|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
Duane wrote:
On 06/22/2012 10:54 PM, thirty-six wrote: On Jun 23, 1:52 am, Frank wrote: raamman wrote: snip I'd prefer to give them some education. What's that old proverb? Give a man a bike lane, and he can ride where there are bike lanes. Give a man education, and he can ride anywhere. -- - Frank Krygowski stop the indoctrination and there is a free thinker! What are your thoughts? My thoughts are that the implication here is that cyclists get hurt because they are uneducated. This puts all of the responsibility on the victim, assumes that the poster's ability to educate is sacrosanct and implies that by sheer knowledge the cyclist, if willing to allow themselves to be enlightened by the "acadamecian" can prevent someone recklessly propelling a 2000lb + piece of steel (probably while texting) from causing them harm. You've got it, although I wouldn't state it in quite such absolute terms. Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by proper attention.) So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a central lane position in narrow lanes. Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to control the behavior of others is rubbish. So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_ prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane. I think that what's needed is a combination of education, defensive riding and Dan's situational awareness. Like many critics of cycling education, you're imagining (or pretending) that Effective Cycling and Cycling Savvy classes omit defensive riding and situational awareness. Like those other critics, you're dead wrong, and I can't imagine what you think the courses are all about. Those things are covered and rehearsed. In fact, they're the major points covered. Add to that some safety controls in particularly dangerous areas and things start to work. Throw in a goodly helping of prosecuting idiots that risk the lives of those around them and then we will see some changes. For the individual cyclist, the biggest and fastest change comes from learning to deal with the world as it is. You can still continue to work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to ride with real competence, things become better right now. As mentioned in http://vimeo.com/43603867 once you learn the simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden, the motorists seem to get much smarter. You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote: Duane wrote: On 06/22/2012 10:54 PM, thirty-six wrote: On Jun 23, 1:52 am, Frank wrote: raamman wrote: snip I'd prefer to give them some education. What's that old proverb? Give a man a bike lane, and he can ride where there are bike lanes. Give a man education, and he can ride anywhere. stop the indoctrination and there is a free thinker! What are your thoughts? My thoughts are that the implication here is that cyclists get hurt because they are uneducated. This puts all of the responsibility on the victim, assumes that the poster's ability to educate is sacrosanct and implies that by sheer knowledge the cyclist, if willing to allow themselves to be enlightened by the "acadamecian" can prevent someone recklessly propelling a 2000lb + piece of steel (probably while texting) from causing them harm. You've got it, although I wouldn't state it in quite such absolute terms. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...03b880509754e1 (Our hero.) Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by proper attention.) So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a central lane position in narrow lanes. We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using your own selection of criteria. Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to control the behavior of others is rubbish. So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_ prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane. Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't going to mow you down in any case. (Are you saying there *was* room for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?) (I got a kick out of that anecdote, BTW: Frank pedaled a mile to the store without incident - gasp! ;-) I think that what's needed is a combination of education, defensive riding and Dan's situational awareness. Like many critics of cycling education, you're imagining (or pretending) that Effective Cycling and Cycling Savvy classes omit defensive riding and situational awareness. Like those other critics, you're dead wrong, and I can't imagine what you think the courses are all about. Those things are covered and rehearsed. In fact, they're the major points covered. "Critics" of cycling education? Educate away. Knock yourself out. Good for you and those it helps. Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of Vehicular Cycling. Add to that some safety controls in particularly dangerous areas and things start to work. Throw in a goodly helping of prosecuting idiots that risk the lives of those around them and then we will see some changes. For the individual cyclist, the biggest and fastest change comes from learning to deal with the world as it is. Wow, "deal with it as it is" is an ususual postion for activists. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...07a32bce1247c3 (long link, may have to reconstruct, but basically archive search result for "dan o take the world as it comes"): http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...58e1fe5acdad52 You can still continue to work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to ride with real competence, things become better right now. As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867 once you learn the simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden, the motorists seem to get much smarter. Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is that they check their hostility for reasonableness. And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator"? Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are they doing on the road if they don't?? I know exactly how to play Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* contraining. I want to Ride Bike! You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go. The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville Father Knows Best days of yore. Pleasantville exists (I live there), but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's going to be more (and more) bike facilities. Learn to deal with it and ride with *real* competence. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
On 06/26/2012 01:20 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: Duane wrote: On 06/22/2012 10:54 PM, thirty-six wrote: On Jun 23, 1:52 am, Frank wrote: raamman wrote: snip I'd prefer to give them some education. What's that old proverb? Give a man a bike lane, and he can ride where there are bike lanes. Give a man education, and he can ride anywhere. stop the indoctrination and there is a free thinker! What are your thoughts? My thoughts are that the implication here is that cyclists get hurt because they are uneducated. This puts all of the responsibility on the victim, assumes that the poster's ability to educate is sacrosanct and implies that by sheer knowledge the cyclist, if willing to allow themselves to be enlightened by the "acadamecian" can prevent someone recklessly propelling a 2000lb + piece of steel (probably while texting) from causing them harm. You've got it, although I wouldn't state it in quite such absolute terms. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...03b880509754e1 (Our hero.) Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by proper attention.) So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a central lane position in narrow lanes. We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using your own selection of criteria. Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to control the behavior of others is rubbish. So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_ prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane. Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't going to mow you down in any case. (Are you saying there *was* room for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?) (I got a kick out of that anecdote, BTW: Frank pedaled a mile to the store without incident - gasp! ;-) I think that what's needed is a combination of education, defensive riding and Dan's situational awareness. Like many critics of cycling education, you're imagining (or pretending) that Effective Cycling and Cycling Savvy classes omit defensive riding and situational awareness. Like those other critics, you're dead wrong, and I can't imagine what you think the courses are all about. Those things are covered and rehearsed. In fact, they're the major points covered. "Critics" of cycling education? Educate away. Knock yourself out. Good for you and those it helps. Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of Vehicular Cycling. Add to that some safety controls in particularly dangerous areas and things start to work. Throw in a goodly helping of prosecuting idiots that risk the lives of those around them and then we will see some changes. For the individual cyclist, the biggest and fastest change comes from learning to deal with the world as it is. Wow, "deal with it as it is" is an ususual postion for activists. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...07a32bce1247c3 (long link, may have to reconstruct, but basically archive search result for "dan o take the world as it comes"): http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...58e1fe5acdad52 You can still continue to work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to ride with real competence, things become better right now. As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867 once you learn the simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden, the motorists seem to get much smarter. Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is that they check their hostility for reasonableness. And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator"? Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are they doing on the road if they don't?? I know exactly how to play Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* contraining. I want to Ride Bike! You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go. The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville Father Knows Best days of yore. Pleasantville exists (I live there), but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's going to be more (and more) bike facilities. Learn to deal with it and ride with *real* competence. lol. Anyway Dan, I still think you're tilting at windmills talking to this clown. Had a nice ride yesterday, encountered hills and descents, traffic and clear roads. Rode in a couple of kilometers of bike lanes and road on 100k of nice highways. Did another 15k on a beautiful bike path through a forest. Didn't for a second feel that my right to the road was being stolen from me. No one got killed. No one even got mildly inconvenienced. A couple got annoyed but you probably know who they were without telling you. Even saw a guy on a bent clipping along. Didn't see anyone controlling anything or even thinking that they were. Just a nice ride. Lots of people on bikes. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
