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

Ouch. This happened to me once



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 20th 18, 03:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,137
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:

It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on
a big
truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these
videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU

a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by
a truck in that configuration.

b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly.

Duh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU


Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so
drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then.

So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck
mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the
windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense.


Can you please read more carefully? That is not what I said. Read the
thread again, I am not going to repeat it over and over again.


And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so
ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and
killed the cyclist.


That would be a serious truck driver mistake. Those things shouldn't
happen but do, just like people blowing a red light. I had that a
while ago while on the bicycle. Luckily I always look left and right
even if I had green for a while. Might have saved my life.


Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have
established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver.

But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the
cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this
collision
type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in
London
a couple years ago.


A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That
cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible
turn signal yet he ignored it.

You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
many, many cyclists do NOT know that.



Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic.


But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to
teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic.



Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"? My parents tought me that stuff. They taught us just
about everything traffic, how to behave as a pedestrian, later as a
cyclist, and many years later dad took us to a technical parcours in
order to master a car in crtical situations. Like when things get
slippery. Drivers ed classes don't teach you that, dad did. And that's
how society is supposed to be.


... Instead, the
major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
facilities and all will be beautiful.


Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.


But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
"Surprise!!" direction or location.


I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you
ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and
some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians
adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are
very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not.


Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just
the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car
doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them
and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways.

And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are
increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to
reduce 5%. It's nuts.


Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed.


Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even
barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high
vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed
within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc.
And all because "If we build it they will come."


If built correctly they do come.


I remain astonished that public policy is being driven by a feel-good
movie.


It's usually being driven by voter appeasement, wanton disregard of
debt, cronyism, and sometimes worse.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #22  
Old February 20th 18, 05:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,095
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:54:03 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:

It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on
a big
truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these
videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU

a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by
a truck in that configuration.

b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly.

Duh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU


Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so
drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then.

So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck
mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the
windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense..


Can you please read more carefully? That is not what I said. Read the
thread again, I am not going to repeat it over and over again.


And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so
ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and
killed the cyclist.


That would be a serious truck driver mistake. Those things shouldn't
happen but do, just like people blowing a red light. I had that a
while ago while on the bicycle. Luckily I always look left and right
even if I had green for a while. Might have saved my life.


Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have
established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver.

But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the
cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this
collision
type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in
London
a couple years ago.


A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That
cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible
turn signal yet he ignored it.

You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
many, many cyclists do NOT know that.


Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic.


But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to
teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic.



Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"? My parents tought me that stuff. They taught us just
about everything traffic, how to behave as a pedestrian, later as a
cyclist, and many years later dad took us to a technical parcours in
order to master a car in crtical situations. Like when things get
slippery. Drivers ed classes don't teach you that, dad did. And that's
how society is supposed to be.


And yet you're suggesting massive nanny-state spending on facilities. I don't get it. Is your daddy going to build facilities for you?

I look at this slightly differently than Frank. I would do more in driver training to instruct students on the obligation of motorists operating around bicyclists. Many do not understand the bike lane laws, passing laws, etc..

... Instead, the
major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
facilities and all will be beautiful.


Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.


You mean balance and go forward? I ride with people every day who don't have much in the way of skills or who are just as distracted as drivers -- earbuds plugged in or even talking on the phone. I passed a bicycle parking cop on a bike who was talking on a flip phone a couple of days ago. Incroyable.


But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
"Surprise!!" direction or location.


I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you
ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and
some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians
adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are
very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not.


Seriously, how many other cyclists do you encounter daily on your commute from the front room to the kitchen? Riding in a busy, multi-use facility with two-way cycle tracks, trains, buses, streetcars and pedestrians at rush-hour is not fun. This is where you say, but that is why I live in bucolic Cameron Park! We should build dirt trails through the cities! Right. We'll stipulate that everyone should live in the country and ride on dirt trails -- but they don't.

Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to point B. And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a percentage of the commute. I can take the dopey south waterfront cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride over to it. It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day!

