Self Driving Vehicles

On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 23:46:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/26/2019 9:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:01:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/26/2019 6:21 PM, John B. wrote:

So, what does one do Frank? Riding along with a stream of vehicles
thundering past at 100 kph and the lane becomes too narrow to be
safely shared with a motor vehicle?

What does one do? Well, I've explained this before, but I'm willing to
explain it again. Please take notes so I can minimize further repetition.

First, I think that roads with truly _continuous_ streams of 100kph
traffic and lanes too narrow to safely share are best avoided for
bicycling. I avoid them. Or rather, I would avoid them if I ever saw
them. I don't know of any around here, other than freeways, and
bicycling is illegal on our local freeways.

Second, as I've always said, if a lane is wide enough to safely share, I
share that lane. We can add more detail, but I want to make that clear
because in the past, those arguing against me have conjured a related
straw man argument. Let's not waste time with that again, OK?

So what if a lane is too narrow to safely share, and it has 100 kph traffic?

I do _not_ "simply ride out in front of traffic." To me, "ride out"
implies changing position quickly, with no caution, no judgment, no
negotiation. ("Ride out" is actually a name given to a common car-bike
crash for kids, where they zoom out of a driveway directly into a car's
path.)

Frank, over the years you have used the term "take the lane" and
"seize the lane" which rather implies that you seize, or "grab" in
common usage, control of the lane.

You're paying more attention to your own visualizations than to my
detailed descriptions. And of course, you're not bothering to check what
the curricula I describe actually teach. You need to do more reading.
You're arguing from a position of ignorance, just because you like
arguing. It makes you look less than wise.
\

Forgive me. I had assumed that since we are posting to a discussion
group that we were having a discussion, so I was simply assumed that
what you say/said in your posts was what you meant. But apparently I
was mistaken and you apparently believe that you are posting such
esoteric and mystifying information that one needs to research
everything that you say?



Normally I do as we did several times on today's ride. I wait to enter
the road until there is sufficient clear space to enter safely. When I
have a suitable opening, I enter and take my place at lane center. Car
traffic most often travels in platoons, usually generated by traffic
lights, so the wait is usually less than 30 seconds.

Once I'm out there, I'm visible to the first driver of the next platoon.
And since I'm typically right in the lane's center, it's obvious to that
driver that they'll have to use the next lane to pass me. It's obvious
even when they're far back.

On today's ride, some of this happened on a four lane. In my mirror I
could see motorists merging to the passing lane way, way back. None were
delayed for more than a couple seconds. Why? Again, because my lane
position made the necessity obvious from way, way back.

On today's ride, some of this happened on two-lane ex-farm roads used as
cut-throughs. (Some of this was at five o'clock, rush hour and sunset.)
As usual, motorists waited until it was safe to use the oncoming lane
for passing. There were no horn honks, no tailgating, no punishment
passes. When it was clear, they just went around. (One guy gave a 1/10
second warning toot.)

Now, a more difficult situation: What if I'm riding a busy road with a
lane wide enough to share, but the lane narrows?

What I normally do is negotiate my way to lane center in time to move
left before the constriction. That negotiation involves looking back
until I catch a motorist's eye (I use my mirror to help make my choice)
as I signal my desire to move left. It almost always works well. I'll
admit, though, that in my riding environment that usually happens on a
road with a 40 MPH speed limit, not 100 kph. But I've done the same
thing on those faster roads. The key is to make the move early enough,
and to work with the gaps between platoons.

Having said all that, there have been a few times (in almost 50 years)
I've had to pull off the road and wait for a gap in traffic. It's been
rare, but it's happened.

Was all that understandable?

Yup. and (at least from your description) you are riding on roads with
far less traffic density than I do...

Which is entirely possible.

and equating your experiences to
other's. Then you have mentioned your "legal rights" apparently to
ride in the middle of the lane but from what I read that is in Ohio,
and not the rest of the world.

The techniques I've described are applicable in the U.S., Canada,
Britain, the European Union and probably elsewhere. Differences, if they
exist for those countries, are minor. In fact, if you look back, you'll
see I specified these techniques were "actually consistent with most
American and European laws".