On 6/26/2012 10:20 AM, Dan O wrote:
Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of Vehicular Cycling. Many of us had been trying to properly educate Frank for years, but finally realized that it was hopeless. The bottom line is that if we want a future where bicycling is seen as a viable alternative to driving then we need to look at places that this has already occurred and see what they did to make it happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o, which shows what happened in the Netherlands, is a good start. A visit to a city like Beijing, where I was earlier this month, is another good example. If cyclists had to ride in the same lanes as vehicles they simply would not ride. People that adhere to Frank's brand of cycling education do cycling a great disservice. They are dooming the bicycle to be seen more as a toy that as a viable means of transportation. Fortunately, policymakers and governments pay no attention to Frank's brand of cycling "education." Many areas of the U.S. are busy building cycling infrastructure, and it's heavily used. San Francisco has seen a 71% increase in bicycling over the past five years, as a direct result of improvements in the bicycling infrastructure, despite the fact that San Francisco can be a challenging place to ride because of the topography. "Perhaps the most telling statistic is the increase of bicycle counts at locations with new bicycle infrastructure added this year. In 2011, more than 17 miles of bike lanes were added to San Francisco streets, including 2.5 miles of buffered bikeways. Bicycle count locations with new bike lanes showed an especially large increase in ridership. For example, Townsend Street had bike lanes striped in 2011 and showed a 54% increase in counts." I was amazed to see a heavily used bicycle route in Santa Clara remove a traffic lane in order to add a bike lane. Some motorists were upset, but too bad. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
Dan O wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank wrote: Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by proper attention.) So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a central lane position in narrow lanes. We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using your own selection of criteria. Seems to me that was a smarmy thing to say. Still no mirrors in your house? Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to control the behavior of others is rubbish. So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_ prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane. Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't going to mow you down in any case. He would probably have attempted to pass had I squeezed over and ridden near the gutter. In doing so, he would have given me far less than three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. See http://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl (Are you saying there *was* room for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?) I _was_ as far right as practicable. In my state, "practicable" does not mean "so far right as to endanger yourself by possible sideswipes." Specifically, the law says a cyclist is allowed to ride further left if the lane is too narrow to share. So he waited a few seconds, then went around completely in the other lane when it cleared. No problem, no hassle. So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up cyclists' rights to the road? Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of Vehicular Cycling. Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called teaching. I suppose there may be teachers that accept any work as good enough, or teachers that never tell about better ways of doing things. (My students did tell me of one prof who gave an A to anyone who attended his class. Fortunately, it was a far-less-than-essential liberal arts class.) Personally, I think that's irresponsible and counterproductive, and especially so when it involves the possibility of personal injury. So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to endorse the riding style you've espoused - riding drunk, riding at night without lights, riding wrong-way, zooming at random on and off sidewalks, doing stunts in traffic and purposely angering motorists. You can still continue to work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to ride with real competence, things become better right now. As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867 once you learn the simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden, the motorists seem to get much smarter. Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is that they check their hostility for reasonableness. And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator"? Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are they doing on the road if they don't?? "Who doesn't know how to do that?" It's apparent you've never taught a class. It's apparent you've never looked at crash data. You've never been asked "So what side of the road are bikes supposed to ride on?" I know exactly how to play Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* contraining. I want to Ride Bike! Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something. You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go. The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville Father Knows Best days of yore. Dan, you're losing track of the discussion. I'm the guy who's comfortable riding in the world of today. Pleasantville exists (I live there), but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's going to be more (and more) bike facilities. Learn to deal with it and ride with *real* competence. There are very serious discussions taking place as we speak among cycling instructors. They are discussing exactly that problem: What are we to teach students about weird bike facilities, now that they're popping up and grossly complicating traffic interactions? What if the bike lane is in the door zone, and the cops are waiting to give tickets for leaving that lane? What if the supposedly protected cycle track has them riding downhill toward an intersection where they'll be hidden from motorists until too late? What if the bike lane is to the right of the right turn only lane, and motorists are getting hostile because they've merged out of it to go straight? Yep, it's a problem. Of course, the "Any bike facility is a good bike facility" crowd doesn't even recognize there is a problem. They think as long as it's painted green (or is it blue?) it must be safe. And here you are, defending their work. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
On Jun 26, 9:19*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote: Dan O wrote: : Yes, it did not. *It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't going to mow you down in any case. He would probably have attempted to pass had I squeezed over and ridden near the gutter. That is the normal procedure to encourage someone following to pass. One should only do this if one is prepared to stop as it gives the rider no room to maneuver. *In doing so, he would have given me far less than three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if unenforced) minimum. *By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent him from doing that. *It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. *Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl (Are you saying there *was* room for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?) I _was_ as far right as practicable. *In my state, "practicable" does not mean "so far right as to endanger yourself by possible sideswipes." * Specifically, the law says a cyclist is allowed to ride further left if the lane is too narrow to share. So he waited a few seconds, then went around completely in the other lane when it cleared. *No problem, no hassle. When there is another lane, there is no need to pull over, but it might be wise if one is holding up a following road-user for a considerable time. Consider whether the elapsed time is getting excessive and pull over and stop if necessary. So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few seconds? *Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up cyclists' rights to the road? Okay, here's the criticism: *Your brand of cycling education is about indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of Vehicular Cycling. Dan, I was a college professor for many years. *Part of that job was to tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them correctly. *I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. *It's called teaching. That's lecturing. Teaching helps learning. They are different. I suppose there may be teachers that accept any work as good enough, or teachers that never tell about better ways of doing things. *(My students did tell me of one prof who gave an A to anyone who attended his class. *Fortunately, it was a far-less-than-essential liberal arts class.) *Personally, I think that's irresponsible and counterproductive, and especially so when it involves the possibility of personal injury. So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to endorse the riding style you've espoused - riding drunk, riding at night without lights, riding wrong-way, zooming at random on and off sidewalks, doing stunts in traffic and purposely angering motorists. * You can still continue to work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would really help, or improvements to laws and justice. *But if you learn to ride with real competence, things become better right now. As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867once you learn the simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden, the motorists seem to get much smarter. Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is that they check their hostility for reasonableness. And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator"? *Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are they doing on the road if they don't?? "Who doesn't know how to do that?" *It's apparent you've never taught a class. *It's apparent you've never looked at crash data. *You've never been asked "So what side of the road are bikes supposed to ride on?" I know exactly how to play Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* contraining. *I want to Ride Bike! Right. *We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. *Lots of 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something. You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go. The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville Father Knows Best days of yore. Dan, you're losing track of the discussion. *I'm the guy who's comfortable riding in the world of today. Pleasantville exists (I live there), but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's going to be more (and more) bike facilities. *Learn to deal with it and ride with *real* competence. There are very serious discussions taking place as we speak among cycling instructors. *They are discussing exactly that problem: *What are we to teach students about weird bike facilities, now that they're popping up and grossly complicating traffic interactions? *What if the bike lane is in the door zone, and the cops are waiting to give tickets for leaving that lane? *What if the supposedly protected cycle track has them riding downhill toward an intersection where they'll be hidden from motorists until too late? *What if the bike lane is to the right of the right turn only lane, and motorists are getting hostile because they've merged out of it to go straight? Yep, it's a problem. *Of course, the "Any bike facility is a good bike facility" crowd doesn't even recognize there is a problem. *They think as long as it's painted green (or is it blue?) it must be safe. And here you are, defending their work. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
