Singapore Bikes

On Jun 22, 12:11*pm, Dan O wrote:

You have data on bicyclist and pedestrian confrontations with
lunatics? *Can we see it?

Yes, you can. You can see it by looking up the number of pedestrian
fatalities and the number of bicycle fatalities per year in the U.S.,
or in the country of your choice. GIYF.

If you'd like the data per mile traveled, read some of Pucher's
papers. I believe that data was in "Making Biking and Walking
Irresistable." I've quoted and cited both of these many times before.

- Frank Krygowski

On 6/21/2011 5:46 PM, James wrote:
snip
Seriously, these things happen on occasion, when you block the lane in
places I ride.

Duane Hebert wrote:
At the moment in Montreal, two main bridges onto the island are
partially blocked, both main East/West autoroutes have lane restriction
due to humongous pot holes and traffic is horrendous and predicted to be
so for the summer. Couple that with the recent hikes in gas prices and
with the high level of motorist frustration, these things seem to be
happening more than "on occasion".
Sunday on the way home in our car, traffic went from 120k/h to nearly
stopped. We went off the road as did several others to avoid the trucks
sliding up behind us. **** happens.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Of course it happens - rarely. The problem we have with cycling's
image is that people take an event that happens very rarely (630 times
per year in the entire USA), or an event that actually did not happen
but "might have" happened, and portray it as a huge and likely risk.

Dan O wrote:
Likely? Cite?

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Duane and I have gone through this. When I insisted on data counting
the _actual_ events, then finally provided it myself, Duane moved into
"**** you" killfile mode. Which is why this response to his post uses
the third person.
In other words, proving bicycling is not very hazardous absolutely
enrages some cyclists. And that's just weird.

Duane Hebert wrote:
The percentage of times that I'm confronted with lunatics, though not
zero, is low.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
How low? As I recall from the data I found, it must be extremely low.
Even lower than for pedestrians walking down the street.

Dan O wrote:
You have data on bicyclist and pedestrian confrontations with
lunatics? Can we see it?

Lunacy may be subjective. You make the call:
http://www.gifbin.com/985418

Sadly, catastrophic events are well publicized, despite
being rarities:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c002e0.html

Just a few hours ago not far (4 blocks) from here.
Pedestrian, in the crosswalk with the green light, died.

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

On Jun 22, 9:45 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 22, 12:11 pm, Dan O wrote:



You have data on bicyclist and pedestrian confrontations with
lunatics? Can we see it?

Yes, you can. You can see it by looking up the number of pedestrian
fatalities and the number of bicycle fatalities per year in the U.S.,
or in the country of your choice. GIYF.

If you'd like the data per mile traveled, read some of Pucher's
papers. I believe that data was in "Making Biking and Walking
Irresistable." I've quoted and cited both of these many times before.


Dude, you're flabbergasting me

On Jun 22, 2:41*pm, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/21/2011 5:46 PM, James wrote:
snip
Seriously, these things happen on occasion, when you block the lane in
places I ride.
Duane Hebert wrote:
At the moment in Montreal, two main bridges onto the island are
partially blocked, both main East/West autoroutes have lane restriction
due to humongous pot holes and traffic is horrendous and predicted to be
so for the summer. *Couple that with the recent hikes in gas prices and
with the high level of motorist frustration, these things seem to be
happening more than "on occasion".
Sunday on the way home in our car, traffic went from 120k/h to nearly
stopped. *We went off the road as did several others to avoid the trucks
sliding up behind us. ***** happens.
*Frank Krygowski wrote:
Of course it happens - rarely. *The problem we have with cycling's
image is that people take an event that happens very rarely (630 times
per year in the entire USA), or an event that actually did not happen
but "might have" happened, and portray it as a huge and likely risk.
Dan O wrote:
Likely? *Cite?
*Frank Krygowski wrote:
Duane *and I have gone through this. *When I insisted on data counting
the _actual_ events, then finally provided it myself, Duane moved into
"**** you" killfile mode. *Which is why this response to his post uses
the third person.
In other words, proving bicycling is not very hazardous absolutely
enrages some cyclists. *And that's just weird.
Duane Hebert wrote:
The percentage of times that I'm confronted with lunatics, though not
zero, is low.
*Frank Krygowski wrote:
How low? *As I recall from the data I found, it must be extremely low.
Even lower than for pedestrians walking down the street.
Dan O wrote:
You have data on bicyclist and pedestrian confrontations with
lunatics? *Can we see it?

