Ineffective Cycling

On 5/9/2019 9:22 AM, Duane wrote:

I think Cyclecraft was written in 1988 so I doubt that it takes cell
phones, texting, auto GPS etc into account.

Two points to note:

First, Duane is still arguing from ignorance. "I think..." and "I
doubt..." Obviously, he's not going to actually bother to find out.
Wild guesses are good enough for him.

Second, the copy I just picked up was copyright 2007. At least Duane got
within 20 years of being correct.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/8/2019 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 14:17:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/8/2019 1:59 PM, Duane wrote:
On 08/05/2019 1:52 p.m., wrote:


Same here. I was riding along yesterday and a woman in a car wanted to
drive onto the road from the right. I saw it coming and shook my head
trying to say don't do that in a nice way. She nodded her head trying
to 'yes I will' and yelling at me she is coming from the right and
have right of way. I said you coming from a parking lot and have to
give right of way to anybody on the road. You have to deal with this
kind of situations at least once every ride.


Funny how these things seem common to some of us but apparently there's
a book you can read to solve it all.

That statement is very similar to "Ya don't need to know algebra. All ya
need is add and subtract."

Funny, you know. My wife doesn't know algebra and is now in her 70's
and hasn't yet seemed to need it. Would you care to elaborate why an
elderly woman like her needs to know advanced math?

Wow. Sometimes it's necessary to spell out the analogies in painstaking detail!

I'm talking about math skills as a parallel to cycling skills. So does your wife
need algebra? Does she need multiplication and division? Not if she's never
going to do anything beyond shopping, balancing a check book, following a recipe
book.

How in the world are math skills a parallel to bicycle skills?

Hmm. Note to self: John doesn't understand the concept of "analogy."

Does knowing the square root of -1 equate to riding a bicycle?

Please re-read above, where I used multiplication and division as well
as algebra. I didn't get into irrational numbers, conic sections,
trigonometry, differential equations, etc.

But I'm saying basic bike riding like my seven year old buddy does is
one thing. Perhaps it's what you do, since you've mentioned riding only
on highways with super-wide separated shoulders. Likewise, it's easy to
ride just on bike paths or streets with near zero traffic.

If that's all one does and all one aspires to do, that's fine. They may
be able to say they have no problems. But they shouldn't pretend to be
expert.

There are also bike riders around here who creep along on the sidewalk,
stopping frequently. If they take to the street at all, they stop each
time a car comes by. I suppose that's fine too, if they are willing to
put up with snail's pace transportation. Maybe you're like them, I don't
know. But again, such a person may never have been in a crash. But they
shouldn't pretend they know all there is to know.

If you want to do more - explore cities by bike, or bike for real
transportation, or travel on multi-day trips by bike, etc. - then more
knowledge is valuable. And as with mathematics beyond first grade,
nobody gets it by being a hubristic genius.

And why would someone dedicated to bicycling adamantly refuse to even
read a book on the subject? If you'd saved the time you spent arguing
here, you could have finished the book by now.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:22:46 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 09/05/2019 8:57 a.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Snipped
Here's the bridge where a number of years ago I bailed onto the
shoulder of the road before getting onto the bridge because three
18 wheelers were coming up fast behind me and were showing no
signs of slowing down. As you can see once you're on that bridge
there's no way out of the lane except at the far end. I was told i
should have stayed lance center and the trucks would have to have
slowed down.

I figure that in push come to shove a 22 pound bicycle will lose
against an 18 wheeler every time.

Cheers


Was there supposed to be a link there somewhere?

Anyway, I think one should ride defensively and pay attention to the
surroundings. There's no magic bullet that works in every case.

I've had a woman at a stop light in the left lane turn in front of my
when I was center of the right lane. The light changed and as I was
approaching she just turned into what was apparently her driveway. I
tried to turn as well and managed to dump on her lawn. When I got up to
confront her I actually startled her. It was the first time she had
seen me. She was sitting in her car fiddling with her phone.

The reason I was in the center of the lane is that I was coming down the
hill and there are several driveways entering the road that have poor
sight lines due to trees etc. I doubt that my lane position mattered at
all.

