Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 07:40:51 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:10:35 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Lou Holtman wrote:
sms wrote:
On 10/19/2014 10:12 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

I have no problem with you using a front flasher during daytime. I have
only dynohub powered frontlights without a flashmode. It is remarkable that
I am still alive. I think Frank is also still alive.
Well for where you live it's not such a big deal so the fact that you are
alive is not surprising.

Frank may be alive as well, thought he's lost all his critical thinking
skills which is sad.
Whether Frank lost all his critical thinking skills or not doesn't count.
What counts is that he doesn't use daylight front flashers and he is still
alive.
Same argument as "Grandpa never wore a safety belt, his cars didn't even
have any, and he survived".

But what about three generations of drivers who didn't have a seat
belt and survived?

Yup, that's how the arguments go. And everyone forgot the high death
rates after traffic collisions or the pictures of dead people on
freeways. I saw the first one as a kid. A Ford had rolled and ejected
the driver. The car remained very much intact but the driver was dead.

I suspect that is an example of why figures sometimes do not portray
an accurate picture. They don't take into consideration that some
people almost never have an accident while others seem to crash
frequently. If you have never had an accident it is debatable what
good a seat belt actually does one.

As an example, both the study on bicycle riding in New York and the
one done in London I believe, mentioned that some accidents happened
to people who were violating the law. I believe that a study done in
Australia mentions that some of the accident victims were drunk, or
had drink taken.

Now, in all the arguments regarding bike safety I've yet to see
mention that it is possible that breaking the law and being drunk is
in any way a safety factor. In fact, in the studies it isn't even
quantified.


It is a serious safety factor and mentioned in reputable studies. For
example one published by governments:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811743.pdf

See page 4. Blood alcohol contents of 0.08% and 0.1% (there's a typo in
there) or more are not just being a bit soused, that's being hardcore drunk.

Quote "More than one-fourth (28%) of the pedalcyclists killed in 2011
had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 grams per deciliter
(g/dL) or higher, and around one-fourth (23%) had a BAC of .08 g/dL or
higher".

That's a grand total of over half of cyclist killed being intoxicated.
Meaning they broke the law.


It could be that while a helmet might prevent serious injuries that
riding sober, or in accordance with existing traffic regulations might
provide even more safety, but for some reason that never seems to be
mentioned.


A helmet won't likely prevent much if a drunk blows through a red light
on his unlit bicycle and gets T-boned by a motor vehicle. It'll reduce
head injuries but there comes a point where that just doesn't help anymore.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 10/21/2014 7:53 AM, Joerg wrote:

Where the heck have you lived? Of course one is forced to use them. In
Germany there are blue traffic signs with a bike on them and then that
requires you to use the bike path. In California it's even simpler: It's
written into the law.

Wow, 'cyclists not forced to use cycle paths" is turns into 'cycle paths
have been decommissioned.' Note that he did not say that they were removed.

There are a lot of cycle paths in the U.S. where a cyclist would be
foolish not to use them, but they are not forced to use them. There are
some paths that are so crowded with slow, clueless riders, that an
experienced rider wanting to go fast will not use them.

On 10/21/2014 8:38 AM, Joerg wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:

It could be that while a helmet might prevent serious injuries that
riding sober, or in accordance with existing traffic regulations might
provide even more safety, but for some reason that never seems to be
mentioned.


A helmet won't likely prevent much if a drunk blows through a red light
on his unlit bicycle and gets T-boned by a motor vehicle. It'll reduce
head injuries but there comes a point where that just doesn't help anymore.

And of course it doesn't come up because not riding drunk, and riding
with a helmet, are not mutually exclusive.

Not riding drunk will reduce the likelihood of being involved in a
crash, and wearing a helmet will reduce the severity of head injuries
sustained in a crash whether sober or drunk.

It never gets mentioned because it would be a severe breach of logical
thinking to mention it!

"You're wearing a helmet while riding drunk? Why don't you not ride
drunk and ditch the helmet?"

sms wrote:
On 10/21/2014 7:53 AM, Joerg wrote:

Where the heck have you lived? Of course one is forced to use them. In
Germany there are blue traffic signs with a bike on them and then that
requires you to use the bike path. In California it's even simpler: It's
written into the law.

Wow, 'cyclists not forced to use cycle paths" is turns into 'cycle paths
have been decommissioned.' Note that he did not say that they were removed.

There are a lot of cycle paths in the U.S. where a cyclist would be
foolish not to use them, but they are not forced to use them.


In many jurisdictions they are. For example by California Vehicle Code
21208.

https://calbike.org/bicycling-in-cal...ring-the-road/

Quote "On a roadway with a bike lane, bicyclists traveling slower than
traffic must use the bike lane except when making a left turn, passing,
avoiding hazardous conditions, or approaching a place where a right turn
is authorized".

They only way you can legally skirt that is by keeping your cycling
speeds in the 35-50mph range. That gets to be quite exhausting :-)

In Germany I once passed a car on its left. What I didn't notice was
that this car had a li'l blue hump which promptly started flashing. They
didn't nail me for passing but IIRC I had to pay 10 or 20 Deutschmarks
for exceeding the speed limit, right on the spot, and got a receipt.


... There are
some paths that are so crowded with slow, clueless riders, that an
experienced rider wanting to go fast will not use them.


Out here usually only on weekends. And it's mostly all over early Sunday
afternoon because then they'll sit on their couches, beer and chips in
hand, watching ballgames. Something I've never enjoyed, ever.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 21/10/2014 15:40, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2014 01:35, Joerg wrote:

Yes, but constructive dissing, meaning trying to get the authorities to
improve it. This generic "Away with bike paths" is a disservice to
bicycling in general.

