A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AG: Aunt Granny's Advice, or How to become an elderly cyclist:



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #771  
Old February 6th 18, 05:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
JQ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default AG: Dead Right

On 2/5/2018 9:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:50:34 -0500, JQ wrote:

On 2/5/2018 11:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/4/2018 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
Of course, to put a different slant on the story it is equally
accurate to state that the average poster here is incompetent to
discuss the legal system and its derivatives as used in the U.S. and
its various states. Witness how many times when a bicycle and an auto
come in violent contact the cry "Off with his head echoes through the
realm. If one attempts to interject a little reality, like, "is there
any evidence what took place? Any witnesses? Can a case be made? There
is an immediate outcry, generally in the vein of "bicycle got hit it
must be the auto's fault. No other possibility exists.

...
The interesting thing is that although the cyclist is often found to
be at fault - breaking traffic rules, drunk, etc., no one seems to
admit that it is very possible that the major problem with the
question of bicycle safety is the people that ride them. Nope, we
argue that all we have to do is build another MUP and everybody will
be safe as safe can be.

Reality is a terrible thing to have to face.
"Paint & Path" advocates are skilled at _not_ facing reality.

But regarding the "off with his head" cries about motorists that kill
or seriously injure bicyclists: I think the most common complaint is
that the current U.S. system absolves drivers far, far too easily.
There are countless examples of drivers who merely say "I didn't see
the bicyclist" and thereby let off the hook. If a cyclist had legal
equipment (IOW, legal lights and reflectors at night; you shouldn't
need anything special to ride in daylight) then that statement should
be taken as an confession of guilt. When you drive, it's your JOB to
see where you're going; and that's true even if it's dark, if the sun
is too bright, if it's foggy - whatever.

And it's not only "I didn't see him."Â* No matter the details of a
car-bike crash, the default assumption is that the motorist is a fine
person who just made a mistake. Unless he was drunk, drugged or 20 mph
over the speed limit, even if convicted the motorist who kills a
cyclist or pedestrian will pay just a couple hundred dollars and do
some community service. That's wrong, in my view.

I'm in favor of changing the default assumptions. Let's assume that
the person operating the obviously more deadly piece of machinery must
exercise as much care as, say, a person carrying a loaded AR-15 into a
shopping mall. Or an operator of a fork lift or an overhead crane in a
busy factory. If one of those people hurts someone, the assumption is
that _they_ screwed up. Their license was supposed to demonstrate
sufficient training, and their training was supposed to prevent
hurting an innocent victim, even if the victim made a mistake.

If a bicyclist truly did something unavoidable - say, riding no-lights
facing traffic on a dark night, or blasting through a stop sign
directly in front of a moving car - then the motorist should be
allowed to defend himself. But in other cases - "I didn't see him" or
"He swerved in front of me" - the motorist should be assumed guilty.

And I'm not asking for prison time. But I firmly believe those
motorists should never, ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle
again. Legally, perhaps make that a condition of their parole. And if
they are found to violate that parole condition, then yes, they do go
to prison.

- Frank Krygowski

That will never happen, in the USA it's all about making money... if a
driver loses his license he is not able to pay taxes and will go on
public assistance taking money out of the system. I was hit 2 years ago
and nearly killed, was in hospital for 9 weeks. I was legally riding on
the shoulder of the road. I had front and rear very bright blinking
lights and wearing very visible clothing. The driver was the middle car
of 5 riding the shoulder. The only thing that happened to him was a $169
ticket for not staying in lane. Damage to his car from hitting me was
covered... I have $750,000.00 plus medical bills and rising. Plus I
haven't been able to work unless you consider $10.00 per hour job
substitute teaching for the localÂ* school system when I am up to it. I
am very blessed to be alive so I make the best of it and have made great
improvements to get back to as normal as possible. All this to say, I am
but one of millions of cyclist that have been hit and the laws has not
changed to our favor when hit and it never will. We ride at our own risk
whether it is on the road or off road, the best we can do is limit our
exposure as much as possible and ride with joy in our hearts and a smile
on our face!
One more note if the driver was forced to pay "all" our
medical bills, losses caused by the accident and financial support as
needed the driver would be much more careful. As it is now insurance
only pays so much then you are left on your own for the rest and the car
driver is let off free except for the minor traffic violation.


