Singapore Bikes

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 05:15:54 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

john B. considered Sun, 19 Jun 2011 07:49:54
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:20:23 -0500, Tºm Shermªn °_°
" wrote:

On 6/18/2011 6:04 AM, john B. wrote:
[...]
As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
on the sides.[...]

Motorcycles? Are they referring to the small-displacement scooters and
light motorcycles that are very common in SE Asia?

In the US, most motorcycles can easily out-accelerate and out-brake most
multi-track motor vehicles (even those such as Harley-Davidson that use
technology that was obsolete 50 years ago).

The law applies to all motorcycles and bicycles (and tricycles) that
bicycles and motorcycles (and tricycles) must keep to the left.

I suspect that the law, as many laws are, is written as a blanket
rule, otherwise it would have to read "motorcycles with less then XX
horsepower" and open the door to a considerable amount of argument.
But essentially, it doesn't matter, that is the law and if you care to
flaunt it then hopefully you keep money in your riding gear to pay
your fines.

Are you sure that isn't a creepage of the ride on the left (rather
than the right) law?

?? The left side is the edge :-)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 17:57:23 -0700 (PDT), James
wrote:

On Jun 18, 9:58*am, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:23:28 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:



john B. considered Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:21:55
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:30:13 +1000, James
wrote:

On 17/06/2011 9:58 AM, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:48:13 +1000,
wrote:

On 16/06/2011 9:27 PM, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:02:34 +1000,
wrote:

john B. wrote:

Of course, if the bicycle hits a larger vehicle while it is stationary
the moving vehicle (bicycle) is at fault. Getting "doored" is the
bicycle's fault and thus it is a rather uncommon accident here.

Even if the larger vehicle failed to give way?

If the larger vehicle pull out of a side road in front of a bicycle and
stopped before the bicycle collided with the vehicle, who is at fault?

I don't know. Initially the larger vehicle is deemed to be wrong but
in the case where the vehicle is stationary, as you describe, I
suspect that the bicycle would be found at fault after an
investigation.

I can't give any reference for that scenario other then that my wife
rear-ending another auto driving down the out ramp in a parking garage
because he braked suddenly. The police weren't called as it happened
on private property but the insurance investigator reckoned that it
was my wife's insurance that paid.

Yeah, that's common here too. *If you rear end someone, it's almost
always your fault. *That's not the scenario I meant though. *I've had
drivers fail to give way and stop at the last moment. *Thankfully I've
made it around them, but I watched a friend T-bone a car that did just
that. *He had his right knee cap surgically removed as a result. *I
can't see that it is satisfactory to rule that the larger, stationary
vehicle is not to blame when clearly failing to give way to through traffic.

I cannot visualize the conditions that you are describing

I'll try again. *You are riding along a main road and a motorist drives
out from a side road in front of you. *The driver sees you after almost
blocking the e0ntire lane, panics, and stops at right angles to the road
you are travelling on, right in front of you.

I can't answer your question as I've never seen it happen, but I
believe that if a car pulls out into traffic and is hit by an oncoming
car it would be assessed as the fault of the oncoming car.

That seems bassackwards to me.
Vehicles already on the road (traffic) usually have priority over
vehicles joining it (pulling out).

I can't argue, I'm only saying what I have observed.



The vehicle is stopped and you are moving. *If you cannot avoid it, you
collide with it.

I admit that this is conjecture but I think that there is something in
the law stating to that one is supposed to be in control of his
vehicle at all times.

There is also something concerning "due care" that would be highly
relevant to a driver pulling into the path of another vehicle which
(had they cared to evaluate the risk) they could see perfectly well
had not a hope in hell of avoiding them.

In this country, you would have right of way, and the vehicle driver
failed to give way.

But as I said, the law here classifies a bicycle as one step up from a
pedestrian. If you walked into the side of a truck would it be the
truck's fault?

Vehicles are to give way to pedestrians when crossing a foot path.

That wasn't the scenario you described. But to use your example, if a
truck stopped blocking the cross-walk would you walk into it? And then
blame the truck?

Only if the truck moved onto the crosswalk after you were already on
it, and close enough in front that you could not avoid hitting it.

The scenario he described was that the motor vehicle came out of a
side road, turned onto the road on which he was riding, and stopped.

Nop. I said pulled out and stopped. I said nothing about turning.
The vehicle may be going to cross to another side road on the opposite
side of the main road, or in this country, make a right turn from a
side road on the left. Either way, I have seen it happen several
times, that a vehicle drives out of a side road in front of bicycle
riders, sees the bicyclists after mostly or at least partially
blocking the left lane and panic stop.

O.K., remove the word "turned".

