Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 13, 5:49*pm, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 13, 10:59 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

To turn the question around: *How soon do you want to trust an unknown
motorist to squeeze by with inches to spare, and not inadvertently
bump you off the road or worse?

As others have pointed out, this can occur while the cyclist is riding
in any position in the lane. Every time you are approached by faster
traffic you leave your life to some degree in the hands of the passing
driver. Riding at lane center (of all places) doesn't absolve you of
having to trust the drivers behind, far from it.

Of course. If someone wants to murder you with their car, you can't
prevent it, so you have to trust them not to - otherwise you give up
cycling entirely. And that pretty much applies to walking across
streets or riding motorcycles.

But murderers are vanishingly rare. Far more common are less-than-
competent motorists, and it makes sense to help them make a good
decision on passing. And like I said, if someone does skim too close,
being more in the center gives you some room for evasion.

I'm surprised you're acting confused on this. Heck, one reference
your probably familiar with says the following:

"Whatever your preference, consider a centralish [sic] position to the
the _default position_ of urban cycling." It goes on for about two
more pages, mostly on the benefits of a leftward lane position.

It is interesting that you bring up the spectre of sudden death by
close pass. What do you think accounts for a larger portion of cyclist
fatalities -- too-close passes or drivers completely failing to notice
the cyclist in front of them?

My guess is too close passes. If you've got data, I'd be interested.

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 13, 10:38*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 8:18*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:

You are confusing me with Ed Dolan.

Perhaps. But probably not. I have never heard him whine about how
poorly the world treats him and he has never stalked me.

Wow. You mean he hasn't insulted and mocked every substantive post
you've made on a topic, he hasn't falsified quotations, he hasn't
threatened to try to ruin your professional reputation, and he's had
the minimal good sense to keep usenet disagreements on Usenet?

Maye Ed Dolan could teach you to give up stalking, "DirtRoadie."
Maybe he could even help you develop enough courage to use your real
name.

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 13, 7:55 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Robert, IIRC you never did answer the question I asked.

No you do not RC. I did answer it, multiple times, with specifics.
Here's a helpful link:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...20c84269d8cbc1

It's at this point where I start to wonder, has Frank really missed my
multiple answers to his question, or is he just playing a pathetic
game to avoid the issues I raised in those posts? IIRC this has been a
pattern with Frank.

AGAIN: I would ride further left than you. Primary position doesn't do
it for me. If the space is available, use it.

Then, if a truck wanted to pass, I would probably drift right to
enable an easier pass, he would pass in the typical fashion on narrow
streets/roads of going way over the center line, and everybody would
go along their way without incident. If there is any oncoming traffic,
anybody behind me will just have to travel my speed for a bit, no
matter where I ride in a 10-foot lane. Some people have trouble
visualizing how narrow that really is.

On Dec 13, 9:14*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 13, 10:38*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Dec 13, 8:18*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:

You are confusing me with Ed Dolan.

Perhaps. But probably not. I have never heard him whine about how
poorly the world treats him and he has never stalked me.

Wow. *You mean he hasn't insulted and mocked every substantive post
you've made on a topic, he hasn't falsified quotations, he hasn't
threatened to try to ruin your professional reputation, and he's had
the minimal good sense to keep usenet disagreements on Usenet?

Maye Ed Dolan could teach you to give up stalking, "DirtRoadie."
Maybe he could even help you develop enough courage to use your real
name.

Frank "OAFAAF" Krygowski

Frank, what are you trying to say?
You're all wound up and nonsensical.
You apparently have some issue with Ed Dolan?
DR

On Dec 13, 9:02*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 8:31*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

It sometimes comes under the heading of "hall monitor," too.

Can you find any book, any reference on proper riding, that does NOT
say to take the lane in that situation? *

Yes, Frank all books pretty much say the same thing (wink, wink).
Here's one excerpt:
"If you are obsessed with 'hall monitor syndrome' take the lane until
your symptoms subside. If your symptoms last more than four hours,
seek psychiatric help."

Can you find one that says
"Ride as close to the edge as you can"?

And why would that be relevant to Jay? He never said that. Why would
you even suggest that he said that? Why is that relevant to you?
Oh never mind. *http://anse.rs/gqlwK
And in any case, Jay is [----] old enough and experienced enough to
make such decisions without referring to a book. And if you are still
relying solely on books, you have no business telling anyone here how
to ride.

DR

No sleight to JB when I mistakenly used the word "probably" in the
blank brackets above.
DR

On Dec 13, 9:03 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm surprised you're acting confused on this. Heck, one reference
your probably familiar with says the following:

"Whatever your preference, consider a centralish [sic] position to the
the _default position_ of urban cycling." It goes on for about two
more pages, mostly on the benefits of a leftward lane position.

Not confused at all, thanks.

That reference also states:

"Increases in speed bring increases in the importance of space. The
more speed carried by the artful cyclist, the closer he or she gets to
the center of the street."

-- Nothng about Primary Postion or Secondary Position there, it's a
continuum, all the way across the available space --

"This means that, on a narrow side street lined with parked cars, the
fast-moving rider might take a position right down the middle of the
street..."

"Leaving the comfortable default position to move closer to the curb
or parked cars is often necessary for sharing the road with vehicles
on a parallel path ..."

"The cyclist's approach to road positioning should be characterized by
flexibility. Accept that the best possible line will be shifting on a
near-constant basis. Don't cling grimly to a favored spot in the road
while the disposition of traffic shifts wildly around you."

Are you learning anything in this discussion.

On Dec 13, 7:31*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:22*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Dec 13, 9:59*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

So Jay, if you have an 8.5 foot truck (as I postulated) and you "hold
your line," where is your line? *Are you riding 6" from the dropoff?
One foot? *Two feet, or what? * And how close do wide trucks pass?

