Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

On Feb 28, 5:18*am, Stephen Harding wrote:

Let's face it, most motorists go too fast! *

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
won't look like such a fool.

E.P.

On Feb 27, 9:30 pm, Ed Pirrero wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:05 pm, wrote:

On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

wrote:

Slow down and think about it again, Nate. The jeans and dark shirt
should not be part of the equation. If it's night, a driver has a
right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) But night or day, a
motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. They
are legal. It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
they're dressed should not matter.

It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.

Wow. You're having a hard time with these concepts!

No, Frank, he really doesn't. You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
boot.

One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."


If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?

For the same reason that J.C. Whitney sells these safety vests for
motorists: http://tinyurl.com/3auqhh
and these Red Cross recommended safety tools: http://tinyurl.com/2u9c2g
and these safety backup systems: http://tinyurl.com/379elh
and these "extra safety" extra brake lights: http://tinyurl.com/2nnbln

They sell them to make money. That doesn't mean they're necessary.
That' _certainly_ doesn't mean they should be required.

What you wear can make a difference. Suggesting it doesn't matter is
non-sensical.

Unfortunately, you're making the same mistake in logic that Nate is
making. I've never claimed they don't "make a difference." I'm
saying they should not be required. Why? Because at night, their
beneficial effects are completely overpowered by the effect of already-
mandated lights and reflectors. And because in the day, cyclists and
pedestrians are adequately visible for any remotely competent
motorist. If some motorists aren't competent, they should be removed
from the road.

And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
permanent loss of driver's license.

Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
and from all the people I know.

So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? Nice
logic use, Frank.

I suspect that's because yours
includes a large measure of fantasy.

Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?

Ed, my original statement was "I doubt you can cite five examples in
the last five years where a motorist damaged his precious car due to
avoiding a cyclist's illegal move." I was speaking of Nate's
supposedly extra-dangerous area, of course.

His response was: "Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes
laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that
time period."

Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
his car, not hurting anyone else.

But still: If he's "probably seen" five incidents, it would have been
reasonable to give _some_ evidence. No news reports? Fine. How
about safety data showing his area is way above average for serious
injuries to bicyclists? Or more to the point, how about evidence that
an unusual number of cars in his area are damaged by running into
illegal cyclists? Hell, how about just listing the details of the
five crashes he claims to have come upon in the past five years?

I'm safety chairman of a good sized bike club. I have connections
with local cops, sheriffs, and health care workers. I pay a _lot_ of
attention to cycling and cycling crashes. I haven't personally heard
of five badly damaged bikes in our area in five years, let alone
personally seen them in the road, as Nate claims.

How about you? Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
years? Do you think that's _really_ likely?

From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
light or a sign. Unlikely, but not impossible.

Fine. You bet with him, on the "unlikely, but not impossible." I'll
bet he's either remembering very selectively, or (more probably) just
exaggerating in the grand tradition of Usenet.

A lot of Usenet "logic" is actually just grasping at extremely
unlikely, but not impossible, straws.


The cyclists you claim to observe
do not make up the total population of cyclists.

He's not claiming he's seen that. Straw man, Frank.

Well, he's on record as stating "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore
stop signs." That was completely unqualified. In a later post, he
said "I stand by my statement. 100% of cyclists that I encounter
flagrantly violate the rules of the road." Later, there was this
exchange:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.

Wrong.

Come ride with me someday. You'll see I'm right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems obvious to me that he's conflating the two groups - that is,
the sample he sees and the total population - and exaggerating in
both cases. I'm not sure how you manage to understand those
statements differently.

- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 28, 11:25*am, wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:30 pm, Ed Pirrero wrote:





On Feb 27, 6:05 pm, wrote:

On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

wrote:

Slow down and think about it again, Nate. *The jeans and dark shirt
should not be part of the equation. *If it's night, a driver has a
right to expect cyclists to have lights, and possibly reflectors.
(That depends a bit on the jurisdiction.) *But night or day, a
motorist has no right to complain about jeans and a dark shirt. *They
are legal. *It's up to you to watch for others on the road; how
they're dressed should not matter.

It does if they have neither lights nor reflectors.

Wow. *You're having a hard time with these concepts!

No, Frank, he really doesn't. *You're being a jerk, and pedantic to
boot.