Lunacy may be subjective. *You make the call:http://www.gifbin.com/985418

Sadly, catastrophic events are well publicized, despite
being rarities:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc.../article_af7db...

Just a few hours ago not far (4 blocks) from here.
Pedestrian, in the crosswalk with the green light, died.

That's terrible -- but your bus drivers are small thinkers, where ours
operate on a much grander scale:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...t_wreck_l.html
Your guys have to learn to run down entire crowds of pedestrians.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/22/2011 4:41 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
On 6/21/2011 5:46 PM, James wrote:
snip
Seriously, these things happen on occasion, when you block the lane in
places I ride.

Duane Hebert wrote:
At the moment in Montreal, two main bridges onto the island are
partially blocked, both main East/West autoroutes have lane restriction
due to humongous pot holes and traffic is horrendous and predicted
to be
so for the summer. Couple that with the recent hikes in gas prices and
with the high level of motorist frustration, these things seem to be
happening more than "on occasion".
Sunday on the way home in our car, traffic went from 120k/h to nearly
stopped. We went off the road as did several others to avoid the trucks
sliding up behind us. **** happens.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Of course it happens - rarely. The problem we have with cycling's
image is that people take an event that happens very rarely (630 times
per year in the entire USA), or an event that actually did not happen
but "might have" happened, and portray it as a huge and likely risk.

Dan O wrote:
Likely? Cite?

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Duane and I have gone through this. When I insisted on data counting
the _actual_ events, then finally provided it myself, Duane moved into
"**** you" killfile mode. Which is why this response to his post uses
the third person.
In other words, proving bicycling is not very hazardous absolutely
enrages some cyclists. And that's just weird.

Duane Hebert wrote:
The percentage of times that I'm confronted with lunatics, though not
zero, is low.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
How low? As I recall from the data I found, it must be extremely low.
Even lower than for pedestrians walking down the street.

Dan O wrote:
You have data on bicyclist and pedestrian confrontations with
lunatics? Can we see it?

Lunacy may be subjective. You make the call:
http://www.gifbin.com/985418

Sadly, catastrophic events are well publicized, despite being rarities:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c002e0.html


Just a few hours ago not far (4 blocks) from here. Pedestrian, in the
crosswalk with the green light, died.


I am surprised more people are not killed by Madison Metro drivers. In
general, they seem to exhibit borderline personalities at a much greater
rate than the general population, or bus drivers in other cities of
similar size.

However, the worst drivers as a category may well be Milwaukee school
bus drivers.

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

On Jun 22, 9:41 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:02 am, Dan O wrote:



On Jun 21, 8:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jun 21, 12:21 am, Dan O wrote:

On Jun 20, 2:01 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

One version of "the question," as I've asked it many times, is this:
You're riding in a ten foot lane. An eight foot wide truck is
approaching from behind. What do you do?

We can add details for those trying to squirm away from the truth.
Details like, it's a two-lane road; there is oncoming traffic, so the
truck can't move into the oncoming lane; there is no Deus ex Machina
sidewalk to jump or wheeljie to.

What, a brick wall to my right? I would never have entered such a
hell hole in the first place.

It doesn't need to be a brick wall, Dan. It can be a three foot deep
ditch immediately beyond the pavement, with no rideable surface in
between.

And I think you're illustrating a difference between you and me. I
don't consider a road with no sidewalk or rideable shoulder to be a
"hell hole." Some of my favorite country roads are like that.

I greatly enjoy many narrow country roads, but they *never* have a
stream of traffic that prohibits safe and easy passing.

A ten foot lane needs only two vehicles - on coming from each
direction - to give serious problems...

Are you suggesting, then, that the driver of an eight-and-a-half-foot
wide truck coming up behind a bicyclist in a ten-foot

wide lane will not wait for a *single* oncoming car to pass before
then moving out to pass the bicyclist?

... to a gutter bunny.


:-)

Earth to Frank: Motorists do not think they need permission to pass.

They don't think of it as permission.

*You* called it "permission".

I'm not writing to them, Dan.


You said "give the trucker permission to pass" (then you snipped it).
If you're going to leave my words and argue with them, the least you
can do is leave them in context.

My shorthand descriptions here don't
affect their perception. They think of it as "room to pass" or "not
enough room to pass." Period. When it's the latter, I want them to
know that.


