|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1121
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/9/2010 12:55 AM, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:50 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 12/8/2010 10:26 AM, RobertH wrote: On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, T m Sherm n _ 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. What is there in "defensive driving" useful to cyclists that is not covered under vehicular/effective cycling? Sure, Tom, I'll take that one. Defensive driving emphasizes the specific ways that _lawful_ vehicle operators are victimized in garden-variety collisions (In terms of cycling, a 'looked-but-failed-to-see error' by a left-turning driver has the most serious damage x frequency vector) and teaches strategies to avoid them. Defensive driving emphasizes the need for awareness above and beyond simply following the rules of the road. The foundational assumptions of defensive driving are strongly supported by factual evidence. Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see' incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them. Vehicular Cycling emphasizes assertiveness and rule-following over defensiveness. In Vehicular Cycling, a defensive mindset is in fact viewed as superfluous and unnecessary. Riders who express the necessity for defensive posture in traffic are berated and ridiculed until they go away shaking their heads in wonder and disgust at their fellow man. Which planet is it that you live on? -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Ads |
#1122
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 1:39*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/9/2010 3:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Then you and I are too far apart on fundamentals to ever agree. Finally something I can agree with. +1 And for the record, while I do not "support" Duane, I do agree with him and appreciate his well articulated perspective. Nicely stated on its own, it looks absolutely brilliant compared side- by-side with Frank Krygowski's prefabricated, one-size-fits-all, "I- read-it-in-a-book-so-it-must-be-right" lunacy. And if we have learned nothing else, we now know Youngstown State is not an institution you want your kids to consider for their college education. DR |
#1123
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:12:08 +1100 the perfect time to write: 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. Don't be more stupid than you can help. The law as you state it above states quite clearly "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" and even clarifies that in the example by stating: "when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road." I can't think of any more persuasive reason for the driver to be driving at that (low) speed than that it is the maximum speed of which the vehicle is capable. Any other reasoning would put the statute at odds with the laws of physics, and would have the effect of saying that any vehicle that cannot travel at the speed limit is not allowed to use that stretch of road. So that law cannot possibly be applied if the vehicle operator is driving as fast as the circumstances, or his vehicle's capabilities (which includes his own, particularly if there is no power assistance), allow. The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane. People towing caravans and tractor drivers and most cyclists do just this. It's common courtesy. Are you stupid enough to crawl along in the middle of the lane and hold up a tonne of traffic? JS. |
#1124
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/8/2010 9:12 PM, James wrote: Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: 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. A path! A path! Then you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with.... a herring. Now we have the discussion going in the right direction! I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. What if we built a giant badger? JS. |
#1125
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 3:13*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jay Beattie considered Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:00:24 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: So, putting them together, Why put them together? First the disclaimer that you forgot - YANAL Second, Jay IAL. Third: ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944, 185 Or.App. 81. Fourth: 814.400 reads "Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, ..." Argue your head off, the issue has been decided in Oregon and your argument lost. DR |
#1126
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Dec 9, 2:51*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:12:08 +1100 the perfect time to write: 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/...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. 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. Don't be more stupid than you can help. The law as you state it above states quite clearly "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" and even clarifies that in the example by stating: "when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road." I can't think of any more persuasive reason for the driver to be driving at that (low) speed than that it is the maximum speed of which the vehicle is capable. Any other reasoning would put the statute at odds with the laws of physics, and would have the effect of saying that any vehicle that cannot travel at the speed limit is not allowed to use that stretch of road. So that law cannot possibly be applied if the vehicle operator is driving as fast as the circumstances, or his vehicle's capabilities (which includes his own, particularly if there is no power assistance), allow. Pretty clear - YANAL. But you are nearly as good as Krygowski at changing facts to suit your perspective of the moment. DR |
#1127
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:43 am, Duane Hébert wrote: Don't you find that people tend to pass you more closely when you take the whole road and tend to give you more distance when you're somewhat to the right? That's be my experience for the most part. The maniac drivers trying to terrorize me are not the norm. Here's a graph showing the results of one study on that specific topic. The author says the further he was left, the more clearance he got. The closest passing happened when the cyclist was furthest to the right, and they were all in-lane passes, i.e. people who figured they could sqeeze by without going over the line. http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg - Frank Krygowski I find if I wobble around a lot, look over my shoulder lots and blow my nose toward the traffic I get more room. (Trouble with wobbling around a lot is that it takes concentration. I naturally ride fairly straight lines, which comes from necessity racing over pick-a-plank bridges. Blowing my nose comes naturally, especially in cold weather or hay fever season.) JS. |
#1128
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing
In article . org,
Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On 2010-12-09, Michael Press wrote: In article . org, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On 2010-12-09, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? "" wrote: On 12/8/2010 8:22 AM, Duane H?bert wrote: On 12/7/2010 8:13 PM, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? wrote: On 12/7/2010 8:22 AM, Duane H?bert wrote: On 12/6/2010 9:21 PM, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? wrote: On 12/6/2010 10:08 AM, Duane H?bert wrote: At home I use Outlook Express for a news reader.[...] Bill Gates holding a gun to your head? Huh? Why would anyone use a Micro$oft product when better, free alternatives are available? (Assuming that they are given a choice.) I haven't got around to installing TBird at home. Last year when I tried it, it sucked too much. The current version seems ok - I'm using it at work. The "Huh?" was more about you telling me to use a newsreader that will let me respond to your posts in lieu of you not doing funny things to your header. So huh? My header is UTF-8 compliant. Alas, usenet is not. It's a 7-bit medium. All headers must be ASCII. Header titles must be exactly as prescribed. HOWEVER... there are means to communicate and render glyphs outside ASCII. You have some reading to do, but I promise it is rewarding reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2047 I'm aware of how MIME works. It doesn't change the underlying foundation of Usenet, it just makes it possible to piggyback non-ASCII content onto an ASCII medium of transport. Not a 7-bit medium as you assert. Network News Transfer Protocol, rfc 3977, 3.1.1 reads Note that texts using an encoding (such as UTF-16 or UTF-32) that may contain the octets NUL, LF, or CR other than a CRLF pair cannot be reliably conveyed in the above format (that is, they violate the MUST requirement above). However, except when stated otherwise, this specification does not require the content to be UTF-8, and therefore (subject to that same requirement) it MAY include octets above and below 128 mixed arbitrarily. -- Michael Press |
#1129
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 12/9/2010 4:34 PM, James Steward wrote:
[...] The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane. People towing caravans [...] do just this. [...] Not so in the US. Or self-propelled caravans (motor homes) for that matter. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#1130
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing
In article ,
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° " wrote: On 12/8/2010 8:22 AM, Duane Hébert wrote: On 12/7/2010 8:13 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: On 12/7/2010 8:22 AM, Duane Hébert wrote: On 12/6/2010 9:21 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: On 12/6/2010 10:08 AM, Duane Hébert wrote: At home I use Outlook Express for a news reader.[...] Bill Gates holding a gun to your head? Huh? Why would anyone use a Micro$oft product when better, free alternatives are available? (Assuming that they are given a choice.) I haven't got around to installing TBird at home. Last year when I tried it, it sucked too much. The current version seems ok - I'm using it at work. The "Huh?" was more about you telling me to use a newsreader that will let me respond to your posts in lieu of you not doing funny things to your header. So huh? My header is UTF-8 compliant. That is as may be. Is it strictly in accord with nntp? (not saying it is or is not.) -- 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 |