One man's "accurate" is, apparently, another man's "pedantic."

No, being pedantic is ignoring the other person's actual contention
while bolding trumpetting some fact, regardless of the logic of the
other person's contention.

If being seen in low-light conditions isn't important, why does
Colorado Cyclist sell Day-Glo orange reflectorized vests?

They sell them to make money.

That's the ONLY reason, Frank?

Of course not. The reason is that reflectorized vests *can help* a
cyclist be more visible in low-light situations.

*That doesn't mean they're necessary.
That' _certainly_ doesn't *mean they should be required.

Common sense dictates some additional care. Being pedantic and
legalistic is a fine way to try and dismiss Nate's argument, but he
does have a point. Your yelling about how you "shouldn't have to" is
a red herring.

What you wear can make a difference. *Suggesting it doesn't matter is
non-sensical.

Unfortunately, you're making the same mistake in logic that Nate is
making.

Actually, I'm not. I got his point, and so did you. You're being a
pedantic jerk, for no other reason than you can be.

And, BTW, hitting a legal pedestrian or cyclist should be taken as
prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and should lead to
permanent loss of driver's license.

A legal pedestrian around here could wear black sweats at night, and
get run down by even the most careful driver. The lack of street
lighting and proper sidewalks make it a possibility.

Hiding behind the cover of "what's required" legally does not exempt a
person from having common sense.

On a bicycle it goes the same way - if you're going to ride at night,
it *might be a good idea* to wear some clothing that helps drivers see
you.

A "should" suggestion, rather than a "must" law. Even you can see the
subtle difference, right?

Well, yet again, your world seems to be extremely different from mine,
and from all the people I know.

So that implies that your view is correct, and his is wrong? *Nice
logic use, Frank.

*I suspect that's because yours
includes a large measure of fantasy.

Easy to be an e-thug hiding behind your keyboard, eh, Frank?

Ed, my original statement was "I doubt you can cite five examples in
the last five years where a motorist damaged his precious car due to
avoiding a cyclist's illegal move." *I was speaking of Nate's
supposedly extra-dangerous area, of course.

His response was: *"Hell, I've probably *SEEN* five bent up bikes
laying in the middle of the road, with cops, ambulances, etc. in that
time period."

Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
his car, not hurting anyone else.

And that gives you license to say he's making it all up, how?

But still: *If he's "probably seen" five incidents, it would have been
reasonable to give _some_ evidence. *No news reports? *Fine. *How
about safety data showing his area is way above average for serious
injuries to bicyclists? *Or more to the point, how about evidence that
an unusual number of cars in his area are damaged by running into
illegal cyclists? *Hell, how about just listing the details of the
five crashes he claims to have come upon in the past five years?

Or, instead of YOU justifying your own assholish behavior over the
internet, just acknowledge that behind the safety of a keyboard, it's
really very easy to call "bull****" without any concern over what the
consequences might be.

I'm safety chairman of a good sized bike club. *I have connections
with local cops, sheriffs, and health care workers. *I pay a _lot_ of
attention to cycling and cycling crashes. *I haven't personally heard
of five badly damaged bikes in our area in five years, let alone
personally seen them in the road, as Nate claims.

So, you live in the same area? Or could the conditions be different?

How about you? *Have you _really_ seen five smashed bikes in five
years? *Do you think that's _really_ likely?

In my area, no. I have seen three bicycle-related accidents here,
however. Two with cars, and one bike-pedestrian.

Our population here is around 3k persons.

So yes, in the D.C. metro area, and the surrounding 'burbs, I can
easily see how I might come across one per year.

From some of the biking behavior I've seen, it's not outside the realm
of possiblity that he has never actually seen a bicyclist stop at a
light or a sign. *Unlikely, but not impossible.

Fine. *You bet with him, on the "unlikely, but not impossible." *I'll
bet he's either remembering very selectively, or (more probably) just
exaggerating in the grand tradition of Usenet.

Or, he has seen correctly, and you, in another grand tradition of
Usenet, are exhibiting a lot of keyboard courage.

A lot of Usenet "logic" is actually just grasping at extremely
unlikely, but not impossible, straws.

How ironic that you would notice that, Frank.


*The cyclists you claim to observe
do not make up the total population of cyclists.

He's not claiming he's seen that. *Straw man, Frank.

