Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/9/2010 12:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:08 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/8/2010 8:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Do you not remember that one of your supporters in this discussion has
frequently bragged about riding sidewalks? When he said he does, and
you said "what I do depends..." then it certainly sounded to me like
you might ride sidewalks as well.

First, I don't have supporters here.

I'm talking about James and Dan O. IIRC it was Dan in that case.

Then say so.


Second, your leap of logic
is quite amazing. Just to clarify though, if I'm in the road
and a truck is screaming up behind me and not going to stop, there
is a possibility that I'm jumping on the sidewalk. Whereas by your
interpretation, you are going to continue controlling the road.
Good luck with that.

You're describing a terror scene again, and one which I don't seem to
experience. So just how often has that happened to you? Seriously -
is a truck "screaming up behind and not going to stop" a once a week
thing, or once a month, or once a year, or what?

It happens.

To put it in perspective: I recall _once_ having to ride onto the
shoulder because an oncoming car didn't see me and passed another car,
coming head-on at me. Similarly, I recall _once_ driving my car on a
freeway and having to drive onto the shoulder because an incompetent
semi driver didn't see my car and started merging into my lane. But
those are each once-in-a-lifetime experiences for me, and NOBODY is
saying not to take evasive maneuvers in emergency situations.

You must have angels watching out for you or something.

But every truck or car approaching from behind is NOT an emergency.
It's a normal part of traffic, and I normally make use of my legal
right to the road...

You do not have a legal right to anything. Drivers don't have a right
to the road unless they have a license. Any road can be restricted.

For example, when the truck is tailgaiting me I'm going to pull to the
side and give him **** as he passes. I'm not going to continue in the
center of the lane ignoring him.

... whereas you apparently do cede your right to the road if a truck
drives at your speed, but too closely for your comfort.

You do not have a right to the road. And you still didn't read the
original post. It's not the truck.

You don't read very well do you? The truck driver is an idiot. It's
the car passing him and pulling into you that's going to kill you.
Stay there and become road kill then. Will that prove your point
that you have a right to the road?

I suppose if I do get killed, that will prove I was wrong in that
instance. But let me ask the opposite question: If I have done that
ever since, oh, 1980 or so and have never been killed in the way you
describe, will that prove that I have a right to the road, and that
what I do is safe?

You do not have a right to the road. And no, it won't prove that
what you do is safe, only that you didn't get killed.

Seriously, what do you think the odds are? IOW, don't you see you're
exaggerating a tiny danger yet again?

I had the cars pulling in front of me with the asshole in the truck on
my back. Don't you see that you're exaggerating your knowledge?

Besides, check the link that I posted regarding the Quebec highway code.
What you think of as your right to the road is seriously at odds with that.

Actually, after reading that, I see why the truck was tailgaiting me. I
was too far to the frigging left. I'm lucky I didn't get a ticket.

On Dec 9, 9:23*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Besides, law has many specialties. *I don't know what's your area of
practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. *One lawyer I know well
does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
indicate not all attorneys are equal!

Always be sure to tell any professional you hire how bad the rest of
them are.

So, Frank, out of curiosity, what was the reason your were kicked out
of your Dale Carnegie course?

DR

I have some questions for Frank.

As I understand, in a 10-foot wide lane (no shoulder), with an 8.5-foot wide
truck behind you, you'd ride in the middle of the lane. This would put you 5
feet from the right edge.

Where would you ride if there was no vehicle behind you?

What if instead of a big truck, it was a small car or a motorcycle behind you?

What if the lane was 14 feet wide instead of 10 feet?

In all of these cases, I think I'd ride in the same place - as far right as I
deem practicable, probably about 3 feet from the edge if there are no issues
with debris or road surface. Maybe a little closer if there's an unpaved
shoulder instead of a curb.

On 12/9/2010 12:55 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Wed, 08 Dec 2010
11:36:07 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/8/2010 11:26 AM, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°

How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
traffic.

False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles.
Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
driver.