Quite common to have a truck come out of a side road and stop across
the sidewalk waiting a break in the traffic, exactly as he described.

It is quite a stupid comparison because obviously a pedestrian can
stop and avoid walking into a truck within 1-2 paces. A bicycle may
take many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and
traction conditions.

Sure. If you are riding at an excessive rate of speed.

I had a close friend that crashed under exactly the conditions you
describe. A car pulled out, saw him and panic stopped and my mate hit
the car broad side. Of course my mate said that the last time he
looked he was doing 100 MPH and accelerating down a hill so the
motorcycle was likely doing in excess of 100 MPH in a 35 MPH zone.....

Strangely, although he broke both arms and scrapped a lot of skin off
my mate never said a word about it being the car's fault.

Obviously, what is too close varies with speed and vehicle type.
You can safely pass much closer in front of an elderly pedestrian with
a walking frame than you can in front of a semi doing 55mph on a wet
road.
The major problem seems to be that motorists, in general, are very
poor in judging the speed and required stopping distance of a bicycle.
Or just don't give a ****, because they know it can't injure them.

I can't say for there but here bicycles and motorcycles are required
by law to keep to the side of the road - signs posted every few Km. -
and motor vehicles expect that to happen. My experience is that if you
comply with that you will have few problems; but again, that is here
and not there.

Keeping to the side of the road and having some twit fail to give way
to oncoming traffic are two entirely different scenarios.

Regards,
James.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:08:51 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Jun 18, 8:44*pm, john B. wrote:

I think it is a matter of logic rather then law. If you, for example,
are speeding down the road on your 5 Kg. super light weight plastic
bike, at say 35 Km/Hr, and sharing the road with 18 wheel behemoths
weighing 50,000 Kg. and travelling at 100 Km./Hr. it seems to me that
logic would demand that you do your best to stay out of their way
regardless of what one thinks of as correct. After all becoming a wet
spot on the highway seems a poor way to prove that you were in the
right.

That's not a matter of logic nor law. That's paranoia.

I believe I distinguished between lanes that are wide enough to safely
share, and lanes that are not. If a lane is too narrow to share, it's
counterproductive to say "get out of the way." There's no way to do
so without encouraging a dangerous pass, or completely ceding your
right to the road.

And the idea that it's better to cede your rights rather than become a
wet spot on the highway? Fear mongering.

How many cyclists are killed in Singapore each year? How many
motorists? How many pedestrians? How many motorcyclists?

- Frank Krygowski

You are being illogical. You are going to ride on a winding road in
the middle of the lane with the rest of the traffic driving throe
times faster then you?

Traffic fatalities in Singapore were 2/1000 vehicles in 2010. totals
we

Motorcycles 89
Pedestrians 55
Bicycle 16
Motor car 14
Others 19 (includes bus passengers, heavy goods trucks, etc.)
Total 193

As a comparison I found another chart based on 100,000 inhabitants -
Singapore 4.8, US 12.3.

On 6/19/2011 6:19 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:31:41 -0500, wrote:

T�m Sherm�n �_� wrote:
On 6/18/2011 7:49 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:20:23 -0500, T�m Sherm�n �_�
" wrote:

On 6/18/2011 6:04 AM, john B. wrote:
[...]
As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
on the sides.[...]

Motorcycles? Are they referring to the small-displacement scooters and
light motorcycles that are very common in SE Asia?

In the US, most motorcycles can easily out-accelerate and out-brake most
multi-track motor vehicles (even those such as Harley-Davidson that use
technology that was obsolete 50 years ago).

The law applies to all motorcycles and bicycles (and tricycles) that
bicycles and motorcycles (and tricycles) must keep to the left.

I suspect that the law, as many laws are, is written as a blanket
rule, otherwise it would have to read "motorcycles with less then XX
horsepower" and open the door to a considerable amount of argument.
But essentially, it doesn't matter, that is the law and if you care to
flaunt it then hopefully you keep money in your riding gear to pay
your fines.

Hard to see someone on a 175-hp Suzuki Hayabusa [1] (now sold in
Thailand) sticking to the edge of the pavement, eh?

[1] With an average size rider, capable of sub 10-second/145 mph quarter
miles, and top speed of 195+ mph (with the speed limiter defeated,
otherwise limited to 186-mph/300 kph).


I have no idea what they cost but sound pretty darned cool.
Cute too:
http://images.devilfinder.com/go.php?q=Suzuki+Hayabusa

Ouch! Recent used machines about $10k. Yeah, it oughta
really go 195 for that sort of money.

New, in Thailand they list for 27,000 dollars. A bit more then a Honda
Fit.

