Singapore Bikes

Phil W Lee wrote:
john B. considered Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:38:04
+0700 the perfect time to write:

I might also comment that other in places where cars have double
parked and totally blocked one lane it is extremely rare to see a
bicycle or motorcycle, ridden by a Thai, driving/riding anywhere but
on the edge of the road.

So most people believe the signs.
That doesn't mean there's any actual law behind them.
Even having the police enforce them doesn't prove that, particularly
if most people just pay the fine instead of insisting on their day in
court.

I agree.

Where I ride regularly, there are signs indicating cyclist should ride
single file. There is no law requiring them to do so, but motorists
believe that they are breaking the law when they are not.

Regularly we encounter motorists yelling at us or gesticulating wildly
to us to ride single file.

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&s...,0.000597&z=21

or

http://tinyurl.com/6787hnq

The police have demonstrated to me more than once that they do not know
the laws in this regard either.

I questioned Vicroads on the signs. They assured me there is no legal
requirement to ride single file on that road, and that the signs are as
a suggestion only, and that study results where those signs are erected
in other areas show they improve safety.

I asked for the study, but they were not forthcoming.

What hope is there?


--
JS

john B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:00:42 +1000, James
wrote:

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?

I would say that it depends on conditions. 35 Km/Hr., for example, is
one thing on an open road and quite a different thing at a school
crossing.

Please, concentrate on a vehicle that pulls out of a side road and stops
at right angles to the road you are riding along, say less than 10m
ahead of you. That kind of thing has happened to me numerous times in
the past.

You say in Singapore, if the bicycle couldn't stop in time, and collides
with the stationary vehicle, it is the bicyclists fault.

If that is true, their road laws are very arse about.

Stopping distance is also a variable. What kind of brakes, what kind
of tires, condition of brakes, etc., all vary a great deal.

So do you agree or disagree with what I said, that "A bicycle may take
many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and traction
conditions."?

At 36 km/h on dry pavement, I'd guess about 6m + time for you to see the
obstruction, react and get to the brakes. If that was 1 second (you
might need to move your hands), it adds about 10m. Somewhere about 16m
total then, unless you are poised and have your hands on the brakes, ready.

You can get approximate results from
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

--
JS.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:14:14 -0500, Tºm Shermªn °_°
" wrote:

On 6/19/2011 4:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
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'.

Of course the mass media blames the vehicle, and not the driver.

Sure, it makes for more exciting reading. "Dog bites man!" is boring
but "Man bites Dog!" is unusual and hopefully leads to more sales.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 03:20:11 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

john B. considered Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:38:04
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:22:21 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

john B. considered Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:25:07
+0700 the perfect time to write:

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 :-)

To clarify:

The law in the UK says we should all drive on the left, whatever the
type of vehicle.
Some (particularly thick) motorists choose to interpret that as
meaning that anything slower than them should keep in the left-hand
gutter in order to facilitate their own speeding and dangerous
overtakes. It would be a possible (although more than slightly
perverse) interpretation of the wording, but has been clarified by the
courts as being an incorrect interpretation, and that any vehicle in
the lane is entitled to the full use of that lane (but that it should
be the left lane if there is no slower traffic for them to be
overtaking).
Moving left within a lane which is wide enough to share is merely a
courtesy, and certainly not a requirement (although you wouldn't think
so if you believed the motons - i.e. those motorists who will
deliberately intimidate other road users who they think are slowing
them down).

What I am suggesting is that the courts (if it ever gets that far)
where you are may be interpreting the same law in that perverse way.

I'm not a lawyer but I do not believe the law here is worded that way,
Certainly it is not interpreted that way. There are signs, probably
every 2 - 3 Km. on highways that show a picture of a motorcycle and a
bicycle and state in Thai and English that they must stay on the side
of the road.

Therre are signs all over the place here saying "Cyclists Dismount".
E.G.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...tember2007.htm
They are unsupported by any law at all, although they mislead many
people into believing that cyclists are misbehaving when they aren't.


I might also comment that other in places where cars have double
parked and totally blocked one lane it is extremely rare to see a
bicycle or motorcycle, ridden by a Thai, driving/riding anywhere but
on the edge of the road.

So most people believe the signs.
That doesn't mean there's any actual law behind them.
Even having the police enforce them doesn't prove that, particularly
if most people just pay the fine instead of insisting on their day in
court.

Here's a good example of that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

Here there is. After I wrote the last message I finally located an
translation of the Thai Land Transportation Act.

Title 10 Bicycles

Section 82.
A cyclist who rides a bicycle shall keep close to the curb on the
left-hand side of the roadway, road shoulder or way provided for
bicycles as much as possible. In case of bus lanes on the outer most
left hand side of the roadway, a cyclist shall ride bicycle close to
such bus lane.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:15:04 +1000, James
wrote:

john B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:00:42 +1000, James
wrote:

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?