Strange isn't it. I did a quick check of Holland and Denmark cycling
laws and Goodness! The Holland laws say that : "You are expected to
move to the side to make room for other traffic when necessary: and
The Danish rules seem to be that: "Riding side by side is allowed, but
let others pass".

So, at least in two European countries you must give way to faster
vehicles.... this doesn't sound much like "Seize the Lane!"


If you're going to say I'm wrong, you should at least have the courtesy
to say "Well, you're wrong regarding Malaysia" - IOW, I'm wrong
regarding something I didn't even address.



For instance, here, in Malaysia,
Singapore and Indonesia, to my knowledge a bicycle is required by law
to ride "on the side of the road". Which, before you start your
"gutter bunny" sarcasm simply means, and I did check this with my Cop
neighbor, that you will not impede faster traffic... like trucks
busses and automobiles. Motorcycles are also required to ride on the
side of the road :-)

Above all, I'm NOT going to ride on the very edge of pavement, or ride
unpaved surfaces, because the traffic is heavy and the lane is too
narrow to share. I've seen avid cyclists do that, and I've seen them
nearly crash as a result.

Interesting. It appears more and more that you are discussing riding
on 2nd, 3rd, class roads rather than on the major highways that I ride
on.

Yes, I'm discussing riding in conditions common for American and
European cyclists.

You continued avoidance of discussing how you ride in traffic that
is traveling as much as four times your speed is also informative. It
is becoming more and more obvious that you are applying your
experiences riding on what appear to be secondary roads and attempting
to equate that to conditions in the rest of the world.

Your "secondary roads" is a mistake. If I ride to the hardware store,
it's on a U.S highway, a four lane that carries up to 40,000 cars per
day. I regularly ride state highways north and south out of this
village. I ride in and through the very center of the metro area's
biggest city. And I've ridden in 47 states so far, on every style of
road including freeways.

I choose quieter roads much of the time, just as many cyclists. I ride
major roads when it's necessary or more convenient.

And did the trains cause mania? No! And do we believe that today? No!
Observation and science caused learning. But your bike thinking is stuck
in Victorian times!

No Frank, it was simply an example of how things that are believed to
be true, and in the instance of the sun and earth, almost literally,
The Word of God, are later to be found to be completely wrong, and
posing the question of whether your courses are right or wrong.

And how do we decide, John? Do we have a mechanism? Or are you one of
those guys who say "All is mystery, nothing can be known, there is no
truth, ommmmmmmm..."

Nice try. You are telling the world to read a book and all will be
well while I'm saying "is this information correct" and pointing out
that history has shown that in many cases what was thought to be
correct was later found to be false.

I pointed out that the Roman Church taught for nearly 2,000 years that
the sun went round the earth and that the Holy Bible was used to
justify it. Now you are telling me that the Church was wrong, the
Bible was wrong and if I only read your book I would know the truth,

But how do we know that next year someone else won't write a book and
prove that your book is wrong?

OH! That's right! Frank's book couldn't possible be in error.


Frank you are a bigot.

At the moment, at least, you are a troll.

Well, perhaps I am... Assuming that the definition of Troll is
"someone that disagrees with Frank".
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:22:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2019 8:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 4:22:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your
argument entirely backwards.

Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the
common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right
to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on
sidewalks, and/or in the gutter.

But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and
science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found
that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they
operate as legal vehicle operators.

You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science
and learning.

Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of
what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you
taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing
based on your own assumptions?

I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement.

I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that
doesn't mean they are.

But you can't prescribe for them without knowing their circumstances, including applicable laws.

sigh Well, that pretty much throws out the concept of education,
doesn't it?

Look, there are variations in state laws regarding bicycles, but the
variations tend to be in the details. For example, AFAIK every state
either defines a bicycle as a legal vehicle or else says bicyclists have
all the rights of vehicle operators. It's not like Oregon has riders
riding on the right and Washington State has riders facing traffic.

Your friend (or at least, acquaintance) Bob Mionske wrote a book titled
_Bicycling & the Law_. John Franklin wrote _Cyclecraft_. The LAB runs
cycling classes, and the American Bicycle Education Association runs
somewhat better ones. These people don't do a separate version for every
American cyclist.

