A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 10th 13, 01:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John White[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/op...o-kill-cyclist
s.html?pagewanted=all
Ads
  #2  
Old November 10th 13, 01:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 7:29:55 PM UTC-5, John White wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/op...o-kill-cyclist

s.html?pagewanted=all


Interesting.

I liked this part near the end:"So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect."

There are many, many bicyclist who will refuse to follow the rules of the road whilst bicycling in traffic. That can be a recipe for disaster.

Cheers
  #3  
Old November 10th 13, 02:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 7:29:55 PM UTC-5, John White wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/op...o-kill-cyclist

s.html?pagewanted=all


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html?pagewanted=all


Interesting.

I liked this part near the end:"So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect."


The guy sticks to riding an exer-cycle in his basement. Pardon me while
I regard his credibility accordingly.

There are many, many bicyclist who will refuse to follow the rules of the road whilst bicycling in traffic.


No one ever has or ever will follow every rule. Deal with it.

That can be a recipe for disaster.


From the book, Recipes For Disaster:

"There are hundreds of ways to make a bicycle into a record player, just
as there are hundreds of items that can be turned into record players."

So what.
  #4  
Old November 10th 13, 05:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 8:59:41 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:
Sir Ridesalot writes:



On Saturday, November 9, 2013 7:29:55 PM UTC-5, John White wrote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/op...o-kill-cyclist




s.html?pagewanted=all




http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html?pagewanted=all





Interesting.




I liked this part near the end:"So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect."






The guy sticks to riding an exer-cycle in his basement. Pardon me while

I regard his credibility accordingly.



There are many, many bicyclist who will refuse to follow the rules of the road whilst bicycling in traffic.






No one ever has or ever will follow every rule. Deal with it.



That can be a recipe for disaster.






From the book, Recipes For Disaster:



"There are hundreds of ways to make a bicycle into a record player, just

as there are hundreds of items that can be turned into record players."



So what.


Bicyclist rides the wrong way down a one-way street. Same bicyclist travels onto a busy multi-lane road without checkng, slowing or stopping for approaching traffic. Another bicyclists doesn't see the wrong-way idiot because of a building that creates a blind intersection and thus hits the wrong-way bicyclist. Ironically it's the bicyclist with the right of way that suffers the most damage tohis gorgeous Mariposa frame. Wrong way bicyclist hightails it elsewhere before the right of way bicyclist can get to him. THAT is only one reason I hate bicycle scofflaws who ride contrary to the rules of the road in traffic.

Cheers
  #5  
Old November 10th 13, 05:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Stephen Bauman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

The problem with forcing all cyclists to obey all traffic laws is that
these laws were designed to discourage all but motor vehicles from using
public roads. Moreover, road standards are designed for motor vehicles at
the expense of cyclists and pedestrians.

The current traffic laws were first enacted in the 1920's. They did not
apply to cyclists. The problem these laws addressed was moving motor
vehicles in urban areas - not safety. Motor vehicle drivers could not
negotiate rights of way among themselves unlike slower moving horse drawn
vehicles. The result was massive traffic jams and a decrease in overall
travel speed from the horse and buggy days. Roads were widened, sidewalks
narrowed and traffic lights installed. They did not help much to increase
overall travel speed.

The current cycling surge is not unique. There have been surges every 15
or twenty years throughout the 20th century. There was such a surge
during the 1930's, driven in part by the Great Depression. This increased
presence of bicycles on the public roads was seized upon by motorists as
the reason they were still stuck in traffic jams. There were rants
against lawless cyclists, even though there were no traffic laws to which
they were subject.

The government's response was twofold. Exclusive recreational bike paths
were created for the first time since the sidepath movement of the 1890's
Most were funded by the WPA. The second response was to include cyclists
into the traffic laws. New York State cyclists were first included in its
traffic laws in 1937. Like most places they were accorded the least
desirable road space - as far to the right as practicable.