It's still just a matter of their perception, though, isn't it, and
anyway
life's too short for me to spend it directing traffic.

"As far right as practicable" is typically going to be at least a
couple of feet from the bitter edge. If me and my bike are more than
foot wide...

... which you definitely are. Grab a ruler and see.


Like to measure yourself, do you? ;-)

... that puts me out around the middle of your ten foot lane
anyway.

Sorry, your math is off, or your visualization is off.


I said at *least* a couple feet from the edge. Let's be charitable to
you and call that just two feet. Can we add a foot for my width?
That's me sticking out ~one-third of the way into the
lane. Is that not "out around" the middle?

A bicyclist is roughly two feet wide. A typical car is about six feet
wide, many trucks are about eight feet wide. And many states
consider three feet of clearance the lowest acceptable safe distance.



And I can't imagine any driver thinking less than three feet is safe
clearance to pass. Now they'd have to be at least six feet from the
edge
to consider passing. What's wrong with my math again?

The problem many gutter bunnies have is that they think "as far right
as practicable" means tires skimming 6" from the lane edge. That
leaves 8.5' of lane in which to fit a three foot passing clearance
plus a six foot car or an eight foot truck. It can't be done.


And the drivers know it can't; and I don't think anybody here has
answered your scenario by saying they'd be less than a couple
of feet from the edge.

I may have described this before, but here it is again: A few months
ago, my wife and I were driving to a small town, using a narrow back
road with no shoulders. Approaching us, I saw a biker (roadie) and a
pickup truck. Speed limit was 45 mph, IIRC.

I could tell we were all going to meet at the same place. I said out
loud, "Take the lane! Take the lane!"

Let me get this straight: You're yelling instructions to an oncoming
bicyclist (again :-)? And weren't you the least bit concerned that if
he takes the lane maybe the pickup driver will notice him - but not
you -
and pull *all the way* into your lane (with no shoulder) coming head
on at 45?

He didn't. Instead, he
actually left the pavement and rode in the grass, a foot or two from
the road edge, as we all passed!



If a roadie goes off-road on his road bike without incident, I'd have
to say that's an eminently rideable "not shoulder".

And while I usually wouldn't do anything like that just to get out of
somebody's way (maybe just for fun, though :-), if there were oncoming
bicyclists and the timing was a potential train wreck as you describe,
I
might do it just to try and make sure the truck doesn't take you and
your wife
out on account of me.

He was OK, but it was one of the dumbest moves I've seen by a
cyclist. Had there been a rock or hole or other obstruction in the
grass, he could have been tossed directly in front of the truck.


I'm sure I've done worse plenty of times, but there we are :-)

(We understand how it is there in pleasantville what with the
shortage of lunatics ;-)

That's the mentality we have to fight - the false belief that we don't
have a right to the road; that we have to kowtow and get out of the
way of anyone in any motor vehicle, rather than delay them by even
five seconds; even if it puts our lives in danger.


Right to the road is one thing, and it's good to have, but my reasons
for sometimes choosing not to exercise it to its utmost are hardly
simple fear or kowtowing.

Riding as far right as practicable, though, sends a message
of reasonableness and cooperation to drivers who know they can't pass
anyway until there is more room.

It's the same "reasonableness and cooperation" as sitting in the back
of the bus, or avoiding the "whites only" drinking fountain.

No, it's not the same - not at all (quite the opposite). I'm talking
about mutual respect.

Except
it's more dangerous as well.


To quote you, I disagree completely.

My beef with motorists passing too close is that they pass closer and/
or faster than they have to and is reasonable. They do this because
they do not respect me. Deliberate blocking is adversarial and
condescending, and will only serve to make their attitude worse.

Wrong. It's educational. It shows them that I know my rights, and
I'm willing to use them and defend them. And around here, anyway, the
cops will almost certainly back me up.


Give cagers a little credit. (Racism is never abolished by imposing
rights.) They're not going to attempt to pass me sticking three feet
out into a ten-foot lane with oncoming traffic. If I act like I
assume
they will unless I "educate" them, mutual respect is out the window.

There are motorists who are not competent at judging the width of
their vehicles. There are motorists who begin to straddle pass
(partly into an oncoming lane) but chicken out of the possibility of a
head-on crash with a car, and squeeze closer to the cyclist they're
passing. But if the cyclist is clearly at lane center, they know they
have to wait, and they pass more safely.