I would say that it depends on conditions. 35 Km/Hr., for example, is
one thing on an open road and quite a different thing at a school
crossing.

Please, concentrate on a vehicle that pulls out of a side road and stops
at right angles to the road you are riding along, say less than 10m
ahead of you. That kind of thing has happened to me numerous times in
the past.

You say in Singapore, if the bicycle couldn't stop in time, and collides
with the stationary vehicle, it is the bicyclists fault.

If that is true, their road laws are very arse about.


I thought I said that I thought that it would be considered as such.

Stopping distance is also a variable. What kind of brakes, what kind
of tires, condition of brakes, etc., all vary a great deal.

So do you agree or disagree with what I said, that "A bicycle may take
many meters, or tens of meters to stop depending on speed and traction
conditions."?

Sure. But you worded it as to prompt me to specify a certain distance,
which cannot be done without adding a bunch of parameters.

At 36 km/h on dry pavement, I'd guess about 6m + time for you to see the
obstruction, react and get to the brakes. If that was 1 second (you
might need to move your hands), it adds about 10m. Somewhere about 16m
total then, unless you are poised and have your hands on the brakes, ready.

I wouldn't disagree. But what does this have to do with it? If you
ride beyond the limits of yourself or the bike then I would say that
anything that happened to you is your fault.

You can't make a logical argument out of knowing that it takes your
bike 16 Mt. to stop but you continued to ride at that speed in areas
where you can't see, and react to, what is happening 17 Mt. ahead of
you.

You can get approximate results from
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:34:07 -0500, Tºm Shermªn °_°
" wrote:

On 6/19/2011 9:10 PM, john B. wrote:
This discussion seems to have digressed from my comments about
Thailand and Singapore to (what appears to be) a discussion of traffic
in other places, but your statement that motor vehicles won't be doing
100 Km/Hr on a winding road is not really accurate, in fact it is
quite possible and in my experience not a rare event.

But the important point is that the law here specifies that bicycles
will drive on the left side of the road, and even more to the point is
that they all do. Thus your riding in the middle is not a normal
practice here, and obviously not expected by the majority of vehicle
operators.

From this we can conclude that Thailand has an ingrained cyclist
inferiority culture, and is only saved (for the time being) by the lower
rate of motor vehicle ownership.

Based on registered vehicles in Bangkok approximately 47% of the
population has a motor vehicle. Up country it is likely somewhat less.

But yes, the Thais do perceive bicycles as inferior to motorcycles and
larger motor vehicles. But by the same token they don't curse them and
throw bottles at them.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:31:59 -0500, Tºm Shermªn °_°
" wrote:

On 6/19/2011 8:49 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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



wrote:
On Jun 18, 8:44?pm, john 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

I think your obsession is showing. Or do you really believe that
riding in the middle of the road in traffic that is traveling three
times as fast as you are displays logic ?


Do you really think having vehicles traveling three (3) times as fast as
you are "brush" pass you as you cower on the shoulder displays logic?


I suggest that it is displays at least as much logic as sitting in the
middle of the road watching a 50 ton behemoth traveling three times my
speed running up behind me.

On Jun 19, 7:31*pm, Tºm Shermªn °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 6/19/2011 8:49 PM, john B. wrote:





On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
*wrote:

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

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

I think your obsession is showing. Or do you really believe that
riding in the middle of the road in traffic that is traveling three
times as fast as you are displays logic ?

Do you really think having vehicles traveling three (3) times as fast as
you are "brush" pass you as you cower on the shoulder displays logic?

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

- Show quoted text -

http://www.goodyear.com/truck/pdf/ra...tread_S6_V.pdf

On 6/20/2011 4:50 AM, john B. wrote:

snip

I suggest that it is displays at least as much logic as sitting in the
middle of the road watching a 50 ton behemoth traveling three times my
speed running up behind me.

Clearly those posting statistics about Singapore have never actually
been there. Not surprising that they don't include the relative numbers
of pedestrians, bicycles, or motor vehicles. It's about as logic-free
and fact-free as possible, which of course is not surprising given the
source.

On 6/20/2011 11:04 AM, SMS wrote:
On 6/20/2011 4:50 AM, john B. wrote:

snip

I suggest that it is displays at least as much logic as sitting in the
middle of the road watching a 50 ton behemoth traveling three times my
speed running up behind me.

Clearly those posting statistics about Singapore have never actually
been there. Not surprising that they don't include the relative numbers
of pedestrians, bicycles, or motor vehicles. It's about as logic-free
and fact-free as possible, which of course is not surprising given the
source.

I think that we should certainly pattern our laws after Singapore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

Maybe someone can tell us how sane the cycling laws were in Germany in
the 30s.

If find it amusing that the VC right wingers refute the facilities in
Amsterdam because they're not the same culture or whatever, but would
accept those in Singapore.