-- Jay Beattie.

  #23  
Old February 20th 18, 05:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 3:42:20 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2018 3:34 PM, Andy wrote:
On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:32:40 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...shing-car.html

(I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen
delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Again a demonstration that the car always wins.


Always?
My employee blew a red light at high speed, fixed gear, and
smashed into the side of a car with his shoulder. He & bike
were fine but he was ticketed and had to pay the car owner's
body work bills.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


He ran a red light.

He's lucky to have escaped injury/or death.

Car won, cyclist lost.
  #24  
Old February 20th 18, 06:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,017
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:

You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
many, many cyclists do NOT know that.


Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic.


But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to
teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic.



Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"?


Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic?

We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction
manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not
instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?

We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational
campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance
to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why
should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting
cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better?

You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the
place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because
truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.




... Instead, the
major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
facilities and all will be beautiful.


Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.


Then either you ride with an unusual crew, or your standards are low. Based on
your posts here, I strongly suspect the latter.

"Knows how to ride" means a LOT more than "can balance, pedal, shift and brake."
In fact, the earliest version of the LAB's cycling classes started out with
a slide that said "balancing ain't biking." There's much to learn about legal
rights, where to ride in a lane, destination positioning, anticipating and
avoiding hazards, and much more.

I used to teach those classes. I never had a student who claimed they didn't
learn a lot.

But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
"Surprise!!" direction or location.


I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you
ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and
some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians
adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are
very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not.


OK, two points: First, I've been on bike trails (specifically, in Bismarck ND)
that had signs telling pedestrians to walk on the right and bicyclists to ride
on the left. That shows how weird your facilities can be.

But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way
cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will
enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look
good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067






Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just
the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car
doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them
and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways.

And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are
increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to
reduce 5%. It's nuts.


Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed.


"A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is:
http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm






Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even
barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high
vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed
within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc.
And all because "If we build it they will come."


If built correctly they do come.


That's merely your built-in excuse. You ask for facilities everywhere, claiming
they will tremendously increase cycling mode share. (All the way up to 2%!!!)

And when that hasn't happened, you claim "Well, they weren't built correctly."
As in Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, where the entire town was
designed with a completely separate and expensive bikeway network that is
almost entirely unused.

- Frank Krygowski
  #25  
Old February 20th 18, 07:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,137
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-19 15:14, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Frank Krygowski :
On 2/19/2018 1:42 PM, Joerg wrote:


Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the
right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the
driver.


Or so he believes. In fact, its just the oposite far too often. A
cyclist is stopped on a bicycle lane by a traffic sign or a red ligth at
an intersection, then a small or large truck catches up, waiting at a
point where eye contact is not even possible. Quite often, cyclists
_not passing_ but waiting on the right side of a truck have been killed,
because they followed that advise above. For the reason, see
http://www.bbsoft.de/imgProd/strasse...kurve_04_g.jpg
(ractrix curve?)


If the green is a bike lane or path that intersection design is
completely screwed up. I would never advise anyone to stay next to a
truck there. With my comment I meant cycling facilities designed by
competent traffic engineers, not by incompetent ones.


A few years ago, I documented a severe accident which happended a few
hundred meters from my house and my childrens school. It's in German,
but the pictures may illustrate the situation. It comments on an article
in my local newspaper, which was illustrated by the crushed bike under
double tires of a truck - frightening, but not very informative.

http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/hausdorffstr/index.html

"Truck overruns cyclist on bike path when turning right

When he turned right into August-Bier-Strasse, he caught a 34-year-old
cyclist who was traveling in the same direction on the Hausdorffstraße.
According to the police, the truck dragged the woman a few feet. The
34-year-old suffered severe injuries and was hospitalized after first
aid on the spot with a rescue truck."


So did anyone report in _detail_ _how_ these accidents started? What
precipitated them? Did the cyclists blindly trust their rights? Usually
there are tire marks and such when a cyclist hits the brakes hard. Were
there? How long? Speed? Et cetera, et cetera.