I ride as far right as is practicable, meaning where there are no
giant pot holes (not many on that road), gravel, etc.

Here's the problem: *I ride as far right as practicable, as
specifically defined in Ohio law. *I've explained where that is. *In a
ten foot lane with an 8.5 foot truck passing, that would be near lane
center.

You would ride where? *Maybe a foot from the right? *Two feet?

I certainly don't make a point of "controlling
traffic" on that road.

OK. *But do you realize every legitimate, recognized "how to ride"
teaching resource seems to differ with you?



OTOH, there is one ex-country road near here that now handles lots of
suburban "short cut" traffic. *Because of terrain, the county hasn't
been able to widen it. *So it's narrow, 35 mph and usually busy. *I
avoid it when I can, which is almost always. *The last time I had to
ride it, since there was NO safe way to allow passing, I pulled off to
let traffic by whenever it was reasonable.

I ride on those kinds of roads all the time because of our idiotic
development of suburbs without developing infrastructure. *I play it
by ear. *The problem is lack of sight lines. *You ride out in the
middle of the road on the other side of a blind turn, and you get
whacked -- there is no room for correction by the cars.

Not in real life, Jay. *You're echoing Duane's worries about the road
he showed in the street view - the one that looked like our metro
park, or like the ones my club members and I seek out for rides in the
country.

Super-curvy roads have lower speed limits, both legally and
practically. *Motorists can't drive very fast, and the sharper the
curve, the slower they have to drive. *The speed differential between
a bike and a car decreases, which gives the motorist more time to
respond to the cyclist's presence. *(And incidentally, if it's a bend
to the right, the cyclist is visible sooner when he's further left.)

I've spent lots of time driving and noting when I would be able to see
a cyclist on the road. *Try it.


A routine ride. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NPqQptjbF0 Note
speed. Note blind corners. Imagine being on the other side of corner
toddling along at 12mph controlling traffic. I've spent a lot of time
riding where I ride and have a very good sense of when I can be seen
and when not. Here's an uphill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCdQL-xuy0g
Here's an even more common ride: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqllO_J9_wA
You have to hug the shoulder half the time because the cars are
crossing over from the uphill side. People scream down and up these
roads -- it's the mid-life crisis race track. Another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzFgYV8CxSQ You have to imagine this
uphill -- everybody videos going down.

This is actually the corner that scares me the most -- right out of
downtown on my way home: Vista -- fast moving traffic whipping around
a couple bind corners. http://www.flickr.com/photos/47911905@N00/3785643919/
I stay way right on that corner and the one after. Sure, I could get
out in traffic and control it, for about ten seconds before I get run
over. Next time you're up here, let's do a ride up Vista or Broadway
Terrace out of down town -- or Davenport. You'll see exactly what I
mean. -- Jay Beattie.

On Dec 13, 9:03 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:


But murderers are vanishingly rare. Far more common are less-than-
competent motorists,

Very true ....

and it makes sense to help them make a good
decision on passing.

Wait, you skipped right over the possibility that this passing
motorist might not notice your presence at all. It's not the kind of
consideration that you want to discount entirely.


It is interesting that you bring up the spectre of sudden death by
close pass. What do you think accounts for a larger portion of cyclist
fatalities -- too-close passes or drivers completely failing to notice
the cyclist in front of them?

My guess is too close passes. If you've got data, I'd be interested.

Drivers kill bicyclists by completely failing to notice them far, far
more often than they kill them with a too-close pass.

Cross-Fisher, for starters. Drivers smashing from behind into
bicyclists who they never saw or didn't see until it was too late
accounted for about _one quarter_ of total fatalities.

How does this information change your opinion about "controlling
lanes?"

On Dec 13, 11:09*pm, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:03 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

But murderers are vanishingly rare. *Far more common are less-than-
competent motorists,

Very true ....

and it makes sense to help them make a good
decision on passing.

Wait, you skipped right over the possibility that this passing
motorist might not notice your presence at all. It's not the kind of
consideration that you want to discount entirely.

It is interesting that you bring up the spectre of sudden death by
close pass. What do you think accounts for a larger portion of cyclist
fatalities -- too-close passes or drivers completely failing to notice
the cyclist in front of them?

My guess is too close passes. *If you've got data, I'd be interested.

Drivers kill bicyclists by completely failing to notice them far, far
more often than they kill them with a too-close pass.

Cross-Fisher, for starters. Drivers smashing from behind into
bicyclists who they never saw or didn't see until it was too late
accounted for about _one quarter_ of total fatalities.

How does this information change your opinion about "controlling
lanes?"

According to Frank (in an earlier post) "Hits from the rear are
responsible for a large percentage of cyclist fatalities."

He also said "If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed
from behind, and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear
view mirror, you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a
wreck from a left cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole,
a slippery spot, or even a dog."

It makes me wonder how he expects to viably "control the lane" (ANY
lane) without fully taking into account what is behind him.

DR

On Dec 13, 8:18*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:

In the US, parody is libel unless it is of a public figure. *No public
figures post to rec.bicycles.tech (at least under their real names).

(Lost in the noise at first glance)
BZZZZZZT. So Sorry. Not even close (and no authority cited)
But if you believe what you have said you might want to warn your
buddy Krygowski that he is running on the fine edge when he lies. And,
sadly, he constantly lies. That is precisely why he is found to be so
offensive by so many.
Or are you suggesting that nobody can believe what he says? That has
some plausibility.
I assume you have offered him your vast legal expertise. After all,
he is one of the poor downtrodden.
DR