While traffic laws now included cyclists, road design standards continued
to ignore cyclists. One case in point are traffic signals. Their
placement and timing is dictated by the Federal Highway Administration's
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

The placement is 15 to 20 feet above the roadway at a certain distance
behind the stop line. This assures that the signal will be visible from a
far distance. It also insures that the traffic signal will leave the
driver or cyclist's field of vision before he reaches the signal.

The signal transition is a yellow aspect followed by a red guard interval
(all sides red) followed by the other direction having a green aspect.

The yellow aspect's duration is determined by a motor vehicles safe
stopping time. The greater the legal speed, the greater the yellow aspect
duration.

The red guard interval should be designed so that anyone approaching and
not seeing the green to yellow transition (the light no longer being in
the field of vision) will clear the intersection before the cross traffic
has a green aspect.

However, the red clearance interval is still set for motor vehicle speeds
not bicycle speeds. The red clearance interval is set so that a motor
vehicle traveling at 40 mph will just clear the intersection; a bicycle
traveling at 10 mph will get caught in the middle. Obviously, cyclists
routinely disobey traffic signals :=) N.B. there have been articles about
cyclists disobeying traffic signals, since the 1930's.

  #6  
Old November 10th 13, 06:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Wes Groleau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 555
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On 11-09-2013, 23:53, Stephen Bauman wrote:
The problem with forcing all cyclists to obey all traffic laws is that
these laws were designed to discourage all but motor vehicles from using


Hogwash

public roads. Moreover, road standards are designed for motor vehicles at
the expense of cyclists and pedestrians.


Partly true


--
Wes Groleau

Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html

  #7  
Old November 10th 13, 06:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 11:53:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
The problem with forcing all cyclists to obey all traffic laws is that
these laws were designed to discourage all but motor vehicles from using
public roads. Moreover, road standards are designed for motor vehicles at
the expense of cyclists and pedestrians.

The current traffic laws were first enacted in the 1920's. They did not
apply to cyclists.


Wikipedia claims "The New York State Legislature took the first step toward resolving the conflict, with the passage in 1887 of "An Act in Relation to the Use of Bicycles and Tricycles." This statute established for the first time that bicycles are "carriages," and that cyclists are "entitled to the same rights and subject to the same restrictions" as drivers of carriages.[New York Law 1887, Chapter 704, An Act in Relation to the Use of Bicycles and Tricycles]"

Given that the first big push for traffic laws was by William Eno in 1903 in New York City, wouldnt those laws must have applied to cyclists?

New York State cyclists were first included in its
traffic laws in 1937. Like most places they were accorded the least
desirable road space - as far to the right as practicable.


Perhaps what you mean is 1937 was when bikes were first specifically mentioned in law. But that's not necessarily when vehicular laws first applied to cyclists.

While traffic laws now included cyclists, road design standards continued
to ignore cyclists. One case in point are traffic signals. Their
placement and timing is dictated by the Federal Highway Administration's
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

The placement is 15 to 20 feet above the roadway at a certain distance
behind the stop line. This assures that the signal will be visible from a
far distance. It also insures that the traffic signal will leave the
driver or cyclist's field of vision before he reaches the signal.


I suppose that may be true in some areas, but in almost every place I've ridden, the traffic signals have been easily visible when I've been stopped at the light.

I do very well following the normal vehicular traffic laws. While I think there's room for improvement, I think that ordinary roads and traffic laws serve us very well.

- Frank Krygowski
  #8  
Old November 10th 13, 08:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 8:59:41 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:
Sir Ridesalot writes:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 7:29:55 PM UTC-5, John White wrote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/op...o-kill-cyclist




s.html?pagewanted=all


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html?pagewanted=all

Interesting.

I liked this part near the end:"So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect."


The guy sticks to riding an exer-cycle in his basement. Pardon me while
I regard his credibility accordingly.

There are many, many bicyclist who will refuse to follow the rules of the road whilst bicycling in traffic.


No one ever has or ever will follow every rule. Deal with it.

That can be a recipe for disaster.


From the book, Recipes For Disaster:

"There are hundreds of ways to make a bicycle into a record player, just
as there are hundreds of items that can be turned into record players."

So what.