Sure, the motorist is nearly always at fault in such situations.
However, I have, especially in Germany, seen cyclists blow through
intersections at high speed without as much as even a slight head turn
to the left. One guy proudly posted a video in the German NG where
someone (might have been he himself) blew through a city at full speed.
Just watching it made me cringe.

[...]


In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor
vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American
bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in.


They generally don't. European ones sometimes do, they have to learn a
lot more. This is how it's done right:

https://goo.gl/maps/2spLh13Junn


It is not. I've cycled to and from work almost my entire professional
life. Indeed, it is often painted that way. Unfortunatly, it hasn't
worked, and it still doesn't work.


So tell us, _why_ does it not work? It works for cyclists in America.


Btw. I've never seen working road paintings which need additional fine
print on traffic signs on the sidewalk. "BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO
BIKES". In actuall fact, these are symptoms of a failing construct - too
much boilerplate necessary.


No, they alert drivers and they usually work.


Quite some years ago, on my way to work, such a construct allmost got me
killed, exactle here https://goo.gl/wHu6jE. In order to go to my
workplace, I had to turn left on that intersection, following the left
turn arrow on the road. It looks quite easy on the drawing board. Well,
if you turn around and look back, you will see two details. First, the
road has a slight curve. Second, its slightly rising. A third fact isnt
visible by streetview: on two of three day, a few cars are parked just
curve-upwards. In combination, it is very advisable to leave the bike
line early, before the curve and arrange to the left. Not doing so is
dangerous. Drivers of cars coming around the corder wil see you too
late, for example. As a principle, one tries to avoid changing lanes in
a curve, especially as a cyclist.


1. Go and measure the remaining width of the straight-ahead and
left-turn lane. Sans bike lane. Then you will realize that even a little
Isetta would have trouble getting through there without violating the
required space to cyclists. Now imagine a big van or truck with the
driver being in a hurry (like you were on the bike) barreling through there.

2. The left turn "bike lane" also reduce the left turn lane to way below
regulation width.

3. The left turn "bike lane" is way too short. Maybe they only have one
bicyclist in that town and figured it suffice for him or her.

4. They didn't even bother to write bike lane or a symbol on either bike
lane in the area leading up to this intersection. Has paint become so
expensive in Germany that it would have bankrupted the village?

5. If people come around that corner too fast there is a simple
solution: 40km/h speed limit or less. Or do you think it's ok if they
run over a kid that happens to be in the road? Or crash into the back
end of a traffic jam?

This is almost the classic case of gross incompetence on the part of
whoever designed this "solution" and those who signed off on it. If
people are too incompetent to get it done right or if it can't be done
correctly because of existing buildings then don't build a bicycle
facility at all.


Well, on a certain day, some driver, perhaps already angry because of
some earlier events, got angry when noticing a cyclist, as they say, in
the middle of the road, blocking traffic. So he started to overtake me
on the left turn lane, forcing me to the right, while intending to go
straight thru the intersection, as I learned later.

What could I do? I just slowed down, then turned left again, again
overtaking him on the left (to be precise, just following the marked
left turn lane, according to my route). What I didn't foresee was the
fact that this driver understood that innocent maneuver as an attempted
agression against him. So he struck back by ripping the stearing wheel
to the left, in an attempt to hit me side by side.


You've got such lowlifes everywhere. Unfortunately they keep their
driver license until something terrible happens. And even then they
sometimes keep it. Most people don't report such incidents and that
fuels their "success".


Whether it was sheer luck or skill, I don't know, somehow I dotched the
murderous attempt by making an almost instant left turn, as well.
Fortunately, there was no oncoming traffic.

Personally, I was neither angry nor frightened at that moment, just
puzzeled. We normally just don't have shootings in the schools.



Sure you do.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoklauf_von_Winnenden


... Almost
as rare are people who behave like that in traffic.



