Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 14, 1:03*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,





*DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:55*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:40 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/11/2010 4:23 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° 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

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 by falsifying quotations. However, for some
reason, this immoral behavior draws much less ire than Frank Krygowski's
above board argumentation.

Sorry Tom but just because Frank hasn't used profanity doesn't make
his personal attacks any less irksome. As to your reference to DR,
I'm not exactly sure which of his comments you're referring to.

Look in this thread, and you will find multiple occasions where
"DirtRoadie" altered quotations - I pointed out several of them in
responses. *No one else objects to this behavior, except for Phil W. Lee.

Bingo!
Tom has no grasp of parody (and does not even understand the word
"libel" which he erroneously uses frequently) *and has taken it upon
himself to rid the world of his perceived moral outrage. He stalks the
"perpetrators" in support of his role model for truth and virtue,
Frank Krygowski.

Look through this thread for any of my posts followed by a post from
Tom. See if you see ANY suggestion of Tom offering substantive
discussion.
Some say he has a sense of humor. Perhaps he does, but I think he's
just a fat angry old man with nothing to do but complain about how
poorly the world treats him and those like him.

I must step in here and disagree with the very last.
Recumbent cyclists are shabbily treated indeed. It
may become necessary to pass a hate law forbidding
malicious denigration of recumbent cyclists.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to but I generally would not
stoop so low as as to call someone a "recumbent cyclist" unless they
deserved it.
DR

On Dec 14, 12:03*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,





*DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:55*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:40 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/11/2010 4:23 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° 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

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 by falsifying quotations. However, for some
reason, this immoral behavior draws much less ire than Frank Krygowski's
above board argumentation.

Sorry Tom but just because Frank hasn't used profanity doesn't make
his personal attacks any less irksome. As to your reference to DR,
I'm not exactly sure which of his comments you're referring to.

Look in this thread, and you will find multiple occasions where
"DirtRoadie" altered quotations - I pointed out several of them in
responses. *No one else objects to this behavior, except for Phil W. Lee.

Bingo!
Tom has no grasp of parody (and does not even understand the word
"libel" which he erroneously uses frequently) *and has taken it upon
himself to rid the world of his perceived moral outrage. He stalks the
"perpetrators" in support of his role model for truth and virtue,
Frank Krygowski.

Look through this thread for any of my posts followed by a post from
Tom. See if you see ANY suggestion of Tom offering substantive
discussion.
Some say he has a sense of humor. Perhaps he does, but I think he's
just a fat angry old man with nothing to do but complain about how
poorly the world treats him and those like him.

I must step in here and disagree with the very last.
Recumbent cyclists are shabbily treated indeed. It
may become necessary to pass a hate law forbidding
malicious denigration of recumbent cyclists.

Hate on this! http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm
Hardly a fat old man, although I might take issue with the style
choice, particularly today in a rain and wind storm. -- Jay Beattie.

On Dec 13, 11:20*pm, RobertH wrote:
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.

Ah. So your disagreement with me is that when I ride in the middle of
the lane, I'm _still_ too far to the right! But you agree with me
that when the lane is too narrow for safe passing, you'd be far
enough out to prevent unsafe in-lane passing and cause those behind
you to just travel at your speed.

That's good. Thanks.

I wonder if you'll now be attacked by others calling you things like
"hall monitor."

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 14, 12:42*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
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.

First, did you notice that was shown at double time - twice as fast as
real life?

Second, what looks like a blind corner to a center-mounted, straight-
ahead dash camera is not at all blind to a motorist who can - indeed,
must - turn his head to look where he's going.

I've ridden twisty roads in Oregon, and I've ridden twisty roads in
places like southeast Ohio and all across Pennsylvania. I've also
driven such roads in many states - high, western North Carolina comes
to mind, as do the mountain roads of Georgia's mountains. Again, when
driving, I've often been watching to see how early I would spot a
cyclist. I've never seen a road where a cyclist wouldn't be spotted
in time.

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.