thirty-six wrote:
Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called teaching. That's lecturing. Teaching helps learning. They are different. It's not necessarily lecturing. I taught lots of laboratory sessions, including (for just one example) machine shop fundamentals. There are a surprising number of people who don't understand how to handle a hacksaw or file. Not much lecturing involved in showing how. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
On Jun 26, 1:19 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote: Dan O wrote: On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank wrote: Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by proper attention.) So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a central lane position in narrow lanes. We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using your own selection of criteria. Seems to me that was a smarmy thing to say. Still no mirrors in your house? Smarmy: Oily; Gushingly or unctuously flattering. (Unctuous: Characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere earnestness.) Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to control the behavior of others is rubbish. So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_ prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane. Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't going to mow you down in any case. He would probably have attempted to pass had I squeezed over... Did I suggest any sort of squeezing? And you say "probably". You think someone who patiently and cooperatively follows until safe to change lanes and pass would have dangerously risked sideswiping you if it looked feasible? Earth to Frank: The sideswipe is still feasible even if you hog the lane. ... and ridden near the gutter. In doing so, he would have given me far less than three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum. (Are you saying there *was* room for him to pass if you'd been as far right as practicable?) I _was_ as far right as practicable. In my state, "practicable" does not mean "so far right as to endanger yourself by possible sideswipes." Dude, you can be sideswiped whereever you postion yourself. Specifically, the law says a cyclist is allowed to ride further left if the lane is too narrow to share. Practicable: Capable of being done, effected, or executed; feasible So he waited a few seconds, then went around completely in the other lane when it cleared. No problem, no hassle. Sure, and that's how it ought to be. Doesn't demonstrate in any way, shape, or form that he would have risked sideswiping had you not "taken control" of the situation for both of you. So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up cyclists' rights to the road? I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking about a cooperative stance. And there are situations where taking the lane makes sense. And this may be one of them. I was just saying, "Yes, your lane postition did not prevent him sideswiping you." Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the hardware store or wherever. I think you just prefer this route - maybe in part because it's the most direct - but maybe also because you like controlling things. Okay, here's the criticism: Your brand of cycling education is about indoctrination, shaming and blaming anyone who eschews your Church of Vehicular Cycling. Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called teaching. "Wrong", "correctly", ("properly") - hmm... that's the attitidue we see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone else. And re; "shaming" and "blaming" - I wasn't referring to your work in the classroom. I suppose there may be teachers that accept any work as good enough, or teachers that never tell about better ways of doing things. (My students did tell me of one prof who gave an A to anyone who attended his class. Did he have a canoe? ;-) Fortunately, it was a far-less-than-essential liberal arts class.) And *you* and your classes were superior, of course. Personally, I think that's irresponsible and counterproductive, and especially so when it involves the possibility of personal injury. Anything's possible. But yeah, safety is serious business. So I'm sorry, but I'm not going to endorse the riding style you've espoused - riding drunk, riding at night without lights, riding wrong-way, zooming at random on and off sidewalks, doing stunts in traffic and purposely angering motorists. Did I ask for your endorsement? You can still continue to work for improvements to the few places where infrastructure would really help, or improvements to laws and justice. But if you learn to ride with real competence, things become better right now. As mentioned inhttp://vimeo.com/43603867once you learn the simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator, all of a sudden, the motorists seem to get much smarter. Not much smarter (less confused, perhaps); but what really matters is that they check their hostility for reasonableness. And the "simple techniques of acting as a legitimate vehicle operator"? Who doesn't know how to do that, and what the hell are they doing on the road if they don't?? "Who doesn't know how to do that?" It's apparent you've never taught a class. It's apparent you've never looked at crash data. You've never been asked "So what side of the road are bikes supposed to ride on?" Idiots - too many of them blithe as well. Educate away. Knock yourself out. Good for you and those it helps. But get off my back. I know exactly how to play Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* con[s]training. I want to Ride Bike! Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something. Smarmy supercilious judgmental. You don't have to wait for some fairy tale future, with green-painted bike tracks whisking you everywhere you want to go. The "fairy tale future" is your hearkening for the Pleasantville Father Knows Best days of yore. Dan, you're losing track of the discussion. I'm the guy who's comfortable riding in the world of today. .... except for those new-fangled facilities. Pleasantville exists (I live there), but the world at large is ever changing, and guess what - there's going to be more (and more) bike facilities. Learn to deal with it and ride with *real* competence. There are very serious discussions taking place as we speak among cycling instructors. Tantalizing! ;-) They are discussing exactly that problem: What are we to teach students about weird bike facilities, now that they're popping up and grossly complicating traffic interactions? How about situational awareness. Problem? You can't teach good sense. What if the bike lane is in the door zone, and the cops are waiting to give tickets for leaving that lane? Absurd scenario. (Bring it on - I'll be there with bells on just for the fun.) What if the supposedly protected cycle track has them riding downhill toward an intersection where they'll be hidden from motorists until too late? Situational awareness vs. blithe "doing as directed" and leave my safety up to someone else. What if the bike lane is to the right of the right turn only lane, and motorists are getting hostile because they've merged out of it to go straight? Unreasonable hostility. Yep, it's a problem. Of course, the "Any bike facility is a good bike facility" crowd doesn't even recognize there is a problem. They think as long as it's painted green (or is it blue?) it must be safe. And here you are, defending their work. You have completely contrived that position and ascribed it to me. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
Dan O wrote:
On Jun 26, 1:19 pm, Frank wrote: Dan O wrote: On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank wrote: Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by proper attention.) So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a central lane position in narrow lanes. We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using your own selection of criteria. Seems to me that was a smarmy thing to say. Still no mirrors in your house? Smarmy: Oily; Gushingly or unctuously flattering. (Unctuous: Characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere earnestness.) Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to control the behavior of others is rubbish. So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_ prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane. Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't going to mow you down in any case. He would probably have attempted to pass had I squeezed over... Did I suggest any sort of squeezing? And you say "probably". You think someone who patiently and cooperatively follows until safe to change lanes and pass would have dangerously risked sideswiping you if it looked feasible? Earth to Frank: The sideswipe is still feasible even if you hog the lane. Let me repeat the report from one of my best cycling friends. After I'd explained to him the benefit of riding centered in a too-narrow lane, he and his wife were on their tandem, vacationing near New York's Finger Lakes. They were riding a narrow, high traffic highway (their only choice) and kept getting passed by inches. It was scary. The guy said to his wife "Frank says the thing to do in this situation is to take the lane, to prevent them from passing until it's safe. Do you want to try it?" His wife nervously agreed. He told me it "completely transformed the ride." Motorists coming from behind waited to pass until it was safe. Nobody squeezed by. Nobody honked horns. They understood, they were courteous and they passed with plenty of safe clearance. I learned the same lesson long before that. Apparently, Dan, you have still not learned. And a minor point: If you are lane-centered and someone does pass too closely, you've got several feet of escape room to your right. If you're in the gutter and someone passes too closely, that option doesn't exist. ... and ridden near the gutter. In doing so, he would have given me far less than three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum. You've listed lots of reasons for moving left even in a wider lane. One might say the graphics at http://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl assume good pavement. Curbs, drain gates, debris, potholes etc. require riding further left. If a person doesn't, out of excess submissiveness, those factors can cause a serious backfire. So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up cyclists' rights to the road? I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking about a cooperative stance. A "cooperative stance" in a lane too narrow to share? Would that be cooperatively standing by the side of the road until all the cars are gone? And there are situations where taking the lane makes sense. And this may be one of them. It absolutely was. I was just saying, "Yes, your lane postition did not prevent him sideswiping you." False, unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason as he passed in the next lane, when somehow I didn't notice him approaching and failed to move right to avoid it. That would be the traffic equivalent of a sucker punch, and would be blatant assault. Very, very few motorists will ever attempt that on a public road with others observing. Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the hardware store or wherever. Of course it's not the only route! Instead of riding directly west to that store, I can go roughly two miles out of my way by riding either north or south to use the next crossing of the interstate, then ride roads nearly as busy to complete the trip. But why would I do that? To avoid delaying a pickup driver by a few seconds? Are you really submissive enough to consider that? Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called teaching. "Wrong", "correctly", ("properly") - hmm... that's the attitidue we see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone else. And by contrast, we might adopt the attitude so fashionable in many circles: "Golly, whatever you think is right, Danny, is fine! There are two sides to every story, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there is no such thing as right or wrong, and I'll give your paper a gold star even though half your answers on the arithmetic test were, um, different from the answer key." You've been advocating practices like stunt riding in or around traffic, you've bragged about riding drunk, you've told about riding at night without lights, you've defended zooming on and off sidewalks at high speed. The data's pretty clear that those things are big contributors to bad, often fatal, crashes. But you still take offense if someone suggests those are wrong. I know exactly how to play Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* con[s]training. I want to Ride Bike! Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something. Smarmy supercilious judgmental. No, accurate. And BTW, stop giving yourself a free pass on your own blatant insults. Buy a damned mirror and set it in front of your computer before complaining about what you perceive as a lack of perfect diplomacy. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't help so much
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote: Dan O wrote: On Jun 26, 1:19 pm, Frank wrote: Dan O wrote: On Jun 26, 8:12 am, Frank wrote: Studies consistently show that half of car-bike crashes are the fault of cyclists. (That doesn't count the far greater number of bike-only crashes, almost all of which the cyclist should be able to avoid by proper attention.) So should the cyclists be absolved if the motorist is determined to be at fault? Well, perhaps we shouldn't blame that victim; but another brief paper I've seen showed that roughly 85% (IIRC) of motorist-caused crashes would be prevented by cyclists riding as competent and legal vehicle operators with full rights to the road - for example, riding outside the door zone, riding out of the gutter, or maintaining a central lane position in narrow lanes. We live our lives doing what we have to do. For you it's a game of constantly proving how much better you are than everyone else - using your own selection of criteria. Seems to me that was a smarmy thing to say. Still no mirrors in your house? Smarmy: Oily; Gushingly or unctuously flattering. (Unctuous: Characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere earnestness.) Education is a useful tool. Telling someone that they can be taught to control the behavior of others is rubbish. So are you saying that yesterday, my central lane position did _not_ prevent the driver that big pickup truck from squeezing by me? Are you saying he actually ran me over, but I didn't notice? Get real, Duane. Yes, it did not. It may have *encouraged* him to wait for the next lane to be clear before changing lanes, but he (obviously) wasn't going to mow you down in any case. He would probably have attempted to pass had I squeezed over... Did I suggest any sort of squeezing? And you say "probably". You think someone who patiently and cooperatively follows until safe to change lanes and pass would have dangerously risked sideswiping you if it looked feasible? Earth to Frank: The sideswipe is still feasible even if you hog the lane. Let me repeat the report from one of my best cycling friends. After I'd explained to him the benefit of riding centered in a too-narrow lane, he and his wife were on their tandem, vacationing near New York's Finger Lakes. They were riding a narrow, high traffic highway (their only choice) and kept getting passed by inches. It was scary. The guy said to his wife "Frank says the thing to do in this situation is to take the lane, to prevent them from passing until it's safe. Do you want to try it?" His wife nervously agreed. He told me it "completely transformed the ride." Motorists coming from behind waited to pass until it was safe. Nobody squeezed by. Nobody honked horns. They understood, they were courteous and they passed with plenty of safe clearance. Anecdotal heresay. But if it works for them, swell. I am all about riding any way you want as long as it doesn't unreasonably impose on anybody else I learned the same lesson long before that. Apparently, Dan, you have still not learned. Apparently. And a minor point: If you are lane-centered and someone does pass too closely, you've got several feet of escape room to your right. If you're in the gutter and someone passes too closely, that option doesn't exist. I am all about having room to maneuver, but absolutely hold my line while being passed. It's up to the person doing the passing to position themselves relative to me. Maneuvering while being passed is dangerous (and useless). ... and ridden near the gutter. In doing so, he would have given me far less than three feet of clearance, which many states are now making the legal (if unenforced) minimum. By riding more toward lane center, I did prevent him from doing that. It has to do with arithmetic, Dan. Seehttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpkl It's not simply math. There are many considerations. The condition of the road, presence of curbing, storm drains, debris, etc. Traffic density in the next lane. Often a car can partially leave the lane if there's a traffic gap in the next lane that wouldn't allow a courteous complete lane change. Etc. ad infinitum. You've listed lots of reasons for moving left even in a wider lane. One might say the graphics athttp://tinyurl.com/7xwlpklassume good pavement. Curbs, drain gates, debris, potholes etc. require riding further left. If a person doesn't, out of excess submissiveness, those factors can cause a serious backfire. So you're saying it's advisable to avoid hazards? Brilliant, professor. So did you want me to risk getting sideswiped to save a motorist a few seconds? Are you really that submissive, that ready to give up cyclists' rights to the road? I'm not talking about offering him the lane you're in. I'm talking about a cooperative stance. A "cooperative stance" in a lane too narrow to share? Would that be cooperatively standing by the side of the road until all the cars are gone? No, it would be riding as far out of the way as practicable. Even if the lane is too narrow to share with a passing car, this reduces how far and how long they have to leave the lane to safely pass, and how fast they have to go to do it. And there are situations where taking the lane makes sense. And this may be one of them. It absolutely was. You're the expert :-) I was just saying, "Yes, your lane postition did not prevent him sideswiping you." False... True. ... unless he was to do it deliberately and for no good reason... Arent' drivers supposed to do everything deliberately? Is there ever a good reason to buzz a bicyclist? ... as he passed in the next lane, when somehow I didn't notice him approaching and failed to move right to avoid it. That would be the traffic equivalent of a sucker punch, and would be blatant assault. Very, very few motorists will ever attempt that on a public road with others observing. Yes, very few. How many cars did you say use that road daily? Just *that* road. 30,000? Personally, I find it hard to believe this is the only route to the hardware store or wherever. Of course it's not the only route! Instead of riding directly west to that store, I can go roughly two miles out of my way by riding either north or south to use the next crossing of the interstate, then ride roads nearly as busy to complete the trip. But why would I do that? To avoid delaying a pickup driver by a few seconds? Are you really submissive enough to consider that? I think it's plain enough, professor, that I am not the submissive type. And as for alternate routes. I won't presume to know your area, but by keeping all my options open and being not only willing but eager to leave the road at times, I find really interesting and fun routes almost everywhere that practically or *completely* eliminate having to deal with traffic. (Traffic sucks.) But I think you kind of get off on dealing with traffic. Dan, I was a college professor for many years. Part of that job was to tell students when they did things wrong, and how they could do them correctly. I did that, and I worked very hard to give extremely specific feedback; but there was no shaming or blaming. It's called teaching. "Wrong", "correctly", ("properly") - hmm... that's the attitidue we see here that prompted my remark about an apparent compulsion to apply your own criteria to constantly prove yourself better than everyone else. And by contrast, we might adopt the attitude so fashionable in many circles: "Golly, whatever you think is right, Danny, is fine! Live and let live, Frankie. There are two sides to every story... Aren't there? ... everyone is entitled to their own opinion... Aren't they? ... there is no such thing as right or wrong... That's a pretty assinine thing to say, but who decides what's right and what's wrong, professor? ... and I'll give your paper a gold star even though half your answers on the arithmetic test were, um, different from the answer key." We're not discussing mathematics here, dickhead. You've been advocating practices like stunt riding in or around traffic, you've bragged about riding drunk, you've told about riding at night without lights, you've defended zooming on and off sidewalks at high speed. The data's pretty clear that those things are big contributors to bad, often fatal, crashes. But you still take offense if someone suggests those are wrong. What do you mean, "Advocating"? I advocate those activities only for myself - cognizant of the risks, considerate of the reasonable interests of others. (I'll bet your love life is *really* something ;-) I know exactly how to play Traffic Parcheesi, but it's *so* con[s]training. I want to Ride Bike! Right. We've heard what you want to do, and how you do it. Lots of 14-year-olds agree with you, which should tell you something. Smarmy supercilious judgmental. No, accurate. "Accurate"? Got data on alignment of 14 year-olds with what I do? Let's see it. And what should it tell me? And BTW, stop giving yourself a free pass on your own blatant insults. F... ;-) Buy a damned mirror and set it in front of your computer before complaining about what you perceive as a lack of perfect diplomacy. Perfect. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|