They should teach state specific VCs, particular since Oregon (for example) has a unique mandatory side path law. The law changes one block north of my office -- no bikes allowed on sidewalks per Portland ordinance. Oregon has a mandatory passing distance, a new rolling stop law, and passing on the right or left on a one-way street. Passing cars on the right in stopped traffic is legal and encouraged. All sorts of things are different and legal here -- turning left onto a one way street against a red light for example. The Officious Cyclists wouldn't know that. They would sit loud and proud at a red light while I rode through it, and then I would get a lecture, and then I would yell the code section at them and tell them to shut the f*** up. Been there, done that. I get to deal with hall monitors day in and day out and wait for the bad weather to rinse away the the Officious Cyclists.


If a cyclist does choose to verbally confront an abusive idiot, I think
it needs to be done with care and judgment - and perhaps with a good
supply of luck. I can certainly understand people choosing to never,
ever do that.

Right, when someone threatens me, a drop down menu appears in my vision field populated with potential responses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUqpZgHiEE
Hmmm. Let me think calmly and rationally about my response.

We're not cyborgs, but normal people still have inborn ability to judge
strategies in personal interactions. Some are better at this than
others, and mistakes sometimes occur. But almost all people find ways to
get along acceptably almost all the time.

And often not.



But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk,
or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or
refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny
percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely.

Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride.

Have you never seen a bicyclist riding in a gutter? Or riding within
inches of a road's edge? Or riding _off_ the road's edge, in dirt or
grass because a car was coming? I can't believe that.


What car was coming? This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments. Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:22:10 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your
argument entirely backwards.

Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the
common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right
to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on
sidewalks, and/or in the gutter.

But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and
science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found
that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they
operate as legal vehicle operators.

You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science
and learning.

Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of
what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you
taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing
based on your own assumptions?

I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement.

I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that
doesn't mean they are.


Maybe this also apply to you sometimes. I'm sure it does.

Lou

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:22:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2019 8:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 4:22:10 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your
argument entirely backwards.

Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the
common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right
to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on
sidewalks, and/or in the gutter.

But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and
science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found
that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they
operate as legal vehicle operators.

You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science
and learning.

Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of
what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you
taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing
based on your own assumptions?

I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement.

I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that
doesn't mean they are.

But you can't prescribe for them without knowing their circumstances, including applicable laws.

sigh Well, that pretty much throws out the concept of education,
doesn't it?

Look, there are variations in state laws regarding bicycles, but the
variations tend to be in the details. For example, AFAIK every state
either defines a bicycle as a legal vehicle or else says bicyclists have
all the rights of vehicle operators. It's not like Oregon has riders
riding on the right and Washington State has riders facing traffic.

Your friend (or at least, acquaintance) Bob Mionske wrote a book titled
_Bicycling & the Law_. John Franklin wrote _Cyclecraft_. The LAB runs
cycling classes, and the American Bicycle Education Association runs
somewhat better ones. These people don't do a separate version for every
American cyclist.

If a cyclist does choose to verbally confront an abusive idiot, I think
it needs to be done with care and judgment - and perhaps with a good
supply of luck. I can certainly understand people choosing to never,
ever do that.

Right, when someone threatens me, a drop down menu appears in my vision field populated with potential responses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUqpZgHiEE
Hmmm. Let me think calmly and rationally about my response.

We're not cyborgs, but normal people still have inborn ability to judge
strategies in personal interactions. Some are better at this than
others, and mistakes sometimes occur. But almost all people find ways to
get along acceptably almost all the time.



But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk,
or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or
refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny
percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely.

Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride.

Have you never seen a bicyclist riding in a gutter? Or riding within
inches of a road's edge? Or riding _off_ the road's edge, in dirt or
grass because a car was coming? I can't believe that.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Not knowing a single problem people have you want to tell them they are wrong and you consider that education. It is pretty obvious why you couldn't make it as an engineer and switched to teaching, That way the students wouldn't know you're so full of crap - they would just suspect it.

On 12/27/2019 12:45 AM, John B. wrote:
Now you are telling me that ... if I only read your book I would know the truth,

But how do we know that next year someone else won't write a book and
prove that your book is wrong?

OH! That's right! Frank's book couldn't possible be in error.

Let's try this: First, read _Street Smarts_ by John Allen. It's only 50
pages or so. Take notes as you do. Surely you can manage that?

Then read _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. It's longer, and feel free to
speed through the parts that go into too much detail for you. Again,
take notes. This shouldn't be hard. You claim to be a bicyclist, so why
not read a book that is intended to make bicycling better for you?

Next, come back here and tell me which parts of those books you think
are wrong. (And it would be better if you distinguished what was wrong
for Malaysia from what you thought was wrong for, say, U.S. riding. Be
specific.)

This would be a lot more productive than your vague assertions that a
book you had never read might be wrong.

Of course, I can't force you to do the above. But until you do, you're
certainly arguing out of ignorance. At best, that's a waste of our time.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/27/2019 7:01 AM, wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:22:10 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2019 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 6:36:34 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'd say science and logic are better than tradition. Which makes your
argument entirely backwards.

Because for over 100 years of American (at least) bicycle use, the
common teaching and common tradition was that bicyclists have no right
to the road, and are safest when they ride facing traffic, and/or on
sidewalks, and/or in the gutter.

But, as with astronomy, people eventually applied observation, logic and
science (and also took the time to understand applicable laws) and found
that was wrong. It was determined that bicyclist do better when they
operate as legal vehicle operators.

You seem to be either stuck in an old myth, or arguing against science
and learning.

Now the question is, are you doing this based on thorough knowledge of
what is actually being taught in these books and courses? IOW, have you
taken such a course or thoroughly read such a book? Or are you arguing
based on your own assumptions?

I think everyone here is doing the right thing considering the specific situation and their judgement.

I think everyone here _thinks_ they are doing the right thing; but that
doesn't mean they are.


Maybe this also apply to you sometimes. I'm sure it does.

Of course!

A) Whatever activity is being discussed, nobody is perfect.

B) BUT some people are better than others. They do things more
correctly, more often. As a result they have fewer problems.

C) Most people can improve, especially if they receive the right
information.

Any sane person recognizes those points. Society as a whole recognizes
them, which is why things like schools, classes, many books and other
information sources exist.

How weird that this little corner of the internet harbors people that
disparage those ideas!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/27/2019 1:02 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:22:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Look, there are variations in state laws regarding bicycles, but the
variations tend to be in the details. For example, AFAIK every state
either defines a bicycle as a legal vehicle or else says bicyclists have
all the rights of vehicle operators. It's not like Oregon has riders
riding on the right and Washington State has riders facing traffic.

Your friend (or at least, acquaintance) Bob Mionske wrote a book titled
_Bicycling & the Law_. John Franklin wrote _Cyclecraft_. The LAB runs
cycling classes, and the American Bicycle Education Association runs
somewhat better ones. These people don't do a separate version for every
American cyclist.

They should teach state specific VCs, particular since Oregon (for example) has a unique mandatory side path law. The law changes one block north of my office -- no bikes allowed on sidewalks per Portland ordinance. Oregon has a mandatory passing distance, a new rolling stop law, and passing on the right or left on a one-way street. Passing cars on the right in stopped traffic is legal and encouraged. All sorts of things are different and legal here -- turning left onto a one way street against a red light for example.

Yes, Oregon has some weird traffic laws, and Portland has some
super-weird bike facilities. However, Jay, if you were to take a Cycling
Savvy class or a League cycling class in Oregon, the instructor would
almost certainly cover those weirdnesses. I certainly would if I were
teaching the class.

But as I've said, almost all traffic laws regarding bikes are almost
always the same from state to state. We're talking fundamentals, like
having a right to the road, riding with (not facing) traffic, obeying
traffic control devices. Best practices and techniques are also the
same, such as recognizing and dissuading or avoiding motorist mistakes,
procedures for executing lane changes or turns, avoiding road hazards,
negotiating with motorists etc. There are FAR more things that are
common rather than different.

And a detail: Some of the weird bike-specific laws that are on the books
are best violated. I'm sure you know more than I about the tickets that
have been written for Portland riders who rode outside door zone bike
lanes, violating the letter of the mandatory bike lane law. I'm sure you
know that most riders who violate that law for their own safety are not
ticketed. The point there is, it's better to know the general principles
in addition to the quirky local laws.

And it makes no sense to say "Some bike laws differ by locality, so it
makes no sense to learn to ride more competently." (Would you accept
"Laws vary by city, so it makes no sense to get a law degree"?)

The Officious Cyclists wouldn't know that. They would sit loud and proud at a red light while I rode through it, and then I would get a lecture, and then I would yell the code section at them and tell them to shut the f*** up. Been there, done that. I get to deal with hall monitors day in and day out and wait for the bad weather to rinse away the the Officious Cyclists.

Speaking of local differences: That may be another Portland weirdness.
(My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper sticker.) I don't ever
remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for anything I've
done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?") In fact, when
I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to become a certified
cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for suggestions for
improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride closer to the center
of the lane.")

What I do get occasionally (rarely) is some motorist who thinks he knows
more than I do. And it's been valuable to be able to quote the letter of
the law to them. But then again, I'm able to do that because I took
enough interest in this stuff to actually learn things.

Very few bicyclists - even avid bicyclists - bother to really learn this
stuff.

But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk,
or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or
refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny
percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely.

Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride.

Have you never seen a bicyclist riding in a gutter? Or riding within
inches of a road's edge? Or riding _off_ the road's edge, in dirt or
grass because a car was coming? I can't believe that.


What car was coming? This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments.

I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom. And I don't
consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper behavior. Does a
Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a bulletproof vest?

Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them.

Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who bragged about zooming
on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps? Who bragged
about riding drunk?

Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to time - who claims
that California law says you may never move away from the edge of the road?

Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride without a marine
strobe on the back of your bike?

We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was not his fault
that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone of a line of
stopped cars, he suffered a crash.

We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk of getting
brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled roadway.

Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent than the
average bike rider. They're probably more competent than the typical
avid cyclist.

Don't tell me that education isn't necessary.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 1:02 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:22:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Look, there are variations in state laws regarding bicycles, but the
variations tend to be in the details. For example, AFAIK every state
either defines a bicycle as a legal vehicle or else says bicyclists have
all the rights of vehicle operators. It's not like Oregon has riders
riding on the right and Washington State has riders facing traffic.

Your friend (or at least, acquaintance) Bob Mionske wrote a book titled
_Bicycling & the Law_. John Franklin wrote _Cyclecraft_. The LAB runs
cycling classes, and the American Bicycle Education Association runs
somewhat better ones. These people don't do a separate version for every
American cyclist.

They should teach state specific VCs, particular since Oregon (for example) has a unique mandatory side path law. The law changes one block north of my office -- no bikes allowed on sidewalks per Portland ordinance. Oregon has a mandatory passing distance, a new rolling stop law, and passing on the right or left on a one-way street. Passing cars on the right in stopped traffic is legal and encouraged. All sorts of things are different and legal here -- turning left onto a one way street against a red light for example.

Yes, Oregon has some weird traffic laws, and Portland has some
super-weird bike facilities. However, Jay, if you were to take a Cycling
Savvy class or a League cycling class in Oregon, the instructor would
almost certainly cover those weirdnesses. I certainly would if I were
teaching the class.

But as I've said, almost all traffic laws regarding bikes are almost
always the same from state to state. We're talking fundamentals, like
having a right to the road, riding with (not facing) traffic, obeying
traffic control devices. Best practices and techniques are also the
same, such as recognizing and dissuading or avoiding motorist mistakes,
procedures for executing lane changes or turns, avoiding road hazards,
negotiating with motorists etc. There are FAR more things that are
common rather than different.

And a detail: Some of the weird bike-specific laws that are on the books
are best violated. I'm sure you know more than I about the tickets that
have been written for Portland riders who rode outside door zone bike
lanes, violating the letter of the mandatory bike lane law. I'm sure you
know that most riders who violate that law for their own safety are not
ticketed. The point there is, it's better to know the general principles
in addition to the quirky local laws.

And it makes no sense to say "Some bike laws differ by locality, so it
makes no sense to learn to ride more competently." (Would you accept
"Laws vary by city, so it makes no sense to get a law degree"?)

The Officious Cyclists wouldn't know that. They would sit loud and proud at a red light while I rode through it, and then I would get a lecture, and then I would yell the code section at them and tell them to shut the f*** up. Been there, done that. I get to deal with hall monitors day in and day out and wait for the bad weather to rinse away the the Officious Cyclists.

Speaking of local differences: That may be another Portland weirdness.
(My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper sticker.) I don't ever
remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for anything I've
done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?") In fact, when
I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to become a certified
cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for suggestions for
improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride closer to the center
of the lane.")

Extra-stringent road test? Did you have to pop wheelies and juggle? Did you get a badge?

What I do get occasionally (rarely) is some motorist who thinks he knows
more than I do. And it's been valuable to be able to quote the letter of
the law to them. But then again, I'm able to do that because I took
enough interest in this stuff to actually learn things.

Very few bicyclists - even avid bicyclists - bother to really learn this
stuff.

But in my view, it's one thing to choose not to chase down such a jerk,
or yell angrily at them. It's another thing to skulk in the gutter or
refuse to ride on roads because of such jerks. The jerks comprise a tiny
percentage of motorists. I encounter them only rarely.

Who skulks in gutters? I have never once seen a cyclist skulking in a gutter. In fact, it is really hard to even ride in a gutter let alone skulk and ride.

Have you never seen a bicyclist riding in a gutter? Or riding within
inches of a road's edge? Or riding _off_ the road's edge, in dirt or
grass because a car was coming? I can't believe that.


What car was coming? This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments.

I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom. And I don't
consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper behavior. Does a
Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a bulletproof vest?


The comments are just illustrative of what certain motorists think. If you pull Defective Cycling moves around some people, you'll get flattened. So maybe you don't take the lane in the pin-head region of East Toadsuck. Maybe you don't ride through certain neighborhoods at night, etc., etc. If you work in a bank that gets knocked-off frequently, then yes, you do wear a bullet-proof vest.



Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them.

Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who bragged about zooming
on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps? Who bragged
about riding drunk?

Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to time - who claims
that California law says you may never move away from the edge of the road?

Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride without a marine
strobe on the back of your bike?

We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was not his fault
that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone of a line of
stopped cars, he suffered a crash.

You have to be careful in door zones, but primary fault is on the car. https://www.tcnf.legal/car-doored-again/ I ride in the door zone because the only other option is sitting in traffic or splitting lanes, which is illegal in Oregon. I am writing a 600 page book, which comes with a 20 hour skills course, on riding in door zones. The package price will be a reasonable $350 USD. Patches will be awarded.

We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk of getting
brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled roadway.

Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent than the
average bike rider. They're probably more competent than the typical
avid cyclist.

Don't tell me that education isn't necessary.

So is flexibility and common sense. And most of the education you need is available in the bicyclist's handbook, at least in Oregon. https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs...ist-Manual.pdf It's not rocket science, not even vinegar and baking soda rocket science.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/27/2019 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Speaking of local differences: That may be another Portland weirdness.
(My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper sticker.) I don't ever
remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for anything I've
done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?") In fact, when
I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to become a certified
cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for suggestions for
improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride closer to the center
of the lane.")

Extra-stringent road test? Did you have to pop wheelies and juggle? Did you get a badge?

Yes, it was extra stringent. Since the test was to qualify to become a
certified instructor, there were elements that were beyond what a normal
student would be asked to do. In a similar way, I believe to qualify as
a law professor, you have to have proven you know more than a law
student. No?

Did I get badge? I'm looking at an ancient embroidered patch that says
"Effective Cyclist Instructor, League of American Wheelmen." I need to
sew it on my current saddlebag.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the comments.

I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom. And I don't
consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper behavior. Does a
Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a bulletproof vest?


The comments are just illustrative of what certain motorists think. If you pull Defective Cycling moves around some people, you'll get flattened. So maybe you don't take the lane in the pin-head region of East Toadsuck.

So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot lane in East
Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from behind you, exactly what
do _you_ do?

Do you really stop and get off the road? If so, that's amazing. Do you
do what most (even) avid cyclists do, which is ride right at the
pavement edge and hope Mr. Toadsuck doesn't misjudge where his right
mirror is? If that's what you do, you need to take a class, whether you
believe it or not. I'm serious.

Maybe you don't ride through certain neighborhoods at night, etc., etc.

Yes, when I lived down south I was told that. "Don't ride home past that
bar at night." Because the guys that hung out there were (shudder!)
black. Well, I rode past the bar anyway. Yes, the place looked a little
rowdy. No, I never got a bit of trouble.

Ditto for the black neighborhood immediately next to us. The white boys
in big pickup trucks stayed out of it. This white guy on a bicycle rode
through with never a problem. I used to occasionally stop at the house
of an old black janitor I was friends with.

Up here, one of my colleagues said he wouldn't even stop for traffic
lights while driving his car home from the university at night. Yet I
rode by bike for decades with never a problem.

All this doesn't mean there aren't bad neighborhoods. But I think a lot
of fear is senseless paranoia.

Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust that others on this NG know their localities better than I do and would not presume to lecture them.

Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who bragged about zooming
on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps? Who bragged
about riding drunk?

Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to time - who claims
that California law says you may never move away from the edge of the road?

Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride without a marine
strobe on the back of your bike?

We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was not his fault
that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone of a line of
stopped cars, he suffered a crash.

You have to be careful in door zones, but primary fault is on the car. https://www.tcnf.legal/car-doored-again/ I ride in the door zone because the only other option is sitting in traffic or splitting lanes, which is illegal in Oregon.

If you want to ride in a door zone, have at it (although I don't). It's
not impossible to do safely. However, the guy who posted here described
doing it at speed, something like 20 mph, and paid for it. I'd say
anything over 5 mph is taking a foolish risk.

And about sitting in traffic: Especially now that I'm retired, my riding
has only a few intersections where I might routinely miss a green light
cycle and have to wait in traffic. Yes, I could avoid that by passing
waiting cars and getting to the front of the line. But I've almost never
done that. Are we supposed to tell motorists to be patient about bikes,
while we're impatient about cars? I take my place in line. It's almost
never more than two minutes delay. What am I going to accomplish with
two extra minutes?

We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk of getting
brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled roadway.

Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent than the
average bike rider. They're probably more competent than the typical
avid cyclist.

Don't tell me that education isn't necessary.

So is flexibility and common sense.

I have never said that those are bad. I think, like John, you're arguing
against what you imagine, rather than what I've actually said.


And most of the education you need is available in the bicyclist's handbook, at least in Oregon. https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs...ist-Manual.pdf It's not rocket science, not even vinegar and baking soda rocket science.

Um... did you even read that? How about page 4? Page 5? You've been
arguing against what it says.

I don't doubt that there are other sources of good information. But I do
believe that most cyclists never seek out any such information, and
their behavior proves that.

Also, those who take a class will practice things like emergency hazard
avoidance and trickier on-road situations - things like complicated
intersections, freeway ramp merges, and maybe even dealing with some of
the green nonsense Portland sprays on its streets.

I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have people who
argue against it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/27/2019 3:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2019 2:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:03:31 AM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Speaking of local differences: That may be another
Portland weirdness.
(My kid still has a "Keep Portland Weird" bumper
sticker.) I don't ever
remember having a "hall monitor" cyclist yell at me for
anything I've
done on the road. (Well, except "Where's your helmet?!?")
In fact, when
I passed the written and extra-stringent road test to
become a certified
cycling instructor, I had to beg the evaluator for
suggestions for
improvement. (His only suggestion: "You should ride
closer to the center
of the lane.")

Extra-stringent road test? Did you have to pop wheelies
and juggle? Did you get a badge?

Yes, it was extra stringent. Since the test was to qualify
to become a certified instructor, there were elements that
were beyond what a normal student would be asked to do. In a
similar way, I believe to qualify as a law professor, you
have to have proven you know more than a law student. No?

Did I get badge? I'm looking at an ancient embroidered patch
that says "Effective Cyclist Instructor, League of American
Wheelmen." I need to sew it on my current saddlebag.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg Read the
comments.

I don't consider YouTube comments to be fonts of wisdom.
And I don't
consider ultra-rare events to be guides to proper
behavior. Does a
Portland armed robbery cause you to always wear a
bulletproof vest?


The comments are just illustrative of what certain
motorists think. If you pull Defective Cycling moves
around some people, you'll get flattened. So maybe you
don't take the lane in the pin-head region of East Toadsuck.

So Jay, let me try yet again: If you're riding a ten foot
lane in East Toadsuck and an 8.5 foot truck approaches from
behind you, exactly what do _you_ do?

Do you really stop and get off the road? If so, that's
amazing. Do you do what most (even) avid cyclists do, which
is ride right at the pavement edge and hope Mr. Toadsuck
doesn't misjudge where his right mirror is? If that's what
you do, you need to take a class, whether you believe it or
not. I'm serious.

Maybe you don't ride through certain neighborhoods at
night, etc., etc.

Yes, when I lived down south I was told that. "Don't ride
home past that bar at night." Because the guys that hung out
there were (shudder!) black. Well, I rode past the bar
anyway. Yes, the place looked a little rowdy. No, I never
got a bit of trouble.

Ditto for the black neighborhood immediately next to us. The
white boys in big pickup trucks stayed out of it. This white
guy on a bicycle rode through with never a problem. I used
to occasionally stop at the house of an old black janitor I
was friends with.

Up here, one of my colleagues said he wouldn't even stop for
traffic lights while driving his car home from the
university at night. Yet I rode by bike for decades with
never a problem.

All this doesn't mean there aren't bad neighborhoods. But I
think a lot of fear is senseless paranoia.

Like I said, every place is not your village. I trust
that others on this NG know their localities better than
I do and would not presume to lecture them.

Do you not remember the dude on this newsgroup who
bragged about zooming
on sidewalks and entering intersections by flying jumps?
Who bragged
about riding drunk?

Do you not remember the guy - still here from time to
time - who claims
that California law says you may never move away from the
edge of the road?

Do you not remember the claims that its foolish to ride
without a marine
strobe on the back of your bike?

We've had an otherwise reasonable guy who claimed it was
not his fault
that when passing on the right at 20 mph in the door zone
of a line of
stopped cars, he suffered a crash.

You have to be careful in door zones, but primary fault is
on the car. https://www.tcnf.legal/car-doored-again/ I
ride in the door zone because the only other option is
sitting in traffic or splitting lanes, which is illegal in
Oregon.

If you want to ride in a door zone, have at it (although I
don't). It's not impossible to do safely. However, the guy
who posted here described doing it at speed, something like
20 mph, and paid for it. I'd say anything over 5 mph is
taking a foolish risk.

And about sitting in traffic: Especially now that I'm
retired, my riding has only a few intersections where I
might routinely miss a green light cycle and have to wait in
traffic. Yes, I could avoid that by passing waiting cars and
getting to the front of the line. But I've almost never done
that. Are we supposed to tell motorists to be patient about
bikes, while we're impatient about cars? I take my place in
line. It's almost never more than two minutes delay. What am
I going to accomplish with two extra minutes?

We still have a couple guys who claim there's a huge risk
of getting
brain injury from low hanging branches on a well traveled
roadway.

Yet this group's denizens are doubtlessly more competent
than the
average bike rider. They're probably more competent than
the typical
avid cyclist.

Don't tell me that education isn't necessary.

So is flexibility and common sense.

I have never said that those are bad. I think, like John,
you're arguing against what you imagine, rather than what
I've actually said.


And most of the education you need is available in the
bicyclist's handbook, at least in Oregon.
https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs...ist-Manual.pdf
It's not rocket science, not even vinegar and baking soda
rocket science.

Um... did you even read that? How about page 4? Page 5?
You've been arguing against what it says.

I don't doubt that there are other sources of good
information. But I do believe that most cyclists never seek
out any such information, and their behavior proves that.

Also, those who take a class will practice things like
emergency hazard avoidance and trickier on-road situations -
things like complicated intersections, freeway ramp merges,
and maybe even dealing with some of the green nonsense
Portland sprays on its streets.

I'm adamantly pro-education. I think it's weird that we have
people who argue against it.


No one is 'against education' but many people see a line
between actual education and indoctrination. Madrassas do
their version of 'education' to inflict on the earth more
jihadis. Defend that!

Especially as to riding bicycles on public roads, many parse
situational technique from categorical dogma.

There are times, more often than not actually, when I ride
lane center. There are other times and other places where
that's ridiculous and possibly suicidal.

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