Right. Here's a link that has some of the basic principles:
http://www.allsands.com/howto/defens...vin_xwv_gn.htm

Most of the suggestions make sense to me but particularly relevant to
this thread a

5. Anticipate the mistakes or unsafe maneuvers of the other drivers.
Notice that it doesn't say "unless you are controlling the lane"

Anticipating the mistakes of other drivers includes making it more
difficult for them to make those mistakes, rather than encouraging
them to make them.
That is exactly what taking the lane is all about.

and
16. If a tailgater is following you, move to another lane if possible or
pull to the side of the road and let the tailgater pass you.

Could you leave the goalposts in place instead of moving them around?
Nowhere has it previously been stated that this is a tailgater.

We're talking about if the driver is driving dangerously.
Frank is saying to control the lane. Others are saying that
they would do whatever seems correct, including getting out
of the street.

Notice that it doesn't say to stay in the center of the road and
maintain your right to be there. Nor does it say that you will be
a cowardly, subservient wimp for getting out of the way of the guy
behind you driving dangerously.

You missed out:
18, Do not drive in another driver's blind spot.

I don't see how I'm in his blind spot when I'm in front of him.
If I move to the right to let him pass, he knows where I am.
Otherwise, I'm in front of him. Being in the center of the
lane doesn't do me any good.

Remember there's not enough room to share the lane so I'm either
in front of him, letting him pass or not on the road.

23. Stay in the middle of your lane in between the lines.

Looks like you are cherry picking.

By pointing out scenarios where "controlling the lane"
doesn't work? I guess I could say that it never works
but that would be wrong. Just as much as saying that it
always does.

Per Michael Press:
The bills stopped...

And the police arrived.

Actually not. I was surprised too.
--
PeteCresswell

On Dec 9, 9:23*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Hmm. *Correct me if I'm wrong; .....

Frank that has pretty much been the focus of this thread
So let's at least get the proper theme into the subject line - at your
request, of course. Everyone here HAS been correcting you, repeatedly.
We had not fully appreciated the extent of your learning disorder.

Correct? *Because you're saying that O.R.S. § 811.130 , although it
specifically says "motor vehicle," must apply also to bicycles. .....

Seems that O.R.S. § 814.400 covers that.

Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously.

The Court of Appeals has answered the question. *I don't need to talk
to Bob...

What Frank fails to understand is that the Court of Appeals decision
IS a complete answer. Frank can rant all day about HOW he thinks it
SHOULD be. What is clear is how it IS.

Rather than waste the time of others, Frank can set up a test case
(think Selz and a narrow 2-1 decision) if he wants or he can lobby the
Oregon legislature. Although what he describes is already addressed in
a clear and reasonable manner.

....
I think it would be a really good idea. *If nothing else, ask him if
he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. *Ask him why.
You could then report back to us about what he says. *It would be
interesting, don't you agree?

Frank- YOU call Bob and bend his ear. Give him a link to this thread.
Tell us what he says about the law. Not some silly carefully
constructed hypothetical, ask about the big picture of what the law
provides.
No, on second thought, have him post here himself. You have not quoted
anyone accurately yet.

DR

In article ,
Tºm Shermªn� °_° " wrote:

On 12/8/2010 10:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,
Jay wrote:

On Dec 7, 4:27?pm, Tim wrote:
In , ?T m Sherm n
" wrote:

On 12/6/2010 11:04 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In , ? Peter
?wrote: [...]
?Medicine, in the US, via a number of mechanisms, is pretty
much ?a cartel.
Bull****. ?But you have to stop mixing things up to be able to
understand that.

The financing of medical care in the US is a cartel.

You'd have to prove collusion between insurance companies to
prevent competition or inflate prices to demonstrate that health
care finance is a cartel. ?It may very well be, and if so it is
one of many (along with the oil industry, the cell phone
industry, the music industry, the movie industry, the...). ?Drug
companies, OTOH, operate as monopolies rather than as cartels.

Insurance policies and premiums are approved by state regulators.
Premiums are set based on actuarial data, and annual increases
must be approved. Insurance companies are treated like regulated
utilities and not cartels in the sense that they are competitors
engaged in illegal price fixing or other monopoly-like activity.
The problem is that there are too few insurers competing for
business, so there is no real choice for consumers.