I described, in another post, how the system works in Thailand where,
in simple terms, the largest vehicle is deemed, subject to evidence to
the contrary, to be at fault and responsible for all costs.

It certainly makes a difference in how traffic acts here :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Sort of like my last sentence, the more financial responsibility larger
vehicle has the more careful they will be.

--
Ride fast, ride hard, ride for health and enjoyment... Coach JQ Dancing
on the edge

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Ads
  #772  
Old February 7th 18, 02:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default AG: Dead Right

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 00:21:01 -0500, JQ wrote:

On 2/5/2018 9:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:50:34 -0500, JQ wrote:

On 2/5/2018 11:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/4/2018 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
Of course, to put a different slant on the story it is equally
accurate to state that the average poster here is incompetent to
discuss the legal system and its derivatives as used in the U.S. and
its various states. Witness how many times when a bicycle and an auto
come in violent contact the cry "Off with his head echoes through the
realm. If one attempts to interject a little reality, like, "is there
any evidence what took place? Any witnesses? Can a case be made? There
is an immediate outcry, generally in the vein of "bicycle got hit it
must be the auto's fault. No other possibility exists.

...
The interesting thing is that although the cyclist is often found to
be at fault - breaking traffic rules, drunk, etc., no one seems to
admit that it is very possible that the major problem with the
question of bicycle safety is the people that ride them. Nope, we
argue that all we have to do is build another MUP and everybody will
be safe as safe can be.

Reality is a terrible thing to have to face.
"Paint & Path" advocates are skilled at _not_ facing reality.

But regarding the "off with his head" cries about motorists that kill
or seriously injure bicyclists: I think the most common complaint is
that the current U.S. system absolves drivers far, far too easily.
There are countless examples of drivers who merely say "I didn't see
the bicyclist" and thereby let off the hook. If a cyclist had legal
equipment (IOW, legal lights and reflectors at night; you shouldn't
need anything special to ride in daylight) then that statement should
be taken as an confession of guilt. When you drive, it's your JOB to
see where you're going; and that's true even if it's dark, if the sun
is too bright, if it's foggy - whatever.

And it's not only "I didn't see him."* No matter the details of a
car-bike crash, the default assumption is that the motorist is a fine
person who just made a mistake. Unless he was drunk, drugged or 20 mph
over the speed limit, even if convicted the motorist who kills a
cyclist or pedestrian will pay just a couple hundred dollars and do
some community service. That's wrong, in my view.

I'm in favor of changing the default assumptions. Let's assume that
the person operating the obviously more deadly piece of machinery must
exercise as much care as, say, a person carrying a loaded AR-15 into a
shopping mall. Or an operator of a fork lift or an overhead crane in a
busy factory. If one of those people hurts someone, the assumption is
that _they_ screwed up. Their license was supposed to demonstrate
sufficient training, and their training was supposed to prevent
hurting an innocent victim, even if the victim made a mistake.

If a bicyclist truly did something unavoidable - say, riding no-lights
facing traffic on a dark night, or blasting through a stop sign
directly in front of a moving car - then the motorist should be
allowed to defend himself. But in other cases - "I didn't see him" or
"He swerved in front of me" - the motorist should be assumed guilty.

And I'm not asking for prison time. But I firmly believe those
motorists should never, ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle
again. Legally, perhaps make that a condition of their parole. And if
they are found to violate that parole condition, then yes, they do go
to prison.

