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver
or a pedestrian.
Penalty: 2 penalty units.
Note: Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.

(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
another driver or a pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other
vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slow in the
circumstances).

Example of a driver driving abnormally slow
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a
length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per
hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
at that speed on the length of road.
/quote

So a cyclist riding at 20 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and taking up the lane
would be considered to be abnormally slow. This is precisely the
circumstance on the Maroondah Hwy going over the Black Spur that I
posted a link to earlier.

JS.

On Dec 8, 9:54*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:40*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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. -- Jay Beattie.

I have a section of road near here, down to the next town, where once
I walked and cycled, decades ago. It's a main road with single narrow
lane traffic in each direction. The hard shoulder beyond the yellow
line is inches wide and in some places has crumbled away. Essentially
it is small country road outdated by three decades of intensive
development in the region beyond my little town; further on it has
been widened but there is no way for cyclists to get from here to the
wide section. Even twenty years ago cars and trucks would slow down
for you, and wait to pass when there was a break in the oncoming
traffic; there was little enough traffic for it not to be an
imposition.

Then the traffic started mounting up, and a lot of it was through
traffic, travelling about twice as fast as twenty years ago. The
police superintendent of the entire region was killed on his bicycle
on that road; I'd started refusing a while before that to go riding
there with him.

I went to where that road leaves the town and immediately narrows down
in the summer just past, to decide whether the pedalpals and I could
use it for less than a mile coming back from a longer ride, to save
making the end of our ride over some tough but much safer hills.
Traffic was hitting 100kph/62mph right there at the town speed
derestriction, and cars and trucks were too close together for hard
braking for cyclist doing even 30mph. Pedalling there at our average
on the flat of 20kph would simply be lethal. The last time I actually
rode out on that road, perhaps fifteen years ago, a passing truck
ripped my shirt -- a cotton dress shirt, but how much slack you think
there is in it, an inch, two?

There are some roads that cyclists simply shouldn't be on, regardless
of what the theory of vehicular cyclists says.

Andre Jute
Bravery and bravado are not the same thing

James wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
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/...-question_9772


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.

Victorian Road Law.

quote
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians

(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver
or a pedestrian.
Penalty: 2 penalty units.
Note: Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.

(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
another driver or a pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other
vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slow in the
circumstances).

Example of a driver driving abnormally slow
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a
length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per
hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
at that speed on the length of road.
/quote

So a cyclist riding at 20 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and taking up the lane
would be considered to be abnormally slow. This is precisely the
circumstance on the Maroondah Hwy going over the Black Spur that I
posted a link to earlier.

JS.

There is also this..

quote
253 Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic
hazard by moving into the path of a driver or
pedestrian.
Penalty: 1 penalty unit.
/quote

So by taking the lane, you could have been seen to be causing a traffic
hazard!

Just saying.

JS.

On Dec 8, 10:09*pm, James wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 1:18 pm, AMuzi wrote:
The licensing of drivers seems to work about as well as
prohibition (alcohol, marijuana etc) or gun control laws.

That could be changed.

We have to verify, to reasonable accuracy anyway, that we have money
whenever we use a debit card. *Seems to me the technology could be
applied inside cars. *Swipe a valid driver's license (or leave it in
the dash slot), and you get to drive the car.

It wouldn't be foolproof, but it would be better than what we have
now. *And it might restore the idea of driving being a privilege, not
a right.

Now that's a good one.

I think there are some vehicles here fitted with BAC readers, that won't
let you start the car if you're over the legal limit.

JS.

Actually, that's the first time I've heard a good idea from Franki-
boy. A girl that I sometimes take to concerts with me has a car with
radio that doesn't work if kind of card that she pulls every time she
exits the car isn't in place. Some French cars have key-cards rather
than keys. The idea wouldn't be too difficult to implement for having
a valid driving license not under suspension, or even to test for
being over the limit.

Mind you, even Krygo's one good idea for the decade, driving as a
privilege, he stole from Chalo.

Andre Jute

On 12/8/2010 8:41 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 10:18 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:50 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
[...]
Who gives a damn about significant number of crashes? When you're
on the road you can't NOT pay attention because of statistical
probabilities. You need to know where all of the other vehicles
are that are sharing the road and have an idea what they're doing.
This is called defensive driving. You always expect the worse and
plan for it. I didn't make this up.[...]

Plan for the worst? Every driver a homicidal maniac? Terrorists with RPG
launchers behind every bush? Armed thermonuclear warheads falling out of
bombers passing overhead? Volcanic explosions below? Sun going nova?
Universe collapsing into a singularity?


Doesn't the aluminum foil hat that you wear take care of most of that?
[...]

See http://www.eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php [1]

[1] Flash™ required.

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

On 12/8/2010 7:31 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/8/2010 8:41 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 10:18 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:50 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
[...]
Who gives a damn about significant number of crashes? When you're
on the road you can't NOT pay attention because of statistical
probabilities. You need to know where all of the other vehicles
are that are sharing the road and have an idea what they're doing.
This is called defensive driving. You always expect the worse and
plan for it. I didn't make this up.[...]

Plan for the worst? Every driver a homicidal maniac? Terrorists with RPG
launchers behind every bush? Armed thermonuclear warheads falling out of
bombers passing overhead? Volcanic explosions below? Sun going nova?
Universe collapsing into a singularity?


Doesn't the aluminum foil hat that you wear take care of most of that?
[...]

See http://www.eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php [1]

[1] Flash™ required.


And Javascript™ enabled.

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

On 12/8/2010 8:37 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 9:37 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:56 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:32 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:53 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:42 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:

Duane, shame on you! Were you mocking Frank? Frank is an "expert,"
just ask him. He can control everything.

Apparently everything except disagreement. Sorry, I mean
mocking. What's this a Monty Python schtick?

I think Frank is trying to bolster his "straw" resume so he can seek
gainful employment in both "argument" AND "abuse." He's tired of
arguing in his spare time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

LOL

I was thinking more along the lines of shrubberies though.

Ni!


There's hope for you after all g

Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here beside
this shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get a two-level effect with
a little path running down the middle.

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