I don't know. It seems to me that these are exactly the sort of
drivers you want to give as much room as possible (practicable).

Yeah, I know, Dan. You don't want to get too "uppity." Remember your
place.

It seems to me that these are exactly the sort of
drivers you want to give as much room as possible (practicable)...

.... because I want as much space as possible between me and
incompetent drivers who can't tell where their car fits and where it
doesn't.
IOW, not for them, for me.

Don't go causing no trouble.



Who, me? Surely you jest ;-)

Honestly, Frank, (my friend), this back-and-forth with you gets so
frustrating (used to :-) because you hear whatever

anybody says as what you want it to be so that you can either count it
as affirmation, or else restate it *your* way as something else
altogether
(often something opposite!) and then grind it into the dirt with your
heel.

I repeat: It seems to me these are exactly the sort of drivers I
don't want
following me. It seems to me that these drivers are the minority, and
I don't think it will help for me to try and call the shots for *all*
drivers on account of these ones, who will probably straddle out there
then swerve back at me wherever I am in the lane.

I totally understand your reasoning about taking the lane, it's just
not my way.

There's a better world ahead...

.... *if* mutual respect and understanding can prevail.

..., with bike lanes paved with gold!


I've always thought it would be fun to ride to The Emerald City and
see the flying monkeys and Oompa-Loompas and what not :-)

--
your bikey pal,
Dan

On Jun 22, 5:38 pm, Tºm Shermªn °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 6/22/2011 4:41 PM, A. Muzi wrote:



On 6/21/2011 5:46 PM, James wrote:
snip
Seriously, these things happen on occasion, when you block the lane in
places I ride.

Duane Hebert wrote:
At the moment in Montreal, two main bridges onto the island are
partially blocked, both main East/West autoroutes have lane restriction
due to humongous pot holes and traffic is horrendous and predicted
to be
so for the summer. Couple that with the recent hikes in gas prices and
with the high level of motorist frustration, these things seem to be
happening more than "on occasion".
Sunday on the way home in our car, traffic went from 120k/h to nearly
stopped. We went off the road as did several others to avoid the trucks
sliding up behind us. **** happens.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Of course it happens - rarely. The problem we have with cycling's
image is that people take an event that happens very rarely (630 times
per year in the entire USA), or an event that actually did not happen
but "might have" happened, and portray it as a huge and likely risk.

Dan O wrote:
Likely? Cite?

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Duane and I have gone through this. When I insisted on data counting
the _actual_ events, then finally provided it myself, Duane moved into
"**** you" killfile mode. Which is why this response to his post uses
the third person.
In other words, proving bicycling is not very hazardous absolutely
enrages some cyclists. And that's just weird.

Duane Hebert wrote:
The percentage of times that I'm confronted with lunatics, though not
zero, is low.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
How low? As I recall from the data I found, it must be extremely low.
Even lower than for pedestrians walking down the street.

Dan O wrote:
You have data on bicyclist and pedestrian confrontations with
lunatics? Can we see it?

Lunacy may be subjective. You make the call:
http://www.gifbin.com/985418

Sadly, catastrophic events are well publicized, despite being rarities:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc.../article_af7db...

Just a few hours ago not far (4 blocks) from here. Pedestrian, in the
crosswalk with the green light, died.

I am surprised more people are not killed by Madison Metro drivers. In
general, they seem to exhibit borderline personalities at a much greater
rate than the general population, or bus drivers in other cities of
similar size.

However, the worst drivers as a category may well be Milwaukee school
bus drivers.


http://tinyurl.com/6g5tauy

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:57:25 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Jun 22, 3:12*am, john B. wrote:

During the work week, in the high rise areas you seldom see bicycles;
in the housing estates they are quite common, both in the estates and
around the associated bus and MRT stations. Both bus and MRT stations
furnish bike racks so that one can have a place to park after riding
from home to the public transportation terminal.

So, mixed-mode commuting.

- Frank Krygowski

That is what the po folk do. Automobiles in Singapore are supposedly
the most expensive in the world - and you are forced to scrap them
after 10 years :-(
Last week there was an article in the Straits times saying that a
standard Nisson sedan went for 100,000 dollars (about US$ 80,000).