- Frank Krygowski
That will never happen, in the USA it's all about making money... if a
driver loses his license he is not able to pay taxes and will go on
public assistance taking money out of the system. I was hit 2 years ago
and nearly killed, was in hospital for 9 weeks. I was legally riding on
the shoulder of the road. I had front and rear very bright blinking
lights and wearing very visible clothing. The driver was the middle car
of 5 riding the shoulder. The only thing that happened to him was a $169
ticket for not staying in lane. Damage to his car from hitting me was
covered... I have $750,000.00 plus medical bills and rising. Plus I
haven't been able to work unless you consider $10.00 per hour job
substitute teaching for the local* school system when I am up to it. I
am very blessed to be alive so I make the best of it and have made great
improvements to get back to as normal as possible. All this to say, I am
but one of millions of cyclist that have been hit and the laws has not
changed to our favor when hit and it never will. We ride at our own risk
whether it is on the road or off road, the best we can do is limit our
exposure as much as possible and ride with joy in our hearts and a smile
on our face!
One more note if the driver was forced to pay "all" our
medical bills, losses caused by the accident and financial support as
needed the driver would be much more careful. As it is now insurance
only pays so much then you are left on your own for the rest and the car
driver is let off free except for the minor traffic violation.


I described, in another post, how the system works in Thailand where,
in simple terms, the largest vehicle is deemed, subject to evidence to
the contrary, to be at fault and responsible for all costs.

It certainly makes a difference in how traffic acts here :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Sort of like my last sentence, the more financial responsibility larger
vehicle has the more careful they will be.


It certainly seems to work that way here. But then if the individual
is liable to an immediate and severe penalty it does seem to attract
his/her attention :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #773  
Old February 7th 18, 06:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Ivan Shmakov
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default AG: Dead Right

Frank Krygowski writes:

[...]

But there are complications. Rather frequently, I encounter people
who have deluded ideas about dangers. On one hand, the people Joy is
addressing have no idea that they are putting themselves at risk.


On the other hand, and ever more common, there are people who imagine
that certain safe or even beneficial activities are dangerous. Those
people will (for example) never ride a bicycle at all, because they
think bicycling is very, very dangerous. As a consequence, they are
much more likely to die of a variety of ailments triggered by being
sedentary.


Now that the routes I usually follow are either covered with ice
or buried under snow, I'm not going to consider bicycling "safe,"
either.

I don't think I'm going to get anything due to "being sedentary,"
though: I walk 15 minutes every workday to get to job and the
same amount of time to get back, and I walk a few floors up and
down regularly while there. (Both for necessity and health.)

(Refusing to ride without a magic plastic hat is a variation on this
theme.)


Why, that hat saved my head from a lot of bruises I'd otherwise
have got from all the low-hanging branches I've encountered
while riding through local forests.

I've come across a man - educated, recently elected judge - who said
he would never walk in a forest while wearing earplugs, because there
is such a high risk of a tree falling on a person. (Seriously!)


Yep; it was the last summer (or the summer before that) when a
Scots pine broke due to strong wind a few meters from me.
Thankfully, it fell pretty much the opposite direction to what
I've been standing at.

But what I'm really not going to do while wearing earplugs is
crossing a road.

[...]

There are countless people who will never fly in a commercial
airline.


As someone who took a commercial flight recently (the previous
one I had was one to Moscow, from where I got to Leningrad
by train), I can attest that knowing that you're safe /and/
convincing your own subconscious of the same are in fact two
vastly different things.

Thinking rationally helps, but only that much. And, of course,
knowing your weaknesses is a prerequisite for mitigating, if not
overcoming, them.

(Thankfully, I had mind to order train tickets for my trip back
home. I had no such option for getting to the site due to time
constraints.)

And on the third hand, there are the clueless who's deluded
self-preservation leads them to do things that put them at much, much
greater risk. Every wrong-way bicyclist is convinced that he's far
safer than those riding properly. The same is true for sidewalk
riders, despite copious research proving them wrong.


Care to suggest any? As a long-time sidewalk rider (which is,
to the best of my knowledge, entirely legal in my jurisdiction)
I'm rather curious about that.

[...]

--
FSF associate member #7257 np. Absolution; Winterglade -- Makkon
  #774  
Old February 8th 18, 01:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,038
Default AG: Dead Right

On 2/7/2018 1:42 PM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


[...]

But there are complications. Rather frequently, I encounter people
who have deluded ideas about dangers. On one hand, the people Joy is
addressing have no idea that they are putting themselves at risk.


On the other hand, and ever more common, there are people who imagine
that certain safe or even beneficial activities are dangerous. Those
people will (for example) never ride a bicycle at all, because they
think bicycling is very, very dangerous. As a consequence, they are
much more likely to die of a variety of ailments triggered by being
sedentary.


Now that the routes I usually follow are either covered with ice
or buried under snow, I'm not going to consider bicycling "safe,"
either.

I don't think I'm going to get anything due to "being sedentary,"
though: I walk 15 minutes every workday to get to job and the
same amount of time to get back, and I walk a few floors up and
down regularly while there. (Both for necessity and health.)

(Refusing to ride without a magic plastic hat is a variation on this
theme.)


Why, that hat saved my head from a lot of bruises I'd otherwise
have got from all the low-hanging branches I've encountered
while riding through local forests.


The magic plastic hat may make sense if you're mountain biking. For one
thing, you're much more likely to encounter a branch low enough to whack
your head. For another thing, the impact from such a branch - unlike an
impact from a car - will likely be within the tiny protective capacity
of the styrofoam.

However, there's also the strong possibility that without the hat you
might actually watch for low branches and ride in a way that avoids head
impacts. That's what I do in our local forest preserve.

I've come across a man - educated, recently elected judge - who said
he would never walk in a forest while wearing earplugs, because there
is such a high risk of a tree falling on a person. (Seriously!)


Yep; it was the last summer (or the summer before that) when a
Scots pine broke due to strong wind a few meters from me.
Thankfully, it fell pretty much the opposite direction to what
I've been standing at.


Yes, good example. "I saw a tree fall. Trees are SO DANGEROUS!"

In the entire U.S., in an average year, there are roughly six people
killed by trees falling, not counting those who die because the car they
are driving runs into a tree fallen across the road.

Trees falling is NOT a common cause of death or serious injury.

And on the third hand, there are the clueless who's deluded
self-preservation leads them to do things that put them at much, much
greater risk. Every wrong-way bicyclist is convinced that he's far
safer than those riding properly. The same is true for sidewalk
riders, despite copious research proving them wrong.


Care to suggest any? As a long-time sidewalk rider (which is,
to the best of my knowledge, entirely legal in my jurisdiction)
I'm rather curious about that.


I just googled "risks of sidewalk riding." Here are the first few hits:

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/faci.../sidecrash.htm

https://onelesscar.wordpress.com/200...oad-bicycling/

http://mobikefed.org/2016/08/bicycli...ot-recommended

https://bikeleague.org/content/riding-sidewalk

We can discuss this. Note that I'm not saying one should never ride a
sidewalk. (There are two short sections I ride quite frequently.) But on
average, it's much more risky, and if a person is going to do it, there
are unusual hazards one should learn about.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #775  
Old February 11th 18, 02:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,122
Default AG: I can't twitch my tail


I can't do what a cat does because I don't have the same body parts,
but a stiff old lady can learn quite a lot about mounting a bicycle by
watching a cat preparing to leap.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

  #776  
Old February 11th 18, 06:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default AG: I can't twitch my tail

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:11:15 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


I can't do what a cat does because I don't have the same body parts,
but a stiff old lady can learn quite a lot about mounting a bicycle by
watching a cat preparing to leap.


A cat can leap higher then it's body length. And how high did you set
your saddle :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #777  
Old February 14th 18, 11:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
saneearth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default AG: Dead Right

On 2018-02-04 14:49:25 +0000, Frank Krygowski said:

I've come across a man - educated, recently elected judge - who said he
would never walk in a forest while wearing earplugs, because there is
such a high risk of a tree falling on a person. (Seriously!)


If a tree falls in the woods and you don't hear it, did it really fall?
Can it kill you?

  #778  
Old February 18th 18, 01:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,122
Default AG: Clear roads and I didn't ride today


I'm a real cut-up when I help set up for a church dinner: chopping
vegetables is something that I can do sitting down.

And I found a very good chopping knife in the unlabeled drawer.

(I have a considerate form of arthritis: I can do anything except
stand still.)

I'll probably be charged with slicing cakes and pies tomorrow. The
chairman is afraid that nobody will bring dessert and is baking
brownies. There has always been an excess of desserts, but apparently
she had a traumatic experience at a meal that I missed.

We're serving spaghetti in red sauce with meatballs on the side (in
case of vegetarians) and a tossed salad; that's an ample meal in my
opinion, and we don't need side dishes. (But bringing a "side dish"
is a good way for a diabetic to bring something that's on his diet
without making a show of it.)

I got to the church half an hour early, but forgot to run up and down
the staircases to make up for being shut in for weeks on end. I did
walk down Ninth Street, which is a staircase, on the way home. I hope
I don't forget again tomorrow.

It's snowing now, so it's back to wearing boots and carrying a cane.
And I don't want to carry my shoes in the bum bag, because I left a
knapsack full of fruit cake in the freezer and have to bring it back.
There's a shoulder bag that would fold to fit the outer pocket of the
knapsack, but I'm not sure the shoes would fit in with it. Perhaps my
best bet is to wear jeans so that I can tie a disposable plastic bag
to my belt.

Weather Underground says (runs off to re-re-re-...check) rain until
Thursday. (Of course, it says "rain" right now, and it's mighty white
out there.) (Wait, there's a pink fleck on the chart about dawn on
Sunday. The snow is only a few hours early.) And some snow in the
night between Wednesday and Thursday. Hmm . . . Wednesday is "AM
showers, and the chart shows them ending just when I'd finish
dressing. But it isn't going to be warm enough that I could risk
getting wet . . .

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/


  #779  
Old February 23rd 18, 12:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,122
Default AG: Clear roads and I didn't ride today


Weather Underground says that Monday will be sunny and warm with no
rain, a perfect day to ride to Walmart: finally an increase in
mileage!

But at the moment, Sunset Drive and Arthur Street are under Pike Lake.
Detroit street is not a reasonable alternative.

Under the bridge on Sunset, Lones Ditch is wider and deeper than Eagle
Creek, and it runs briskly even when it isn't flooding -- but can it
drain Pike Lake fast enough?

When it's going to rain again tonight, and half an inch on Saturday?

I could go the way I'm planning to come back, but that would mean no
frozen beef, and might be too much increase in mileage.

Stay tuned.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
  #780  
Old February 24th 18, 04:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,122
Default AG: Clear roads and I didn't ride today


Bummer. Today's paper says the Tippy isn't going to crest until
Monday -- and I've told the piano tuner he can come on Tuesday.

On the bright side, on the second page it said that Pike Lake had
receded "slightly".

But Satellite View strongly suggests that it's mighty flat out where
Lones Ditch meets the Tippy.

And I still want to know why the Tippy detours around Hidden lake. If
it were round, I'd think it was an astrobleme.

Maybe I'll feel up to coming back by Fox Farm. And I'm planning to do
the whole ride in walking shoes, so Silveus Crossing isn't out of the
question.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speeding cyclist mows down elderly jogger Mrcheerful UK 10 February 13th 14 10:43 PM
Cyclist:0 Disabled granny:1 Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 1 June 13th 13 09:15 PM
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement John Benn UK 25 August 19th 12 09:33 AM
cyclist says injured granny should not be on pavement! Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 5 June 13th 10 07:37 PM
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton [email protected] UK 167 February 1st 09 10:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.