NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:04:58 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:44:10 -0800, Dan
wrote:

datakoll writes:

Well written word package,
Effective communication at a high level of theater and impact.
Gold star The highway safety norms are directed to the low median of
perception and understanding. That was my direction and the writerÂ’s.
Our direction is to pierce that layer with information communicating
our presence direction and rights for survival.


Right! And I'm all about being somewhat predictable - feeding cues to
their situational awareness (using my situational awareness to assess
theirs).

But jeez, unthinking adherence to rules and assumptive decision making
is Dumb and Dumber.

Right. Nobody should stop just because he sees one of those funny red
octagon signs. Just blast right through!

Actually around here nobody does. It's amazing how many people you see
looking a bit confused in a broken car parked in somebody’s wall or a
shop. Those funny coloured 3 light things also seem to be a bit
misunderstood.

--
davethedave

On 12/11/13 07:45, davethedave wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:37:32 +1100, James wrote:

On 12/11/13 07:11, davethedave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:50:28 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 12:10:19 AM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:

I rarely have any reason to pass a stopped motor vehicle. When
there's a red light or other reason for them to stop, I believe that
demonstrating I have the same rights and responsibilities as they do
is worth a lot more than getting a ten-second advantage on the light.

I agree completely.

I disagree completely. Being from the land of your ancestors, [1][2]
and a well trained motorcyclist and cyclist. We have always been told
to make progress and filter. If we stop behind a car and wait the
police will speak to us and ask why we are sat there like a lemon
taking up valuable car space, instead of making our way to the front.

I decide on a case by case basis.

If I'm alone (no other cyclists with me), and the lane is wide, I'll
mostly ride to the front of the queue. If the lane is narrow, I'll
likely take a position in the queue.

If you can't pass with ease this is a reasonable approach. But if there
is room why not pass?

"if there is room" is the question. I need far less room to pass them
safely while they are stopped than they need to safely pass me while
we're both moving.

For the sake of less aggravation more safety, if it would be squeezy for
them to pass me (again) without moving out of the lane once the lights
change green, I don't mind staying in the queue and riding in the middle
of the lane, at least across the intersection.

Filtering on the motorcycle is more logical. You can usually accelerate
faster and stay well ahead of the pack of cars. If I'm driving and
notice a motorcyclist filtering behind me, I move to one side to ease
their progress. More often than not, they wave appreciation too.

--
JS

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:11:15 +1100, James wrote:

On 12/11/13 07:45, davethedave wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:37:32 +1100, James wrote:

On 12/11/13 07:11, davethedave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:50:28 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 12:10:19 AM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:

I rarely have any reason to pass a stopped motor vehicle. When
there's a red light or other reason for them to stop, I believe
that demonstrating I have the same rights and responsibilities as
they do is worth a lot more than getting a ten-second advantage on
the light.

I agree completely.

I disagree completely. Being from the land of your ancestors, [1][2]
and a well trained motorcyclist and cyclist. We have always been told
to make progress and filter. If we stop behind a car and wait the
police will speak to us and ask why we are sat there like a lemon
taking up valuable car space, instead of making our way to the front.

I decide on a case by case basis.

If I'm alone (no other cyclists with me), and the lane is wide, I'll
mostly ride to the front of the queue. If the lane is narrow, I'll
likely take a position in the queue.

If you can't pass with ease this is a reasonable approach. But if there
is room why not pass?

"if there is room" is the question. I need far less room to pass them
safely while they are stopped than they need to safely pass me while
we're both moving.

For the sake of less aggravation more safety, if it would be squeezy for
them to pass me (again) without moving out of the lane once the lights
change green, I don't mind staying in the queue and riding in the middle
of the lane, at least across the intersection.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the snipped comment of my last post.

"I'm not advocating passing to get in the way."


Filtering on the motorcycle is more logical. You can usually accelerate
faster and stay well ahead of the pack of cars. If I'm driving and
notice a motorcyclist filtering behind me, I move to one side to ease
their progress. More often than not, they wave appreciation too.

Hmmmn! Accelerate faster. Just a touch.

--
davethedave

In article ,
Phil W Lee wrote:

Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 10 Nov 2013
19:54:37 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:26:15 PM UTC-5, Phil W Lee wrote:

Presumed liability could be a part of it.
In nearly all of Europe, the liability for any collision is presumed
to lie with the driver of the larger class of vehicle, unless
otherwise proven. Many countries place an upper limit on the
proportion of liability that can be attributed to operator of the
smaller vehicle.

So drivers have a greater tendency to be cautious of being involved in
any collision with a cyclist, as they know they will carry the can (or
at least, part of it).

I'd be curious to learn how that legal situation came to be. In the U.S.,
contributory negligence laws vary greatly from state to state. In some
states (IIRC) if a cyclist is judged to have contributed even in a very
minor way, his ability to get recompense from the courts is tremendously
reduced.


The basic principal is that the person driving the larger vehicle has
liability for the risk inherent in operating it on the public highway.
The larger vehicle always increases the severity of the accident, and
that should be reflected in the proportion of liability.
Those who choose to use smaller vehicles with lower capability to
cause damage or injury should not be expected to be placed at greater
risk simply because of that, or to carry liability which is out of
proportion to the degree of damage which their own vehicle is capable
of inflicting.

This principal is recognised by all but 3 of the members of the
European Union, and it is hoped that it will be adopted into EU law,
bringing the three hold-out countries into line.
Sadly, the UK is one of those three (and the largest), which probably
explains why our drivers are about the worst in Europe for hostility
towards cyclists.

Googling "strict liability" with various modifiers turns up all sorts of
interesting differences in determining liability.

On Monday, November 11, 2013 1:19:24 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:59:58 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

On 11/11/2013 6:35 AM, John B. wrote:



In other words, someone paints a stripe on the road and immediately
all the bicycle riders disavow any responsibility for their own safety
and throw the entire burden of whether they will survive the trip onto
the shoulders of the motorists?

Sorry, I can't handle that concept, I've always assumed that the
ultimate responsibility for one's survival was oneself.

Don't worry, it's a fictional concept anyway.

IOW, those people who get nailed in bike lanes by right hooks (or left
hooks in London) don't really exist?

I'll grant you one thing: Many of them don't exist any longer. But
their families aren't happy about that.

No the disavowing any responsibility for their own safety schtick of yours.

You may not consider it disavowing any responsibility for their own safety, but I'm sure that there are people who assume they are safe because they are in a bike lane.

What _do_ you think about those people (e.g. in London, in Portland) who have died while passing trucks on their curb side, in bike lanes? How about the people who have gotten doored while riding in bike lanes? Seems to me they were wrongly convinced that they were safe because of the bike lane.

Or are you still unaware such people exist - or existed?

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, November 11, 2013 1:44:10 PM UTC-6, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 10 Nov 2013

19:54:37 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:



On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:26:15 PM UTC-5, Phil W Lee wrote:



Presumed liability could be a part of it.

In nearly all of Europe, the liability for any collision is presumed

to lie with the driver of the larger class of vehicle, unless

otherwise proven. Many countries place an upper limit on the

proportion of liability that can be attributed to operator of the

smaller vehicle.



So drivers have a greater tendency to be cautious of being involved in

any collision with a cyclist, as they know they will carry the can (or

at least, part of it).



I'd be curious to learn how that legal situation came to be. In the U.S.., contributory negligence laws vary greatly from state to state. In some states (IIRC) if a cyclist is judged to have contributed even in a very minor way, his ability to get recompense from the courts is tremendously reduced.





The basic principal is that the person driving the larger vehicle has

liability for the risk inherent in operating it on the public highway.

The larger vehicle always increases the severity of the accident, and

that should be reflected in the proportion of liability.

Those who choose to use smaller vehicles with lower capability to

cause damage or injury should not be expected to be placed at greater

risk simply because of that, or to carry liability which is out of

proportion to the degree of damage which their own vehicle is capable

of inflicting.



This principal is recognised by all but 3 of the members of the

European Union, and it is hoped that it will be adopted into EU law,

bringing the three hold-out countries into line.

Sadly, the UK is one of those three (and the largest), which probably

explains why our drivers are about the worst in Europe for hostility

towards cyclists.

What do you feel is the reasons for their hostility towards cyclists in the UK ?

In the U.S., the hostility is due to

1. General impatience
2. Cell phone use is only banned in school zones
3. Some drivers think cyclists are a "burden" to motor vehicle drivers
4. Some get ticked off because cyclists restrict their ability to speed

Take care.

On 12/11/13 08:17, davethedave wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:11:15 +1100, James wrote:

On 12/11/13 07:45, davethedave wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:37:32 +1100, James wrote:

On 12/11/13 07:11, davethedave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:50:28 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 12:10:19 AM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:

I rarely have any reason to pass a stopped motor vehicle. When
there's a red light or other reason for them to stop, I believe
that demonstrating I have the same rights and responsibilities as
they do is worth a lot more than getting a ten-second advantage on
the light.

I agree completely.

I disagree completely. Being from the land of your ancestors, [1][2]
and a well trained motorcyclist and cyclist. We have always been told
to make progress and filter. If we stop behind a car and wait the
police will speak to us and ask why we are sat there like a lemon
taking up valuable car space, instead of making our way to the front.

I decide on a case by case basis.

If I'm alone (no other cyclists with me), and the lane is wide, I'll
mostly ride to the front of the queue. If the lane is narrow, I'll
likely take a position in the queue.

If you can't pass with ease this is a reasonable approach. But if there
is room why not pass?

"if there is room" is the question. I need far less room to pass them
safely while they are stopped than they need to safely pass me while
we're both moving.

For the sake of less aggravation more safety, if it would be squeezy for
them to pass me (again) without moving out of the lane once the lights
change green, I don't mind staying in the queue and riding in the middle
of the lane, at least across the intersection.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the snipped comment of my last post.

"I'm not advocating passing to get in the way."

Sorry, I was answering your question and should have acknowledged your
later inclusion.

--
JS

On Monday, November 11, 2013 3:11:33 PM UTC-5, davethedave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:50:28 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 12:10:19 AM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:

I rarely have any reason to pass a stopped motor vehicle. When there's
a red light or other reason for them to stop, I believe that
demonstrating I have the same rights and responsibilities as they do is
worth a lot more than getting a ten-second advantage on the light.

I agree completely.

I disagree completely. Being from the land of your ancestors, [1][2]...

??? [1] negates [2]!

... and
a well trained motorcyclist and cyclist. We have always been told to make
progress and filter. If we stop behind a car and wait the police will
speak to us and ask why we are sat there like a lemon taking up valuable
car space, instead of making our way to the front.

That's definitely the first time I've heard of such a thing; and I've heard of some crazy things coming from badly educated cops.

I will clarify my thoughts, though. I do think filtering should be legal. This is based on the idea that if a traffic lane is wide enough to safely share, I'm willing to share it to let a faster motor vehicle pass. It seems just to let that same principle apply when the bicycle is the faster vehicle.

However, I think passing of stopped cars (especially curb-side passing) should be done only with the greatest care, and only if there's some real benefit. The ten second benefit that Wes mentioned doesn't qualify, in my view..

[1] the UK Damn that George dude, eh?

I never had much to do with him.

[2]I suspect though that you, Frank, may have ancestry involving the land
of pierogi, Żywiec, Zubrowka, Szymanowski and a "W" sounding "ł". I could
of course be wrong.

You're correct, although I prefer Okocim to Żywiec, and Górecki to Szymanowski.
Haven't had any Żubrówka for, oh, four days now.

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/11/13 08:44, John White wrote:
In article ,
Phil W Lee wrote:

Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 10 Nov 2013
19:54:37 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:26:15 PM UTC-5, Phil W Lee wrote:

Presumed liability could be a part of it.
In nearly all of Europe, the liability for any collision is presumed
to lie with the driver of the larger class of vehicle, unless
otherwise proven. Many countries place an upper limit on the
proportion of liability that can be attributed to operator of the
smaller vehicle.

So drivers have a greater tendency to be cautious of being involved in
any collision with a cyclist, as they know they will carry the can (or
at least, part of it).

I'd be curious to learn how that legal situation came to be. In the U.S.,
contributory negligence laws vary greatly from state to state. In some
states (IIRC) if a cyclist is judged to have contributed even in a very
minor way, his ability to get recompense from the courts is tremendously
reduced.


The basic principal is that the person driving the larger vehicle has
liability for the risk inherent in operating it on the public highway.
The larger vehicle always increases the severity of the accident, and
that should be reflected in the proportion of liability.
Those who choose to use smaller vehicles with lower capability to
cause damage or injury should not be expected to be placed at greater
risk simply because of that, or to carry liability which is out of
proportion to the degree of damage which their own vehicle is capable
of inflicting.

This principal is recognised by all but 3 of the members of the
European Union, and it is hoped that it will be adopted into EU law,
bringing the three hold-out countries into line.
Sadly, the UK is one of those three (and the largest), which probably
explains why our drivers are about the worst in Europe for hostility
towards cyclists.

Googling "strict liability" with various modifiers turns up all sorts of
interesting differences in determining liability.

I *think* this is a reasonably well structured explanation.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbani...ith-a-cyclist/

--
JS

James wrote:
On 12/11/13 07:11, davethedave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:50:28 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 12:10:19 AM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:

I rarely have any reason to pass a stopped motor vehicle. When there's
a red light or other reason for them to stop, I believe that
demonstrating I have the same rights and responsibilities as they do is
worth a lot more than getting a ten-second advantage on the light.

I agree completely.

I disagree completely. Being from the land of your ancestors, [1][2] and
a well trained motorcyclist and cyclist. We have always been told to make
progress and filter. If we stop behind a car and wait the police will
speak to us and ask why we are sat there like a lemon taking up valuable
car space, instead of making our way to the front.

I decide on a case by case basis.

If I'm alone (no other cyclists with me), and the lane is wide, I'll
mostly ride to the front of the queue. If the lane is narrow, I'll
likely take a position in the queue.

If I'm with a group and on the front, unless the lane is really wide,
I'll stop the group behind any already stopped vehicles. If I'm not on
the front, well it depends.

On a narrow lane I don't see the sense in squeezing by, to get to the
front of the queue, and then effectively block the motorists from
passing. It wont change my arrival time measurably to stay behind, and
it doesn't annoy the drivers who just passed me.

There is one exception. If a driver squeezed by just before the lights
in a "Must Get In Front" (MGIF) move, I'll often squeeze back passed
just to give them another go at passing properly.

Sounds like what you do depends on the circumstances. Go figure.

Funny too but no one here much talks about these issues when leading a
group. You're probably the first one I've heard mention that.

--
duane