Bicyclist rides the wrong way down a one-way street. Same bicyclist travels onto a busy multi-lane road without checkng, slowing or stopping for approaching traffic. Another bicyclists doesn't see the wrong-way idiot because of a building that creates a blind intersection and thus hits the wrong-way bicyclist. Ironically it's the bicyclist with the right of way that suffers the most damage tohis gorgeous Mariposa frame. Wrong way bicyclist hightails it elsewhere before the right of way bicyclist can get to him. THAT is only one reason I hate bicycle scofflaws who ride contrary to the rules of the road in traffic.

Cheers


You're going to hate this, too, but riding into any situation
blindly assumes the risk.

I'm not saying you weren't wronged, but does it make any sense
to blame *me*?
  #9  
Old November 10th 13, 12:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 21:59:02 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 11:53:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
The problem with forcing all cyclists to obey all traffic laws is that
these laws were designed to discourage all but motor vehicles from using
public roads. Moreover, road standards are designed for motor vehicles at
the expense of cyclists and pedestrians.

The current traffic laws were first enacted in the 1920's. They did not
apply to cyclists.


Wikipedia claims "The New York State Legislature took the first step toward resolving the conflict, with the passage in 1887 of "An Act in Relation to the Use of Bicycles and Tricycles." This statute established for the first time that bicycles are "carriages," and that cyclists are "entitled to the same rights and subject to the same restrictions" as drivers of carriages.[New York Law 1887, Chapter 704, An Act in Relation to the Use of Bicycles and Tricycles]"

Given that the first big push for traffic laws was by William Eno in 1903 in New York City, wouldnt those laws must have applied to cyclists?

New York State cyclists were first included in its
traffic laws in 1937. Like most places they were accorded the least
desirable road space - as far to the right as practicable.


Perhaps what you mean is 1937 was when bikes were first specifically mentioned in law. But that's not necessarily when vehicular laws first applied to cyclists.

While traffic laws now included cyclists, road design standards continued
to ignore cyclists. One case in point are traffic signals. Their
placement and timing is dictated by the Federal Highway Administration's
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

The placement is 15 to 20 feet above the roadway at a certain distance
behind the stop line. This assures that the signal will be visible from a
far distance. It also insures that the traffic signal will leave the
driver or cyclist's field of vision before he reaches the signal.


I suppose that may be true in some areas, but in almost every place I've ridden, the traffic signals have been easily visible when I've been stopped at the light.

I do very well following the normal vehicular traffic laws. While I think there's room for improvement, I think that ordinary roads and traffic laws serve us very well.

- Frank Krygowski


Now that you mention it, I can't ever remember a traffic light that I
couldn't see from a bicycle seat :-)

But the rant sounds a lot like the truck driver that turned right and
killed the lady cyclist... "I didn't see her".
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #10  
Old November 10th 13, 12:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 17:59:41 -0800, Dan
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 7:29:55 PM UTC-5, John White wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/op...o-kill-cyclist

s.html?pagewanted=all


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html?pagewanted=all


Interesting.

I liked this part near the end:"So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect."


The guy sticks to riding an exer-cycle in his basement. Pardon me while
I regard his credibility accordingly.

There are many, many bicyclist who will refuse to follow the rules of the road whilst bicycling in traffic.


No one ever has or ever will follow every rule. Deal with it.

That can be a recipe for disaster.


From the book, Recipes For Disaster:

"There are hundreds of ways to make a bicycle into a record player, just
as there are hundreds of items that can be turned into record players."

So what.


Naw Dan, the guy had all his mates killed in them there cycle crashes
and is scared to death.

and it was a Sunday, a known slow news day, and he had to gin up a
thousand words on something for the editor.
--
Cheers,

John B.
 




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
NY Times Cycling Article Bret Racing 1 March 20th 09 05:24 AM
Cycling article in todays Irish Times VinDevo UK 0 August 28th 08 02:09 PM
Sunday Times article on cycling safety. Garry from Cork UK 26 March 1st 08 01:40 PM
Another Times article about cycling and trains wafflycat UK 2 April 24th 06 02:48 PM
Times article on cycling 20p per mile dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers UK 15 January 28th 04 05:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.