At my age, I doubt I could keep up with you, especially on my Bike
Friday (which is what I usually ride in Oregon) .Perhaps I'll try that
one next time I'm out there.

And I won't say there's no turn anywhere that isn't as dangerous as
you claim. I will say that I've never found a turn where a motorist
wouldn't see me in plenty of time, either by virtue of me being far
enough out in the lane (for a right turn here in the US) or by virtue
of me being over a full lane width away from any visual obstructions
on the left (by virtue of the pavement of the opposing lane).

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 14, 1:09*am, 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.

Are you talking about fatalities among cyclists who are riding in
daytime? Or are you talking about fatalities among cyclists riding at
night with proper lights (including, as I do, with a taillight)? Or
are you including the cyclists killed while riding non-urban roads at
night with no proper lights or reflectors? And how are you counting
those killed at night where lights or reflectors are not included one
way or other in the accident report?

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

Well, since a) I'm sure the great unlit (and often inebriated) masses
are included in those counts, and b) even if they were not, the "one
quarter" would mean a minimum of 35 million miles ridden, on average,
between those sorts of fatalities, it doesn't change my opinion at
all. I don't expect to get anywhere near 35 million miles before I
die of other causes.

But how about you? In a previous post, you pointed out that you were
largely agreeing with me. Remember? You said "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."

Are we in agreement yet again? I hope so!

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/14/2010 12:09 AM, RobertH Who? wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:03 pm, Frank 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.

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

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.

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

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.

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

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

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

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

On 12/14/2010 6:02 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
wrote in message
...
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:29 pm, wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 3:49 pm, wrote:

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?

That's easy. A "too close" pass is never fatal. It can't be "too
close" unless it is completed. It's the "incomplete passes" that
create problems.
DR

The only exception is when a "too close" pass causes the cyclist to
panic, wobble, loose control and crash. The air currents associated
with large fast moving vehicles are sometimes enough to cause problems,
even to more experienced cyclists who do not panic just because of a
close call.

Agreed. I was being a bit facetious.

I could tell.

And one of my personal "too close" experiences involved taking the
passenger side extended mirror of a pickup truck against the back of
my arm. I was climbing at probably 10ish mph and the truck was
probably doing the speed limit or better - 60ish mph. I was very
thankful that the encounter was not any closer than it was.

Indeed, too close for comfort.

On occasion they've nipped passed too close in traffic, and I catch them
at the next set of lights, a good whack on the roof of their cage with the
flat of your hand sends a clear message to them. Often they look
dumbfounded as they don't know what they did wrong to deserve a wake up
call.

You need to be careful with that. A cyclist here did that and was
nearly beaten to death. You don't know who's in the car or what they
are carrying.
http://westislandgazette.com/news/police/16340


Shoot first, ask questions later, claim self-defense.

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

On Dec 13, 3:29 pm, James wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 13, 3:49 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.

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?

That's easy. A "too close" pass is never fatal. It can't be "too
close" unless it is completed. It's the "incomplete passes" that
create problems.
DR

The only exception is when a "too close" pass causes the cyclist to
panic, wobble, loose control and crash. The air currents associated
with large fast moving vehicles are sometimes enough to cause problems,
even to more experienced cyclists who do not panic just because of a
close call.


I used to run two taillights - a fixed PB 5-LED rack mount, and a PB
Superflash on my messenger bag (you can even wag it around there :-)
but then I got to thjinking that cars were passing closer (I believe
in the phenomenon of target fixation), so I stopped running the
Superflash, but man, I sure was visible at night that way.

On 12/14/2010 5:05 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Hate on this! http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm
Hardly a fat old man, although I might take issue with the style
choice, particularly today in a rain and wind storm. -- Jay Beattie.

You do not like the color of my socks?

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

On Dec 14, 5:59 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/14/2010 12:09 AM, RobertH Who? wrote: On Dec 13, 9:03 pm, Frank 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.

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

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.

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

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.

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

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

D A N G E R !

D A N G E R !

If you say so.