Message from the oracle, Mr. Franklin.

Excerpt from page 61 of Cyclecraft, by John Franklin.

"Generally speaking, you are at your safest in traffic if you can move
at speed comparable to that of the other vehicles. Increasing your
cadence and sprint speed will allow you to achieve this more often,
particularly at those places where it matters most - junctions with
complex manoeuvring. It will also be easier to restart quickly in a low
gear at traffic signals and roundabouts, and to get yourself out of
trouble if you on a potential collision course."

So when some motorist fails to give way right in front of you, it is
John's advice that by going faster you can avoid the potential collision.

I must be missing something. Is he suggesting that I must ride at
88mph, engage the flux capacitor and reappear next week?

The times I've had to accelerate out of a potential accident scenario is
difficult to estimate. In fact so few times over the past 20+ years,
it's difficult to recall!

In my experience, the two times I've collided with a vehicle that failed
to give way, I am certain I would have been better off had I been riding
slower.

Then I see:
"A good cadence to aim for is about 80, while a sprint speed of 32 km/h
(20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease."

My goodness, perhaps my speed is too fast after all. If sprinting only
gets John's pupils to 32km/h, I can only conclude that normally they
ride at about 20km/h.

Yes, I'm learning why John's pupils are so accident free.

JS.

On Jan 11, 5:28 pm, James wrote:
Excerpt from page 61 of Cyclecraft, by John Franklin.

"Generally speaking, you are at your safest in traffic if you can move
at speed comparable to that of the other vehicles. Increasing your
cadence and sprint speed will allow you to achieve this more often,
particularly at those places where it matters most - junctions with
complex manoeuvring.

Whjee!

It will also be easier to restart quickly in a low
gear at traffic signals and roundabouts, and to get yourself out of
trouble if you on a potential collision course."


I read some of a preview online. The guy seemed sensible enough for
folks who need that kind of thing, but refers to "cycling" too much,
which always bugs me. My washing machine "cycles"; I Ride Bike.

So when some motorist fails to give way right in front of you, it is
John's advice that by going faster you can avoid the potential collision.

I must be missing something. Is he suggesting that I must ride at
88mph, engage the flux capacitor and reappear next week?

The times I've had to accelerate out of a potential accident scenario is
difficult to estimate. In fact so few times over the past 20+ years,
it's difficult to recall!

In my experience, the two times I've collided with a vehicle that failed
to give way, I am certain I would have been better off had I been riding
slower.


Frank says - WRT my crashing - that a helmet is not the fix. (Well
duh.) Having been right there for each and every incident, it's
pretty easy to see that the fix would mostly be to ride more slowly.

Then I see:
"A good cadence to aim for is about 80, while a sprint speed of 32 km/h
(20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease."

My goodness, perhaps my speed is too fast after all. If sprinting only
gets John's pupils to 32km/h, I can only conclude that normally they
ride at about 20km/h.

Yes, I'm learning why John's pupils are so accident free.

On Jan 11, 8:28*pm, James wrote:
Excerpt from page 61 of Cyclecraft, by John Franklin.

"Generally speaking, you are at your safest in traffic if you can move
at speed comparable to that of the other vehicles. *Increasing your
cadence and sprint speed will allow you to achieve this more often,
particularly at those places where it matters most - junctions with
complex manoeuvring. *It will also be easier to restart quickly in a low
gear at traffic signals and roundabouts, and to get yourself out of
trouble if you on a potential collision course."

So when some motorist fails to give way right in front of you, it is
John's advice that by going faster you can avoid the potential collision.

I must be missing something. *Is he suggesting that I must ride at
88mph, engage the flux capacitor and reappear next week?

The times I've had to accelerate out of a potential accident scenario is
difficult to estimate. *In fact so few times over the past 20+ years,
it's difficult to recall!

In my experience, the two times I've collided with a vehicle that failed
to give way, I am certain I would have been better off had I been riding
slower.

Then I see:
"A good cadence to aim for is about 80, while a sprint speed of 32 km/h
(20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease."

My goodness, perhaps my speed is too fast after all. *If sprinting only
gets John's pupils to 32km/h, I can only conclude that normally they
ride at about 20km/h.

Yes, I'm learning why John's pupils are so accident free.

JS.

you need to have sense to take every situation as it is, not as
directed by a book- but that said, the faster you go in traffic the
less the closing speed between yourself and vehicles around you, you
also enhance your safety at speed by moving into the middle of the
lane to give yourself either left or right as a way out in event of an
emergency in front ( cars can stop much faster than a bike). Persons
who tend to ride at pedrestrian speeds need to stay nearer to the curb

On Jan 11, 6:26*pm, raamman wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:28*pm, James wrote:





Excerpt from page 61 of Cyclecraft, by John Franklin.

"Generally speaking, you are at your safest in traffic if you can move
at speed comparable to that of the other vehicles. *Increasing your
cadence and sprint speed will allow you to achieve this more often,
particularly at those places where it matters most - junctions with
complex manoeuvring. *It will also be easier to restart quickly in a low
gear at traffic signals and roundabouts, and to get yourself out of
trouble if you on a potential collision course."

So when some motorist fails to give way right in front of you, it is
John's advice that by going faster you can avoid the potential collision.

On 1/11/2011 8:26 PM, raamman wrote:
[...]
cars can stop much faster than a bike [...]

Depends on the bike, no?

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

raamman wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:28 pm, James wrote:
Excerpt from page 61 of Cyclecraft, by John Franklin.

"Generally speaking, you are at your safest in traffic if you can move
at speed comparable to that of the other vehicles. Increasing your
cadence and sprint speed will allow you to achieve this more often,
particularly at those places where it matters most - junctions with
complex manoeuvring. It will also be easier to restart quickly in a low
gear at traffic signals and roundabouts, and to get yourself out of
trouble if you on a potential collision course."

So when some motorist fails to give way right in front of you, it is
John's advice that by going faster you can avoid the potential collision.

I must be missing something. Is he suggesting that I must ride at
88mph, engage the flux capacitor and reappear next week?

The times I've had to accelerate out of a potential accident scenario is
difficult to estimate. In fact so few times over the past 20+ years,
it's difficult to recall!

In my experience, the two times I've collided with a vehicle that failed
to give way, I am certain I would have been better off had I been riding
slower.

Then I see:
"A good cadence to aim for is about 80, while a sprint speed of 32 km/h
(20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease."

My goodness, perhaps my speed is too fast after all. If sprinting only
gets John's pupils to 32km/h, I can only conclude that normally they
ride at about 20km/h.

Yes, I'm learning why John's pupils are so accident free.

JS.

you need to have sense to take every situation as it is, not as
directed by a book- but that said, the faster you go in traffic the
less the closing speed between yourself and vehicles around you

If you ride faster, the closing speed to all perilous situations ahead
is higher, hence in case of an emergency you are less likely to be able
to stop in time, or swerve out of the way.

The closing speed for the vehicles approaching from behind is certainly
less, but that is not relevant to dodging the car that just pulled out
in front of you.

, you
also enhance your safety at speed by moving into the middle of the
lane to give yourself either left or right as a way out in event of an
emergency in front ( cars can stop much faster than a bike).

I agree that being out from the gutter offers more opportunity for an
escape, but speed has little to do with where in the lane I travel.

Persons
who tend to ride at pedrestrian speeds need to stay nearer to the curb

Oh dear. I think Frank Krygowski should respond to that... Frank?

JS.

(BTW, is Raamman your first or last name?)

brakes need work

kolldata wrote:
brakes need work


Brakes do work.

On Jan 12, 3:04*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 1/11/2011 8:26 PM, raamman wrote:
* [...]

cars can stop much faster than a bike [...]

Depends on the bike, no?

NO! The driver: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW_1NEMcYIY


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

On Jan 11, 6:28*pm, James wrote:
Excerpt from page 61 of Cyclecraft, by John Franklin.

"Generally speaking, you are at your safest in traffic if you can move
at speed comparable to that of the other vehicles. *

No! Really?

Increasing your
cadence and sprint speed will allow you to achieve this more often,
particularly at those places where it matters most - junctions with
complex manoeuvring. *It will also be easier to restart quickly in a low
gear at traffic signals and roundabouts, and to get yourself out of
trouble if you on a potential collision course."

So when some motorist fails to give way right in front of you, it is
John's advice that by going faster you can avoid the potential collision.

I must be missing something. *Is he suggesting that I must ride at
88mph, engage the flux capacitor and reappear next week?

The times I've had to accelerate out of a potential accident scenario is
difficult to estimate. *In fact so few times over the past 20+ years,
it's difficult to recall!

In my experience, the two times I've collided with a vehicle that failed
to give way, I am certain I would have been better off had I been riding
slower.

Then I see:
"A good cadence to aim for is about 80, while a sprint speed of 32 km/h
(20 mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease."

My goodness, perhaps my speed is too fast after all. *If sprinting only
gets John's pupils to 32km/h, I can only conclude that normally they
ride at about 20km/h.

Yes, I'm learning why John's pupils are so accident free.

Undoubtedly a trike that you can ride even slower without keeling over
would be helpful too.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, to see Krygowski relying on such a bogus
source.
But I can see why ****tard Frank thinks ****tard Franklin is a citable
authority. Both are clueless and each needs the other for support. The
colloquialism is "the blind leading the blind." They may even be well
intentioned (I doubt it), but they are still blind.

DR