I can think of several cases like this. I've had an idiot rear end me
in my car while I was at a stop sign because he was texting. I was at
the same stop the day before on my bike.

I think Cyclecraft was written in 1988 so I doubt that it takes cell
phones, texting, auto GPS etc into account.

looks like I forgot to put the link in. I hope this one takes you to
the image I want to post.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Fre...!4d-80.4104376

Sheesh that's a long link.

Sometimes it's simply a matter of the person on the scene knowing
whether or not to take the lane or stay in the lane is the best thing
to do.

I often wonder how many of those who get hit from behind were aware of
the approaching vehicle. I still think that a rear view mirror is a
far superior safety device for a bicyclist than a bell that most
people let alone drivers can't hear anyway. It still amazes me that on
the MUPs around here, that most of the times when someone hears a
bicycle bell they stop and look UP.

I have seen them looking around them on the ground, expecting to see
some dropped change. Dogs figure it out, even if their walkers don't.

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 11:06:57 AM UTC-7, Earls61 wrote:
The cyclist should have stayed stopped at the side of the road because an emergency vehicle with sirens and lights activated was overtaking him.
Around here, emergency vehicles will unpredictably change lanes and drive on the wrong side of the road or make sudden turns into cross streets without signaling. They even drive the wrong way down a one way road. I have also encountered them on multi use trails, doing a good 40+ mph.

You and I are in complete agreement. When did anyone not learn that emergency vehicles ALWAYS under any condition have right of way? That lights and siren mean you are to pull to the side of the road and STOP?

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 8:19:25 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:05:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2019 11:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:12:13 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
Good title for a book. Lots of potential

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uick-turn.html
--

He should have been in position three, but he does get points for the fluorescent vest. Had he attended my advanced skills course, he would have known not to ride straight into a turning fire engine. That is in class number six, if you purchase the deluxe package. Otherwise, it is covered more generally in class number three, chapter four: "Don't Ride Your Bike into Things." See Bicycle Illuminati Rule 7.2(1)(a)(iii): "when riding your bike, do not ride straight into walls, large trucks or other massive objects." Here's the chapter materials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpFC6kfc15s

FWIW, that situation is dealt with in detail in the cycling classes I
have taken. How to prevent it from setting up in the first place, how to
watch for it developing, exactly what evasive action to take if it can't
be avoided, etc. Oh, and the classes had actual drills on the relevant
last-second evasive skills, practiced over and over.

No, people do _not_ know those things automatically. Even riders with
years of experience.

Goodness! Those bicyclists, back there, must be sort of stupid. After
all it was a great big motor bus and the guy rode right into it. the
cyclists here aren't that stupid (and they can't even speak English).
As for "evasive action", well I suppose that "just stop and let the
bloody great thing go by" is evasive action.

But the assertion that one needs lessons to teach one NOT to crash
into a big bus, or that "people do_not_know these things
automatically" - not to ride into the side of a bus, one assumes,
would seem to equate the intelligence of the average U.S. bicycle
rider with that of a pet rock.

That rider was at the pet rock level. But "that situation" I referred to
is what's known as a Right Hook in the U.S. (or a left hook in Britain,
etc.) And it happens regularly, even to intelligent cyclists.
Intelligent but ignorant, that is.

It happens in part because bike lanes instruct cyclists to ride through
intersections to the right of vehicles that may turn right. That scheme
is one factor that sets up the conflict. Another is the meme that claims
a bicyclist must always be at the edge of the roadway - meaning a
cyclist must put himself in the same situation even without the paint
stripe telling him to.

Yes, be wary of right turning cars when you are in a bike lane approaching an intersection. That's in my self-published book "Bicycle Illuminati Part Deux." BTW, we have a law for that now -- thanks in part to the unfortunately over-the-top group I helped create, the BTA nka the Street Trust. https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...rs-affirm.html

Apparently, you are not keeping abreast of the law in Oregon, unlike me and those who actually know about cycling.

And more importantly, emphasis should be put on training drivers who do not understand that bike lanes are in fact traffic lanes and should be treated like traffic lanes. Many problems would be solved if motorists thought of bike lanes as the right-right lane.


There are ways of avoiding that geometry. There are ways of sometimes
dissuading the motorist if you're unavoidably in that situation. There
are ways of evading the crash if it all goes wrong. Those are the sorts
of things taught in these sorts of classes.

But you obviously didn't know that.

I would assume as much. It would be like going to a driver's ed class where they didn't teach you basic defensive driving.

I avoid at least one crash every day and two on Sundays -- I avoided one yesterday morning when some car right hooked my son and me. He hit the jets and engaged the driver, for better or worse. She was French and said that "I szaw you" (pointing at her eyes for accentuation). WTF? Why would you even say that? It means she saw us and turned anyway. Hmmmm. "F*** you, au revoir!" DEPORT HER DONALD!

-- Jay Beattie.

By the way - when you are approaching an intersection in a bike lane be careful of right turning vehicles even if they are in the left turn lane with the left turn signals on.

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:54:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/9/2019 5:10 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:


Do not (overtly) look at traffic supposed to yield, don't slow down the
cranks, just calculate emergency manoeuvers without showing.

"Don't slow down the cranks" is one technique I learned. When I have the
right of way, I want to make it visibly clear that I'm going to take it.

How come you
have never read a book on how to deal with Portland Euro driver trash?!

I remain astounded that some are arguing so strongly against trying to
learn more about bicycling. What the hell?

Golfers I know watch instructional videos, go to driving ranges to
practice, read books and articles. Fishermen I know are avid readers of
magazine articles that are full of instruction. Ditto for runners I
know, weight lifters I know, etc. etc.

Seems like a lot of people here think there's nothing to learn except
what gruppo to buy next.

Or they are tired of flippy-flag pedants yelling about "primary position" and complaining about improper passing. Personally, I'm tired of the yearly hatch of bike path experts.

Here is the Cyclecraft TOC: https://books.google.com/books?id=Gb...page&q&f=false

Or he https://www.amazon.com/Cyclecraft-Co.../dp/0117064769

I'm sure there is useful information, and even a useful refresher for experienced cyclists, but I doubt there are any epiphanies for a 50 year commuter. I'll eat my peas, get a used copy at Powells and read it in forty minutes and probably realize I've wasted forty minutes.

Moreover, skills based training for cycling comparable to your weight lifting or golfing example is far beyond these books or their intended audiences.. I've done skills based training on the track and for CX and for road racing (such as it is), and it has little relevance to the ordinary act of riding a bike. The relevant aspects of collision avoidance for ordinary cyclists can be covered in a few pages. I'll see whether the five or so pages devoted to the subject in Cyclecraft say anything I don't already know.

I also question whether Franklin is right. As Duane pointed out, "primary position" is illegal most places, subject to certain exceptions. From one reader review:

Franklin has developed the concept of the "primary riding position" which is "in the center of the rightmost line of traffic for the direction in which you wish to travel." Why is this the primary position? Because, "here you will be well within the zone of maximum surveillance of both following drivers and those who might cross your path, and you will have the best two-way visibility of side roads and other features along the road. The road surface will usually be flatter here ...". Earlier on the same page he explains the basis: "Motorists primarily give attention to that part of the highway where is risk to themselves: they are not nearly so good at noticing anything outside their path. This zone of maximum surveillance is often very narrow, especially at higher speeds - it does not extend to much ... For you to be safest as a cyclist, you must normally ride within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it." (p 93).

Franklin also introduces the "secondary riding position" which is "about 3 feet to the right of the line of traffic", but recommends using it only when riding there could help others, "so long as your own safety is not thereby impaired." (p. 94). The reason this book is so important to read is because it explains so well why the secondary riding position compromises safety much more, and much more often, than most bicyclists seem to realize.


That's just plain wrong legally, and its wrong practically depending on traffic -- and I'm not talking about mean trucks. Visual clutter (bus graphics, lights, etc), blacked out windows on other cars -- you can be invisible lane center to everyone except the car immediately behind you, including overtaking cars in the outside lane who may drop in on you or following car who always accelerate when the car behind you gets ****ed-off and goes around. In fast moving, dense traffic AFRAP may make you more visible to the entire line of traffic. OTOH, lane center may be the best bet, but its hardly a default position.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 9 May 2019 05:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 09/05/2019 7:31 a.m., Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 12:23 schrieb Duane:
No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book
that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be
dead
center of the right most lane.

In some jurisdictions, the law forces the cyclist either to live
dangerous or to break the law.* One example is the mandatory use of
"Bicycle sidewalks" in Germany.

If I wish to minimize my chances of being run over, I

1) need to be aware of the dangers
2) need to recognize the dangers
3) need to ignore the law in dangerous situations
4) need to think of a good excuse

More than 95% of untrained cyclists use the bicycle sidewalk even in
dangerous situations because they are not aware of the specific dangers
that would be most easily avoided by using the lane rather than the
bicycle sidewalk.* Most of the cyclists run over by right-turning trucks
are children and OAPs.


What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane. Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand. I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

Here's the bridge where a number of years ago I bailed onto the shoulder of the road before getting onto the bridge because three 18 wheelers were coming up fast behind me and were showing no signs of slowing down. As you can see once you're on that bridge there's no way out of the lane except at the far end. I was told i should have stayed lance center and the trucks would have to have slowed down.

I figure that in push come to shove a 22 pound bicycle will lose against an 18 wheeler every time.

Cheers

I think that is a forgone conclusion. In any collision between a
bicycle and almost anything else on the roads the bicycle comes off
worse.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/9/2019 5:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 05:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 09/05/2019 7:31 a.m., Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 12:23 schrieb Duane:
No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book
that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be
dead
center of the right most lane.

In some jurisdictions, the law forces the cyclist either to live
dangerous or to break the law. One example is the mandatory use of
"Bicycle sidewalks" in Germany.

If I wish to minimize my chances of being run over, I

1) need to be aware of the dangers
2) need to recognize the dangers
3) need to ignore the law in dangerous situations
4) need to think of a good excuse

More than 95% of untrained cyclists use the bicycle sidewalk even in
dangerous situations because they are not aware of the specific dangers
that would be most easily avoided by using the lane rather than the
bicycle sidewalk. Most of the cyclists run over by right-turning trucks
are children and OAPs.


What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane. Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand. I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

Here's the bridge where a number of years ago I bailed onto the shoulder of the road before getting onto the bridge because three 18 wheelers were coming up fast behind me and were showing no signs of slowing down. As you can see once you're on that bridge there's no way out of the lane except at the far end. I was told i should have stayed lance center and the trucks would have to have slowed down.

I figure that in push come to shove a 22 pound bicycle will lose against an 18 wheeler every time.

Cheers

I think that is a forgone conclusion. In any collision between a
bicycle and almost anything else on the roads the bicycle comes off
worse.

Generally, except for the ill-starred Mr Hui in a crosswalk:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matie...th-4680814.php

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

On Thu, 9 May 2019 12:22:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/8/2019 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 14:17:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/8/2019 1:59 PM, Duane wrote:
On 08/05/2019 1:52 p.m., wrote:


Same here. I was riding along yesterday and a woman in a car wanted to
drive onto the road from the right. I saw it coming and shook my head
trying to say don't do that in a nice way. She nodded her head trying
to 'yes I will' and yelling at me she is coming from the right and
have right of way. I said you coming from a parking lot and have to
give right of way to anybody on the road. You have to deal with this
kind of situations at least once every ride.


Funny how these things seem common to some of us but apparently there's
a book you can read to solve it all.

That statement is very similar to "Ya don't need to know algebra. All ya
need is add and subtract."

Funny, you know. My wife doesn't know algebra and is now in her 70's
and hasn't yet seemed to need it. Would you care to elaborate why an
elderly woman like her needs to know advanced math?

Wow. Sometimes it's necessary to spell out the analogies in painstaking detail!

I'm talking about math skills as a parallel to cycling skills. So does your wife
need algebra? Does she need multiplication and division? Not if she's never
going to do anything beyond shopping, balancing a check book, following a recipe
book.

How in the world are math skills a parallel to bicycle skills?