Well, he's on record as stating "100% of cyclists blatantly ignore
stop signs." *That was completely unqualified. *In a later post, he
said "I stand by my statement. *100% of cyclists that I encounter
flagrantly violate the rules of the road." * Later, there was this
exchange:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
Wrong.

Come ride with me someday. *You'll see I'm right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

It seems obvious to me that he's conflating the two groups - that is,
the sample he sees and the total population - *and exaggerating in
both cases. *I'm not sure how you manage to understand those
statements differently.

Easily - by understanding the conditions set forth in the first
comment. I do not then extrapolate my own pedantic ideas on top and
just ASSume he's make a conflation.

Want to try again, Frank?

E.P.

On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, N8N wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:17 pm, wrote:

Why don't [many cyclists use lights]? It's a failure of education and enforcement, mostly
the former. Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
grade 11. Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
teach them the rules of the road. For the 11th graders, I'd include
heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
they go totally car crazy.

So you admit then, that apparently the cyclists that I'm observing are
not using due care and common sense.

Strictly speaking, all I can say is it's likely that a lot of night
cyclists in your area don't use proper lighting. I can say that
because other data I've seen indicates that problem for _other_ groups
of cyclists, and I assume your observed group is not much different.

Don't take that too far, though. Extrapolating to "all" cyclists, as
you've repeatedly done, is a mistake. Extrapolating even to daytime
cyclists is a separate issue. (And I'll remind you that the original
post was apparently regarding daytime visibility, not nighttime.)

Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. Not specifically about cyclists
being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
world being somehow special. "Nobody can tell me anything, because I
live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."

I don't know that it's all that special. I do know some serious
cyclists who live elsewhere that would condemn such actions, but the
overwhelming amount of idiocy I see leads me to believe that people
here might be a *little* more careless [than others]...

I wouldn't presume to make such a judgment without _some_ data.

But feel free to prove me wrong! Just dig out citations we can
check. Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
fine.

You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
unreported. ...
Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
my house. Apparently they aren't news-worthy.

Don't despair. The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
course) were not mentioned in the paper either.

I'm sure you actually saw 100 car crashes. Even around here, two a
week is pushing it; I might give you 50.

I've been driving since 1964. I _know_ I've come across at least 100
car crashes - after the fact, as I said. That includes two I'm very
sure were fatalities, based on the positions of the bodies. The last
traffic crash I came across was just three days ago. And no, it
wasn't in any news report.


100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.

Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet.

Then think back. A motorist typically has a cyclist in view for, oh,
about 30 seconds. In almost all of those encounters, the cyclist is
simply riding on a road, not passing a stop sign controlled
intersection. IOW, the vast majority of the cyclists any motorist
will see can't even be called part of the test.

Of those actually at stop signs - can you really be _positive_ you've
_never_ seen a cyclist stop? That would be an astounding situation.
If nothing else, many cyclists _must_ stop when their small street
intersects a very busy arterial, otherwise they would instantly die.

And even of those you've seen roll through - did not many of them
commit the common road-user "venial sin," of slowing down, seeing it
was clear, and then rolling through? That's what happens in front of
my house roughly 200 times per day. Most think it's a bit different
than "blatantly running the stop sign."

Exaggeration is easy on Usenet. Think carefully before posting.

- Frank Krygowski

Ed Pirrero wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:37 am, Stephen Harding wrote:

I suspect it has more to do with questioning one's observations.
There are many "common beliefs" out there that don't stand up to
close scrutiny. Check some of the urban legends sites to see.

This is not one of those things. It is Frank being an asshole at a
distance.

Hell, aliens have resided in the US since the late 40's for all
we know.

The potential to see 100% of bike riders running stop signs is
infinitely greater than finding a resident extraterestrial.

Don't be an idiot.

But one doesn't even really know that is true.

The ultimate point is that reflective clothing on bicyclists
is not a requirement for individuals engaging in the activity
at night. It may be helpful, but persons choosing to wear
ninja black while riding are not being irresponsible. Bright
clothing isn't really a critical aspect of night bicycling as
would be for a pedestrian walking the road.

Reflectors and in particularly lights, are required for
responsible riding. Anything beyond that whether visible
clothing, flashing strobes or wailing fog horn blasts every
5 seconds doesn't need to be part of the deal.