Base price in the US is $13.7K, so it appears that there is about a 100%
importation tariff in Thailand.

Hard time imagining that anyone in Thailand that can afford a $27K
motorcycle is going to skulk on the side of the road.

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

On 6/19/2011 6:01 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:55:26 -0500, T�m Sherm�n �_�
" wrote:

On 6/18/2011 7:49 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:20:23 -0500, T?m Sherm?n ?_?
" wrote:

On 6/18/2011 6:04 AM, john B. wrote:
[...]
As for lane use, as I have said, in Thailand the law says that
bicycles and motorcycles must stay on the edge of the road; In
Singapore I'm not sure of the wording of the law but they seem to ride
on the sides.[...]

Motorcycles? Are they referring to the small-displacement scooters and
light motorcycles that are very common in SE Asia?

In the US, most motorcycles can easily out-accelerate and out-brake most
multi-track motor vehicles (even those such as Harley-Davidson that use
technology that was obsolete 50 years ago).

The law applies to all motorcycles and bicycles (and tricycles) that
bicycles and motorcycles (and tricycles) must keep to the left.

I suspect that the law, as many laws are, is written as a blanket
rule, otherwise it would have to read "motorcycles with less then XX
horsepower" and open the door to a considerable amount of argument.
But essentially, it doesn't matter, that is the law and if you care to
flaunt it then hopefully you keep money in your riding gear to pay
your fines.

Hard to see someone on a 175-hp Suzuki Hayabusa [1] (now sold in
Thailand) sticking to the edge of the pavement, eh?

I didn't say that they stayed on the edge of the road. I said that the
law said that they should stay on the edge of the road. But if it is a
slow day and the police are bored they will write you a ticket for not
riding a big bike on the edge of the road.

I knew a bloke (750 cc bike) that moved to the inside lane to make a
right turn and got a ticket for it. He was a touch upset and went down
to the police station to protest. They showed him the law and as
related by the culprit the law states that motorcycles and bicycles
must stay on the L.H. edge of the road and thus he was guilty.
Apparently not a lot of sympathy down tha copshop.

[1] With an average size rider, capable of sub 10-second/145 mph quarter
miles, and top speed of 195+ mph (with the speed limiter defeated,
otherwise limited to 186-mph/300 kph).

Anyone that can afford a $27K motorcycle in Thailand, can probably also
afford to get any cop that issues him a ticket fired from his job.

Just like if you are a small town cop in certain parts of the US, you do
not issue citations to the mayor's family.

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

On 6/18/2011 9:54 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
subject drift to motorcycles, retail theory and psychology

T�m Sherm�n �_� wrote:
-snip-

Hard to see someone on a 175-hp Suzuki Hayabusa [1] (now sold in
Thailand) sticking to the edge of the pavement, eh?
[1] With an average size rider, capable of sub 10-second/145 mph
quarter miles, and top speed of 195+ mph (with the speed limiter
defeated, otherwise limited to 186-mph/300 kph).

A. Muzi wrote:
I have no idea what they cost but sound pretty darned cool. Cute too:
http://images.devilfinder.com/go.php?q=Suzuki+Hayabusa
Ouch! Recent used machines about $10k. Yeah, it oughta really go 195 for
that sort of money.

T�m Sherm�n �_� wrote:
Think of what people pay for the "local" product - $20K+ for 1950's
technology.


As in so many things, it would be hard to get a Harley guy on a Suzuki
or the reverse at any price regardless of features. Or lack thereof.

These days when you see a guy on a Harley, the first thought is: middle
class, white bread, white man, having a middle life "crisis".

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

On Jun 19, 7:49*am, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:08:51 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski



wrote:
On Jun 18, 8:44*pm, john B. wrote:

I think it is a matter of logic rather then law. If you, for example,
are speeding down the road on your 5 Kg. super light weight plastic
bike, at say 35 Km/Hr, and sharing the road with 18 wheel behemoths
weighing 50,000 Kg. and travelling at 100 Km./Hr. it seems to me that
logic would demand that you do your best to stay out of their way
regardless of what one thinks of as correct. After all becoming a wet
spot on the highway seems a poor way to prove that you were in the
right.

That's not a matter of logic nor law. *That's paranoia.

I believe I distinguished between lanes that are wide enough to safely
share, and lanes that are not. *If a lane is too narrow to share, it's
counterproductive to say "get out of the way." *There's no way to do
so without encouraging a dangerous pass, or completely ceding your
right to the road.

And the idea that it's better to cede your rights rather than become a
wet spot on the highway? *Fear mongering.

How many cyclists are killed in Singapore each year? *How many
motorists? *How many pedestrians? *How many motorcyclists?

- Frank Krygowski

You are being illogical. You are going to ride on a winding road in
the middle of the lane with the rest of the traffic driving throe
times faster then you?

If I'm going to ride on such a road, and if the lane is too narrow to
safely share, I will not share that lane. I will ride roughly in its
center.

What else would you suggest?

If I ride at the far right, I find I'm in more danger. A certain
percentage of motorists will attempt to squeeze by even if they may
brush my elbow; yet will realize they have to wait (and why they have
to wait) when they see me controlling the lane.

Other than that, the only alternative I see is to bounce along in the
gutter. But here, at least, the law specifically gives me a right to
the road. I'm not required to do that.

I still remember my riding experiences before I learned all this,
which was over 30 years ago. Things are _much_ better for me now.

Traffic fatalities in Singapore were 2/1000 vehicles in 2010. totals
we

Motorcycles * * 89
Pedestrians * * * * * * 55
Bicycle * * * * 16
Motor car * * * * * * * 14
Others * * * * *19 (includes bus passengers, heavy goods trucks, etc.)
Total * * * * * 193

As I suspected, things seem a lot worse for pedestrians. (Feel free
to post per-km or per-hour data if you've got it.)

Not a lot of bicyclists becoming "wet spots on the road." Quit the
fear mongering.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 18, 8:44 pm, john B. wrote:
I think it is a matter of logic rather then law. If you, for example,
are speeding down the road on your 5 Kg. super light weight plastic
bike, at say 35 Km/Hr, and sharing the road with 18 wheel behemoths
weighing 50,000 Kg. and travelling at 100 Km./Hr. it seems to me that
logic would demand that you do your best to stay out of their way
regardless of what one thinks of as correct. After all becoming a wet
spot on the highway seems a poor way to prove that you were in the
right.

That's not a matter of logic nor law. That's paranoia.

I believe I distinguished between lanes that are wide enough to safely
share, and lanes that are not. If a lane is too narrow to share, it's
counterproductive to say "get out of the way." There's no way to do
so without encouraging a dangerous pass, or completely ceding your
right to the road.

And the idea that it's better to cede your rights rather than become a
wet spot on the highway? Fear mongering.

How many cyclists are killed in Singapore each year? How many
motorists? How many pedestrians? How many motorcyclists?


I have no idea about cyclist deaths in Singapore.
Here, they are a rarity; often as not simply bizar

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/...n-rogers-park/

As opposed to the regular and ordinary carnage of auto drivers.

In fairness, auto deaths do have their own outliers:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/...spect-heights/

From that page:
" Their deaths were ruled accidents."
Really? Stolen car speeding off the roadway?

A police commander in that link said,“The car jumped off the
curb, struck a tree and split in two,"

'Bad Car' it seems
Sure, just an 'accident'.

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

john B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 17:57:23 -0700 (PDT), James
wrote:

On Jun 18, 9:58 am, john B. wrote:

Quite common to have a truck come out of a side road and stop across
the sidewalk waiting a break in the traffic, exactly as he described.
It is quite a stupid comparison because obviously a pedestrian can
stop and avoid walking into a truck within 1-2 paces. A bicycle may
take many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and
traction conditions.

Sure. If you are riding at an excessive rate of speed.

What is excessive speed for a bicycle?

What do you think is a reasonable speed and stopping distance?

--
JS.

On 6/19/2011 7:59 AM, Tºm Shermªn °_° wrote:
On 6/18/2011 9:54 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
subject drift to motorcycles, retail theory and psychology

T�m Sherm�n �_� wrote:
-snip-

Hard to see someone on a 175-hp Suzuki Hayabusa [1] (now sold in
Thailand) sticking to the edge of the pavement, eh?
[1] With an average size rider, capable of sub 10-second/145 mph
quarter miles, and top speed of 195+ mph (with the speed limiter
defeated, otherwise limited to 186-mph/300 kph).

A. Muzi wrote:
I have no idea what they cost but sound pretty darned cool. Cute too:
http://images.devilfinder.com/go.php?q=Suzuki+Hayabusa
Ouch! Recent used machines about $10k. Yeah, it oughta really go
195 for
that sort of money.

T�m Sherm�n �_� wrote:
Think of what people pay for the "local" product - $20K+ for 1950's
technology.


As in so many things, it would be hard to get a Harley guy on a Suzuki
or the reverse at any price regardless of features. Or lack thereof.

These days when you see a guy on a Harley, the first thought is:
middle class, white bread, white man, having a middle life "crisis".


You mean like this guy:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...-attacked.html
or maybe http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../15925301.html