There are at least a dozen competing health insurance companies in
my state. Four of them split up most of the market share

Pretty much a cartel, then.

Please look up the definition of a cartel. Spouting off like this just
makes you look foolish.

and another four or five take most of what's left with a few
smaller players. What's the minimum threshold for effective
competition? There are three times as many insurance companies as
there are paid TV signal providers here (and many people spend as
much or more on TV service than they do on health insurance
premiums).

Commercial television and radio broadcasting in the US is the
government practically giving away a limited public resource to the
well connected.

*Paid* signal providers, Tom. In my neighborhood the options are
Comcast, Qwest and IIRC two satellite providers. We have far more
choices in health insurance.

Patent rights may give drug companies "monopolies" on certain
drugs in the same way that Shimano has a monopoly on Di2, but the
drug companies are not "monopolies." Since we are talking about
multiple competitors, it would have to be a trust or a cartel in
any event.

Drug companies have legal monopolies on drugs covered by patent
protection, and then maintain those monopolies as long as possible
once the patents expire by tying up the generic drug with lawsuits
over things like pill coatings. Another favored technique is to
modify the delivery system to get new patent protection for an old
drug (Advair is a great example of this).

The problem is that market forces are very, very weak in the
health care industry. The capitalist model does not work well. I
am pushing for a complete overhaul: socialized voo-doo. -- Jay
Beattie.

Fine by me. Simple, straightforward, universal coverage.


Letting people die in the streets also works, as long as civil unrest
is kept to level where it can be controlled by the military and
government backed death squads.

I guess that's an option. It's part of the health care system as it
exists in the US now. They call it "freedom" apparently.

--
Gotta make it somehow on the dreams you still believe.

On Dec 9, 12:59*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:


You do not have a legal right to anything. *...

You do not have a right to the road. ...

You do not have a right to the road. *...

Then you and I are too far apart on fundamentals to ever agree.

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/9/2010 3:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, Duane wrote:


You do not have a legal right to anything. ...

You do not have a right to the road. ...

You do not have a right to the road. ...

You can't drive a car on a road without a license and your license
can be suspended. Drivers don't have a right to the road. They have
a privilege.

You can't ride a bicycle on any road where the authority having
jurisdiction prevents it. At the moment,
it's probably mostly interstates in the US. The AHJ can mark any road
that they want to prevent cycling. They can force you to ride in a bike
lane or not use the road. They can force you to license your bike.
Hell, you're even known to have ranted against facilities in part
because you're afraid you will be forced to use them. How do you claim
that you have a right?

Then you and I are too far apart on fundamentals to ever agree.

Finally something I can agree with.

On 2010-12-09, Michael Press wrote:
In article . org,
Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:

On 2010-12-09, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? "" wrote:
On 12/8/2010 8:22 AM, Duane H?bert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:13 PM, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:22 AM, Duane H?bert wrote:
On 12/6/2010 9:21 PM, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? wrote:
On 12/6/2010 10:08 AM, Duane H?bert wrote:

At home I use Outlook Express for a news reader.[...]

Bill Gates holding a gun to your head?


Huh?

Why would anyone use a Micro$oft product when better, free alternatives
are available? (Assuming that they are given a choice.)


I haven't got around to installing TBird at home. Last year when I
tried it, it sucked too much. The current version seems ok - I'm using
it at work.

The "Huh?" was more about you telling me to use a newsreader that will
let me respond to your posts in lieu of you not doing funny things to
your header.

So huh?

My header is UTF-8 compliant.

Alas, usenet is not. It's a 7-bit medium.

All headers must be ASCII. Header titles
must be exactly as prescribed. HOWEVER... there are
means to communicate and render glyphs outside
ASCII. You have some reading to do, but I
promise it is rewarding reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2047

I'm aware of how MIME works. It doesn't change the underlying foundation of
Usenet, it just makes it possible to piggyback non-ASCII content onto an
ASCII medium of transport.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff