|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch. This happened to me once
On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote: It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a truck in that configuration. b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly. Duh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then. So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense. Can you please read more carefully? That is not what I said. Read the thread again, I am not going to repeat it over and over again. And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and killed the cyclist. That would be a serious truck driver mistake. Those things shouldn't happen but do, just like people blowing a red light. I had that a while ago while on the bicycle. Luckily I always look left and right even if I had green for a while. Might have saved my life. Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver. But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London a couple years ago. A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn signal yet he ignored it. You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that many, many cyclists do NOT know that. Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic. But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic. Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some "organization"? My parents tought me that stuff. They taught us just about everything traffic, how to behave as a pedestrian, later as a cyclist, and many years later dad took us to a technical parcours in order to master a car in crtical situations. Like when things get slippery. Drivers ed classes don't teach you that, dad did. And that's how society is supposed to be. ... Instead, the major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated facilities and all will be beautiful. Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride. But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a "Surprise!!" direction or location. I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not. Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways. And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to reduce 5%. It's nuts. Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed. Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc. And all because "If we build it they will come." If built correctly they do come. I remain astonished that public policy is being driven by a feel-good movie. It's usually being driven by voter appeasement, wanton disregard of debt, cronyism, and sometimes worse. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OUCH | Nuxx Bar | UK | 56 | March 11th 11 08:56 PM |
Ouch! | B. Lafferty | Racing | 0 | August 30th 06 01:16 PM |
Ouch! | Danny Colyer | UK | 0 | January 11th 06 09:41 PM |
Ouch again! | Bill C | Racing | 0 | July 15th 05 11:55 PM |
ouch | audrey | UK | 5 | May 11th 05 11:29 PM |