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jun 22, 2:41 pm, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/21/2011 5:46 PM, James wrote:
snip
Seriously, these things happen on occasion, when you block the lane in
places I ride.
Duane Hebert wrote:
At the moment in Montreal, two main bridges onto the island are
partially blocked, both main East/West autoroutes have lane restriction
due to humongous pot holes and traffic is horrendous and predicted to be
so for the summer. Couple that with the recent hikes in gas prices and
with the high level of motorist frustration, these things seem to be
happening more than "on occasion".
Sunday on the way home in our car, traffic went from 120k/h to nearly
stopped. We went off the road as did several others to avoid the trucks
sliding up behind us. **** happens.
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Of course it happens - rarely. The problem we have with cycling's
image is that people take an event that happens very rarely (630 times
per year in the entire USA), or an event that actually did not happen
but "might have" happened, and portray it as a huge and likely risk.
Dan O wrote:
Likely? Cite?
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Duane and I have gone through this. When I insisted on data counting
the _actual_ events, then finally provided it myself, Duane moved into
"**** you" killfile mode. Which is why this response to his post uses
the third person.
In other words, proving bicycling is not very hazardous absolutely
enrages some cyclists. And that's just weird.
Duane Hebert wrote:
The percentage of times that I'm confronted with lunatics, though not
zero, is low.
Frank Krygowski wrote:
How low? As I recall from the data I found, it must be extremely low.
Even lower than for pedestrians walking down the street.
Dan O wrote:
You have data on bicyclist and pedestrian confrontations with
lunatics? Can we see it?
Lunacy may be subjective. You make the call:http://www.gifbin.com/985418

Sadly, catastrophic events are well publicized, despite
being rarities:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc.../article_af7db...

Just a few hours ago not far (4 blocks) from here.
Pedestrian, in the crosswalk with the green light, died.

That's terrible -- but your bus drivers are small thinkers, where ours
operate on a much grander scale:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...t_wreck_l.html
Your guys have to learn to run down entire crowds of pedestrians.

-- Jay Beattie.

I'm not defending the inept reckless overpaid often
drunk/high public transit drivers. But really they don't run
amok all that often[1].

Could things be better? Absolutely.
Is this an immediate crisis? It isn't.

[1] See any newspaper for the drunk driver wrecks last night
for some perspective.

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

Tºm Shermªn °_° wrote:
On 6/22/2011 4:41 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
On 6/21/2011 5:46 PM, James wrote:
snip
Seriously, these things happen on occasion, when you block the
lane in
places I ride.

Duane Hebert wrote:
At the moment in Montreal, two main bridges onto the island are
partially blocked, both main East/West autoroutes have lane
restriction
due to humongous pot holes and traffic is horrendous and predicted
to be
so for the summer. Couple that with the recent hikes in gas prices and
with the high level of motorist frustration, these things seem to be
happening more than "on occasion".
Sunday on the way home in our car, traffic went from 120k/h to nearly
stopped. We went off the road as did several others to avoid the
trucks
sliding up behind us. **** happens.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Of course it happens - rarely. The problem we have with cycling's
image is that people take an event that happens very rarely (630 times
per year in the entire USA), or an event that actually did not happen
but "might have" happened, and portray it as a huge and likely risk.

Dan O wrote:
Likely? Cite?

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Duane and I have gone through this. When I insisted on data counting
the _actual_ events, then finally provided it myself, Duane moved into
"**** you" killfile mode. Which is why this response to his post uses
the third person.
In other words, proving bicycling is not very hazardous absolutely
enrages some cyclists. And that's just weird.

Duane Hebert wrote:
The percentage of times that I'm confronted with lunatics, though not
zero, is low.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
How low? As I recall from the data I found, it must be extremely low.
Even lower than for pedestrians walking down the street.

Dan O wrote:
You have data on bicyclist and pedestrian confrontations with
lunatics? Can we see it?

Lunacy may be subjective. You make the call:
http://www.gifbin.com/985418

Sadly, catastrophic events are well publicized, despite being rarities:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c002e0.html



Just a few hours ago not far (4 blocks) from here. Pedestrian, in the
crosswalk with the green light, died.


I am surprised more people are not killed by Madison Metro drivers. In
general, they seem to exhibit borderline personalities at a much greater
rate than the general population, or bus drivers in other cities of
similar size.

However, the worst drivers as a category may well be Milwaukee school
bus drivers.



CTA train pilots are also near the bottom of that barrel.

And they don't even steer!

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