Hmm. Note to self: John doesn't understand the concept of "analogy."

Does knowing the square root of -1 equate to riding a bicycle?

Please re-read above, where I used multiplication and division as well
as algebra. I didn't get into irrational numbers, conic sections,
trigonometry, differential equations, etc.

But, as you say, it was an analogy. Don't you understand the concept
of "analogy"?

But I'm saying basic bike riding like my seven year old buddy does is
one thing. Perhaps it's what you do, since you've mentioned riding only
on highways with super-wide separated shoulders. Likewise, it's easy to
ride just on bike paths or streets with near zero traffic.

But Frank, over here there are hoards of people who use a bicycle for
transportation. Ride early in the morning near any "open market" and
you'll see them going and returning from their daily trip to buy the
day's food. Why, I even see guys riding to work in the morning.

My guess is that there are more (on a per capita basis) people riding
bicycles in Thailand than there are in the U.S.

And not a one of them have read your recommended book.

If that's all one does and all one aspires to do, that's fine. They may
be able to say they have no problems. But they shouldn't pretend to be
expert.

I don't pretend to be an expert. I have only commented that I've been
riding a bike for about 20 years without an accident, or even an
incident, and much of that time has been in a city with such chaotic
traffic that most foreigners are literally afraid to drive here and in
a country that usually leads the pack, or comes in second, as the
country with the most traffic deaths in the world.

See:
http://driving-in-thailand.com/thai-...-in-the-world/
But we did better
https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/tha...t-world-atlas/

There are also bike riders around here who creep along on the sidewalk,
stopping frequently. If they take to the street at all, they stop each
time a car comes by. I suppose that's fine too, if they are willing to
put up with snail's pace transportation. Maybe you're like them, I don't
know. But again, such a person may never have been in a crash. But they
shouldn't pretend they know all there is to know.

If you want to do more - explore cities by bike, or bike for real
transportation, or travel on multi-day trips by bike, etc. - then more
knowledge is valuable. And as with mathematics beyond first grade,
nobody gets it by being a hubristic genius.

In the second site I mention, above, the lead photo is entitled
"Bangkok Traffic". Does your book tell me something I haven't already
learned (after 20 years) about how to ride in "Bangkok Traffic"?

And why would someone dedicated to bicycling adamantly refuse to even
read a book on the subject? If you'd saved the time you spent arguing
here, you could have finished the book by now.

Again I will mention the above "Bangkok Traffic" and ask, does your
book tell me any secrets about how to cope with Bangkok Traffic?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 09 May 2019 17:49:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/9/2019 5:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 05:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:36:01 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 09/05/2019 7:31 a.m., Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 12:23 schrieb Duane:
No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book
that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be
dead
center of the right most lane.

In some jurisdictions, the law forces the cyclist either to live
dangerous or to break the law. One example is the mandatory use of
"Bicycle sidewalks" in Germany.

If I wish to minimize my chances of being run over, I

1) need to be aware of the dangers
2) need to recognize the dangers
3) need to ignore the law in dangerous situations
4) need to think of a good excuse

More than 95% of untrained cyclists use the bicycle sidewalk even in
dangerous situations because they are not aware of the specific dangers
that would be most easily avoided by using the lane rather than the
bicycle sidewalk. Most of the cyclists run over by right-turning trucks
are children and OAPs.


What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane. Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand. I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

Here's the bridge where a number of years ago I bailed onto the shoulder of the road before getting onto the bridge because three 18 wheelers were coming up fast behind me and were showing no signs of slowing down. As you can see once you're on that bridge there's no way out of the lane except at the far end. I was told i should have stayed lance center and the trucks would have to have slowed down.

I figure that in push come to shove a 22 pound bicycle will lose against an 18 wheeler every time.

Cheers

I think that is a forgone conclusion. In any collision between a
bicycle and almost anything else on the roads the bicycle comes off
worse.

Generally, except for the ill-starred Mr Hui in a crosswalk:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matie...th-4680814.php

Well, you have to say that the courts treated the bicyclists well. Hit
someone and they die and you don't go to jail.
--
cheers,

John B.