The amount of road rage I have seen on German autobahns is beyond
compare. I lived there a few decades.


... I can only assume
that road paintings like those blandished by Joerg generate false
assumptions and so trigger such behaviour in some people.


They don't. If a guy with road rage shows up nothing will stop him,
signs don't matter.


How did it end? The motorist fled the scene, another motorist stopped
behind me, got out of his car quickly, shouting something about him not
believing what he saw, then asking in a more quieter tone, whether I'd
like to have a witness, even offering his mobile phone to call the
police.

Unfortunately, I was already somewhat late for an important meeting at
the office, so I thanked the man for his offer and went my way.


Now that was a serious mistake. If you had a witness and the license
plate info then that meeting cannot possibly have been as important as
getting such a knucklehead off the road. Why did you not at least
exchange names and phone numbers with this witness and got in contact
later that day? That takes less than 15 seconds.



If you virtually move along that road you will see that the bike lane
switches to the middle, in this case even across two right-turn lanes. I
nearly always have to go straight ahead there and despite coming through
there during rush hour never had a problem.


Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on
_all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They
even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two
cities in Ohio that caved into those demands.


Have a look at the "Pützchens Chaussee" from the link above. This bike
lane is less than 1 m wide and has parking on both sides. Lots of it.


Exactly, and the lanes on the road in the intersection area are way to
small. An accident waiting to happen. Now look at my link again and you
will see that they did not make the mistakes I listed farther above.

It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after
having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can
rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of
the three groups. By far.


Fun fact: this road was a model project for bike lanes in Germany, there
was a scientific study which was input to what now is now called
"Schutzstreifen" in our StVO (Straßenverkehrsordnung), a lane which is
too small to meet even the minimal requirements to be used safely and
which is not mandatory - in theory. Of course, that study preceded the
building and expansion of residential areas left and right of that road.
There where almost no junctions, no driveways, no parking on the
sidewalks. Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denk (Honi soit qui mal y
pense.)


Sorry to say but that being a model project confirms my belief that bike
infrastructure planners and "infrastructure scientists" in Germany are
largely incompetent.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #26  
Old February 20th 18, 08:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,137
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-20 09:04, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:54:03 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:


[...]


Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless
I have established an acknowledged visual contact with
the driver.

But the bike lane sends a different message, as
interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many
other cyclists. Again, this collision type was
responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in
London a couple years ago.


A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding
style. That cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There
was a clearly visible turn signal yet he ignored it.

You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to
you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that.


Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic.

But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended
to teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic.



Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or
some "organization"? My parents tought me that stuff. They taught
us just about everything traffic, how to behave as a pedestrian,
later as a cyclist, and many years later dad took us to a technical
parcours in order to master a car in crtical situations. Like when
things get slippery. Drivers ed classes don't teach you that, dad
did. And that's how society is supposed to be.


And yet you're suggesting massive nanny-state spending on facilities.
I don't get it. Is your daddy going to build facilities for you?


No. I pay taxes and I want my tax Dollars being spent fairly. Simple.

Things my mom and dad could do they did. Such as traffic ed. Mom and dad
had no jurisdiction about roads and stuff.


I look at this slightly differently than Frank. I would do more in
driver training to instruct students on the obligation of motorists
operating around bicyclists. Many do not understand the bike lane
laws, passing laws, etc.



In Germany we learned that in driver's ed. The practical tests could be
pretty gruesome. If you only once failed to turn your head to the right
to check for a cyclist - out - flunked - try again after x more
training hours. Of course, you got to pay for that test regardless.

I learned this stuff from dad though.


... Instead, the major lobbying efforts are all about building
facilities that will make bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80."
The implication is that nobody will have to know anything.
They'll just toddle along in segregated facilities and all will
be beautiful.


Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.


You mean balance and go forward? I ride with people every day who
don't have much in the way of skills or who are just as distracted as
drivers -- earbuds plugged in or even talking on the phone. I passed
a bicycle parking cop on a bike who was talking on a flip phone a
couple of days ago. Incroyable.


So did you report the guy? In California that is a traffic violation.


But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for
lose all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are
told they are safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look
for the motorists who turn across the cyclist's path because the
cyclists are hidden from view. No need to be aware that half the
cyclists are riding opposite the normal direction of traffic,
entering the intersection from a "Surprise!!" direction or
location.


I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept
that you ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in
AUS, UK and some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck,
even pedestrians adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here
so trips on MUP are very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are
not.


Seriously, how many other cyclists do you encounter daily on your
commute from the front room to the kitchen?



I ride about 4000mi/year, more than half of it non-singletrack.


... Riding in a busy,
multi-use facility with two-way cycle tracks, trains, buses,
streetcars and pedestrians at rush-hour is not fun. This is where
you say, but that is why I live in bucolic Cameron Park! We should
build dirt trails through the cities! Right. We'll stipulate that
everyone should live in the country and ride on dirt trails -- but
they don't.


If it hasn't occurred to you yet most of my rides are into the
Sacramento valley which has by now become one giant metropolis. Where
you can't discern the boundaries between Folsom, Rancho Cordova and
Sacramento anymore unless you watch for the little signs. Lots of
two-way cycle tracks, trains, buses, streetcars and pedestrians. On my
way back I sometimes hit rush hour. Can't always avoid it because of too
many clients east of here so in the mornings I have to work.


Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without
exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to
point B.



Well, many of ours do.


... And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and
the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim
the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities
providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a
trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be
nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a
percentage of the commute.



The one along the American River is heavily used by commuters. To the
point that I always try to leave it behind me by 4pm.


... I can take the dopey south waterfront
cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride
over to it.



I do that a lot, using a singletrack to get to Folsom or Rancho Cordova.
Yes, it's almost 10mi more and the average speed there drops to 8mph but
absolute fun. Must carry carrots or a pear for Cotton, my horse friend.
That "costs" another 10mins but worth every minute.

Life is not supposed to be all nose-to-the-grindstone. If you are in a
hurry a lot get a Porsche or a Kawasaki.


... It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but
it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I
just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some
awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day!


Yeah, first tracks is always fun. Less so when there are already
numerous tracks and they have iced up overnight.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #27  
Old February 20th 18, 08:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,137
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:

You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
many, many cyclists do NOT know that.


Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic.

But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to
teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic.



Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"?


Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
world there.


We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction
manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not
instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?


Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving
school teachers if the family uses that avenue.


We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational
campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance
to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why
should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting
cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better?


Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah.


You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the
place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because
truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.


Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I
show up on a bulldozer and do it myself.

... Instead, the
major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
facilities and all will be beautiful.


Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.


Then either you ride with an unusual crew, or your standards are low. Based on
your posts here, I strongly suspect the latter.

"Knows how to ride" means a LOT more than "can balance, pedal, shift and brake."
In fact, the earliest version of the LAB's cycling classes started out with
a slide that said "balancing ain't biking." There's much to learn about legal
rights, where to ride in a lane, destination positioning, anticipating and
avoiding hazards, and much more.

I used to teach those classes. I never had a student who claimed they didn't
learn a lot.


You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff.


But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
"Surprise!!" direction or location.


I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you
ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and
some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians
adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are
very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not.


OK, two points: First, I've been on bike trails (specifically, in Bismarck ND)
that had signs telling pedestrians to walk on the right and bicyclists to ride
on the left. That shows how weird your facilities can be.


Even in America we have incompetent traffic engineers.


But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way
cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will
enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look
good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067


In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no.


Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just
the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car
doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them
and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways.

And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are
increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to
reduce 5%. It's nuts.


Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed.


"A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is:
http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm


I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news.


Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even
barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high
vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed
within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc.
And all because "If we build it they will come."


If built correctly they do come.


That's merely your built-in excuse. You ask for facilities everywhere, claiming
they will tremendously increase cycling mode share. (All the way up to 2%!!!)


As I said numerous times 2% is a lot for America.


And when that hasn't happened, you claim "Well, they weren't built correctly."
As in Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, where the entire town was
designed with a completely separate and expensive bikeway network that is
almost entirely unused.


We have discussed ad nauseam where they messed up and I won't repeat
everything over and over again.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #28  
Old February 21st 18, 02:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,890
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:


Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"?


Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
world there.


But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
properly in traffic?

And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend
on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars
per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to
its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It
makes no sense.


We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out
instruction
manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should
they not
instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?


Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving
school teachers if the family uses that avenue.


Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now
using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of
that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say
those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense.

We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount
educational
campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give
clearance
to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why
should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting
cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about
riding better?


Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah.


You're apparently in favor of ignorance.

Campaigns like that should use far more than prints and posters. We have
mass media - radio that people listen to while driving, TVs that people
watch at home. There are billboards along almost every roadside. There
are magazines and newspapers, both in print and online.

This country has education efforts about everything from "don't drive
drunk" to "vaccinate your kids" to "stay in school" to "take your dogs
inside in cold weather." None of them have had 100% success, but many
have helped significantly.

Yet you don't want to educate motorists about bicyclists. Instead, you
want to spend billions of dollars to build separate paths. You make no
sense.

You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over
the
place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially
because
truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.


Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I
show up on a bulldozer and do it myself.


You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies,
while ignoring much less costly improvements. You're not making sense.

And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have
to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists
who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and
motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You
shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They
don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to
learn about those complications.

You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff.


Don't pretend it's just _my_ "taking the lane" stuff. It's taught by
every nationally recognized cycling education course. It's written into
most state laws, including yours. Your failure to understand does not
invalidate the principles - both legal principles and traffic principles.

But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way
cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the
cyclists will
enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this
really look
good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067


In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no.


OK, let's start from that statement. So we should NOT do those cycle
tracks in a dense city, despite all the bike advocates who claim we need
them precisely there? Fine.

So instead, you want to do these million dollar per mile facilities out
in rural areas, where there are countless more miles to cover, and only
1/100 the number of cyclists who will ever use them?

Yet again, Joerg, you're not making sense.

And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They
are
increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by
hoping to
reduce 5%. It's nuts.


Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or
killed.


"A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is:
http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm

I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news.


sigh I've run across your mindset regarding other issues too. "It
doesn't matter what national data says. It doesn't matter what the
largest and most disciplined studies say. It doesn't matter what
competent engineers say. I've got a few anecdotes - but I won't say how
many! - and my anecdotes trump any and all science."

I honestly don't know how to respond to such deep ignorance except to say:

You're Not Making Sense.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #29  
Old February 21st 18, 02:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,890
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote:

It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after
having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can
rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of
the three groups. By far.


We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not
work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length
about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike
boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks
greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in
England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike
facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada
cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks.
A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes
in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6
car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of
construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster
of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago.

Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or
Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic
physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against
many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs
can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #30  
Old February 21st 18, 02:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,890
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/20/2018 9:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have
to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists
who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and
motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You
shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They
don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to
learn about those complications.


Speaking of educations: Here's a video, over four minutes long, to try
to teach people how to use a new two-way "protected" cycle track:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ii...ature=youtu.be

Got that? It requires four minutes of explanation plus a bunch of
counter-intuitive moves. Yet crap like this is supposed to be "safe for
everybody 8 to 80."

It makes no sense.

--
- Frank Krygowski
 




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
OUCH Nuxx Bar UK 56 March 11th 11 08:56 PM
Ouch! B. Lafferty Racing 0 August 30th 06 01:16 PM
Ouch! Danny Colyer UK 0 January 11th 06 09:41 PM
Ouch again! Bill C Racing 0 July 15th 05 11:55 PM
ouch audrey UK 5 May 11th 05 11:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 PM.


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.