SMH

On Feb 28, 2:47*pm, wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, N8N wrote:

On Feb 28, 1:17 pm, wrote:

Why don't [many cyclists use lights]? *It's a failure of education and enforcement, mostly
the former. *Personally, I think that kids should get a unit on safe
bicycling in their phys ed classes, at roughly grade 3, grade 8 and
grade 11. *Compared to dodge-ball, it would do a lot more for their
long-term physical health to promote cycling, get them active, and
teach them the rules of the road. *For the 11th graders, I'd include
heavy emphasis about the rights of cyclists and pedestrians, before
they go totally car crazy.

So you admit then, that apparently the cyclists that I'm observing are
not using due care and common sense.

Strictly speaking, all I can say is it's likely that a lot of night
cyclists in your area don't use proper lighting. *I can say that
because other data I've seen indicates that problem for _other_ groups
of cyclists, and I assume your observed group is not much different.

Don't take that too far, though. *Extrapolating to "all" cyclists, as
you've repeatedly done, is a mistake. *Extrapolating even to daytime
cyclists is a separate issue. *(And I'll remind you that the original
post was apparently regarding daytime visibility, not nighttime.)

I was primarily referring to after dark; since it's winter, I'm not
likely to be encountering cyclists during the daytime (as most of the
ones that I see are near my house, as most of my commute is on the
toll road.)


Yeah, we get that a lot on Usenet. *Not specifically about cyclists
being unreasonable - rather, about the person's little corner of the
world being somehow special. *"Nobody can tell me anything, because I
live here, and 'here' is absolutely unique in the universe."

I don't know that it's all that special. *I do know some serious
cyclists who live elsewhere that would condemn such actions, but the
overwhelming amount of idiocy I see leads me to believe that people
here might be a *little* more careless [than others]...

I wouldn't presume to make such a judgment without _some_ data.

"People are mostly the same everywhere, with minor differences" is
generally a safe statement to make, unless you're talking about some
dramatic geographic and cultural differences, like trying to make
generalizations about the behavior of cyclists in China from observing
them in your neighborhood.


But feel free to prove me wrong! *Just dig out citations we can
check. *Links to newspaper articles, or accident statistics will do
fine.

You know, after the last crash of which I saw the aftermath, I actually
attempted to find a news article the next day and it went completely
unreported. *...
Similarly with a pedestrian accident that I saw only a few blocks from
my house. *Apparently they aren't news-worthy.

Don't despair. *The last 100 car crashes I saw (all after the fact, of
course) were not mentioned in the paper either.

I'm sure you actually saw 100 car crashes. *Even around here, two a
week is pushing it; I might give you 50.

I've been driving since 1964. *I _know_ I've come across at least 100
car crashes - after the fact, as I said. *That includes two I'm very
sure were fatalities, based on the positions of the bodies. *The last
traffic crash I came across was just three days ago. *And no, it
wasn't in any news report.

I thought you meant in a one year period. 100 over 40 years, counting
seeing them after the fact, is low, in my experience, but then again,
drivers around here don't seem to understand how to handle freak
occurrances like water falling from the sky, so that may explain some
of it. That, and there's just too damn many people. (I'd love to
move to somewhere a little less populated; I'm not sure how to make
that happen while maintaining my current salary however.)

100% of cyclists blatantly ignore stop signs.
I believe I have your initial statement correctly cited above.

Well, IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not seen the counterexample yet.

Then think back. *A motorist typically has a cyclist in view for, oh,
about 30 seconds. *In almost all of those encounters, the cyclist is
simply riding on a road, not passing a stop sign controlled
intersection. *IOW, the vast majority of the cyclists any motorist
will see can't even be called part of the test.

Of those actually at stop signs - can you really be _positive_ you've
_never_ seen a cyclist stop? *That would be an astounding situation.
If nothing else, many cyclists _must_ stop when their small street
intersects a very busy arterial, otherwise they would instantly die.

Yes. Might be a little bit of a special situation however, as the
overwhelming majority of cyclists that I see are on fairly residential
streets. Not to start up the whole other thread that I'm trying very
hard to avoid, but the area in which I live has had some very ill-
advised traffic management choices, such as installing speed humps on
the main road connecting US-29 to the Metro station, despite the fact
that for half that travel distance there's a deserted industrial lot
on one side of the road. So most of the driving traffic to the Metro
station is diverted onto residential streets (myself included) part of
which is a posted "bike route." So I do not see cyclists intersecting
with main roads; I do see them however riding on residential streets,
albeit ones that are unnecessarily heavily traveled.


And even of those you've seen roll through - did not many of them
commit the common road-user "venial sin," of slowing down, seeing it
was clear, and then rolling through? *That's what happens in front of
my house roughly 200 times per day. *Most think it's a bit different
than "blatantly running the stop sign."

Exaggeration is easy on Usenet. *Think carefully before posting.

I do occasionally see cyclists acting as you describe, which I agree
is technically an infraction but understandable and reasonably safe if
done with care and awareness. Far more often, however, I do not -
they simply proceed through the intersection at full speed; and I
can't tell if they're actually looking for cross traffic or not as I
don't see their heads move.

nate

Ed Pirrero wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:18 am, Stephen Harding wrote:


Let's face it, most motorists go too fast!


You have no idea what you are talking about.

Get some education before you venture back into usenet, so that you
won't look like such a fool.

You can't possibly be disagreeing with that statement...
or can you?

Are you basing this obvious untruth I've spoken on some sort
of survey or study or is this personal observation?

Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
or collisions with other vehicles.

Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).

You honestly believe motorists generally restrict themselves
to legal limits or are you getting them off the hook by simply
claiming legal speed limits aren't valid measures of excessive
speed?

[Yes I believe some speed limits are indeed set too low.
But most are within reason and not worth quibbling over.]

How shall we determine excessive speed then? Can such a
concept even exist? What's "fast" for you is pretty tame
for Mario Andretti or Jeff Gordon.


SMH

In article , Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Ok then. Why do cyclists consistently not use lights, AND don't even
make a half-assed gesture towards safety by wearing clothing that might
be visible?

Why should they have to? They're not the ones in massive vehicles
moving at high velocities. When I'm on a bike, I reserve my respect for
other cyclists and pedestrians. Or are you going so far as to say that
even pedestrians should have to cow-tow to all the inattentive/impaired
drivers? No, the safe thing to do is start taking away licenses.

So maybe they don't crash into me when I am bicycling too? How's that for
a reason? I get tired of playing chicken with unlighted wrong ways on the
street and dodging red light runners. The annoyance caused by poor
bicycle riders is much greater when I am riding than when I am driving.


Well, maybe you live somewhere where cyclists are reasonable. I don't.

What is unreasonable is to stop *only* because a painted metal sheet
said so. Some of us actually use our brains to figure out the world
around us. Depending on the situation, that can mean taking any number
of actions that promote traffic flow.

And yet, let me guess, you expect drivers to obey the number on the
painted steet metal sign and not use their brains to figure out the world
around them? You probably expect them to stop at the same stop signs
under the same conditions that you go through them under too....

In article , wrote:

Of course, that contained a subtle shift of subject, since a bent bike
is not the same as a damaged car - and Nate was terrified of damaging
his car, not hurting anyone else.

A car can't bend a bike that was upright with someone riding it without some
sort of damage to the car. You might consider the level of damage
trivial, but should someone take a screw driver and do the same kind of
damage to your nicest bicycle I doubt you'd shrug it off.

In article uiFxj.5216$O64.4347@trndny03, Stephen Harding wrote:

Drivers drive too fast! That's my personal observation and
if you do some web searching, you'll find there are plenty
of surveys/studies that show "excessive speed" as the primary
factor in accidents, whether single car (driver loses control)
or collisions with other vehicles.

Speed is even a factor in fatal accidents (in the US) where
alcohol is the official contributing factor (40% I believe).

You wouldn't be one of those pro bicycle helmet zealots too? Because
those figures from the 'speed kills' and 'MADD' crowds you spout off are
about as truthful as what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots. Actually
IMO what comes from the bicycle helmet zealots is really more truthful.
They don't massage their data and definitions nearly as much IME.

Anyway, the whole point I'm making is one of consistancy. You really
can't argue against the safety nazi stances when it comes to bicycling
and then argue for them when it comes to driving and remain consistant
IMO. It's just foolish. Either you accept that people can adjust to their
environment or you don't. It doesn't matter if they are driving or
biking.