This misstating of what is being argued is an even greater disservice.
It's not "Away with bike paths", it's "**** bike paths are dangerous and
most of them are ****". There is an important difference.


In a German NG they state that bike path in general are bad. In the US
this is less often heard but I've heard it.

AFAIK it's a lot safer to cycle in Germany than the US. What are they
doing right? So far you've told us they're closing bike paths, and many
of them say bike paths in general are bad - yet they're still doing better.


A core reason is that they still _have_ a ot more bike paths than the
US. In the US you can larger stretches of land and urbia that have
nothing at all.

Round here I reckon a core reason is that drivers have to look where
they're going anyway, otherwise they'll crash. The US has nice wide
straight roads where you can get away with texting, driving while drunk,
asleep, etc rather more than if you tried it on the roads round here.

And "They state"? Nothing like a bit of vague generalisation for making
your point.


The folks in de.rec.fahrrad, and most are hardcore. Plus others. As I
said, many cities have "gladly" complied and removed the requirement to
use an existing bike path. Which also meant they could just let it go, a
very sad example of which I just described. The reason is obvious, just
no to the "Away with bike path" crowd: More money back onto the gravy train.

Why are they hardcore like that? With all that experience with bike
paths, could it be that they know that they're actually not necessarily
as great as one might hope?

That's ok. As long as there is a path for those who feel safer on a bike
path. Because else they'll be back in cars. Like I was for over a decade
after moving to the US, triggered by seeing lots of crosses at the side
of roads with a front wheel before them. Clipped by a car at high speed
was the usual cause of death. So I preferred the car until they opened
up trails and now occasional new bike paths/lanes.

So in your opinion drivers in the US are too dangerous to share the road
with?


Yes. They are technically just as able but way more distracted. Some of
it is due to the fact that they drive longer stretches.

As mentioned above, I reckon a lot is because the driving is too easy.

... But before you moved to the US did you use the roads?


Only if I had to. I never liked it because several of my friend got
badly hurt that way. As a highschool student I witness an accident right
in front of me (and of course the truck driver fled the scene).

Interesting - I'd not worry about using the roads in Germany. I believe
it's safer than here.

... Could the
difference be the drivers, not the infrastructure?


It's the infrastructure. Germany has a very nice bike path system in
most areas. Not as good as the Netherlands where I also live for many
years and did just about everything by bicycle. Some of the
infrastructure in Germany seems to fall into disrepair. When I was there
a month ago I wish I had a mountain bike on some stretches. I didn't, so
had to walk some parts in order not to wear down the bike.

So the infrastructure is falling apart. How are the cycling numbers
going? How is cyclist safety going? Are cyclist crashes going up or down
in Germany?

... Here we have a lot of
people cycling on the roads, but they're not being run over all the time
- there aren't lots of crosses at the side of roads. So why do we need
more bike paths?

To increase the number of people using bicycles. Else that number will
just remain about where it is now and once in a while a cyclist will get
killed or crippled.

So long as they're not presented as the solution for safety, and aren't
mandated, I've actually got not too many worries about that. However
aren't they mandatory in Germany?

In this country we have training for cyclists on how to use the road.
It's available for both school-age kids (bikeability) and there are also
adult lessons. Would the people you know who won't use roads consider
such training?


Many have had it. So did someone in Germany in front of me who got
clipped and thrown off the bike by a truck. Training helps you exactly
zero in such a situation. Except self-training, like in a case I had. A
county road which I reluctantly used. Cars approaching at high speed,
some screeching, more screeching, I looked back, first car driver seems
to be on the verge of losing control and it's fishtailing. I hightailed
it through a deep rocky ditch and up the other side, way out into the
turf. Without serious mountain biking experience this would have been a
bad crash.

You are my hero. The training isn't about serious evasive action, it's
about preventing getting into problems in the first place. So road
positioning so you're visible, stuff like that - stuff people get wrong
all the time till they know better.

What exactly would you have done differently in the above described case?

I don't know. I don't get cars crashing around me. I also don't have
serious mountainbiking experience, and I'm unlikely to get it.

What was actually happening? Your description doesn't make it clear. Was
the road wide enough for two cars? Were the cars fishtailing due to poor
braking or what? Over here we have the MOT, which means car suspension
is inspected every year, and the ABS too. So a car braking hard won't be
fishtailing due to poor maintenance.

Give me a more detailed description of what happened and I'll say what
I'd have done. It might end up being "get run over", but I don't know
until I know that detail.

If I'm riding along the road, and a driver coming the other way has a
seizure and swerved into me, I'm not going to be able to avoid that. And
a bike path won't help. People do die in such circumstances.

I will not use that stretch of county road anymore and use my car
instead until there is a bike path. Most destinations I can reach via
bush roads and trails though. Else I would not use the bicycle.

Interestingly in the UK and even more so in mainland Europe, it's safe
to use most small roads. That's where the best road riding is to be had.


In rural areas it can be. But emigrants from the UK have told me
otherwise when it comes to heavily traveled two-lane roads.

The best road riding is in rural areas, yes - that's part of what makes
it the best. Those glorious shots of the TdF are of mountains, lakes,
fields, valleys - they're not of congested city streets.

And I did say small roads. We've got plenty of A roads which are
two-lane - they're the heavily used ones, and generally best avoided.
Though there are of course exceptions.

What do people do when their destination is off these trails?

Just what I do. I use this trail as an artery and knock off when my
destination is near. Much like taking a freeway exit and using side
roads for the last mile or two. Except the trail doesn't have many
signs, you have to knwo roughly where you are.

But how do you get from the trail to your destination without using roads?

As I said, I scope out quiet neighborhoods. There is also a motocross
turf that allows me to cut out a stretch of dangerous two-lane county
road. I also grudgingly use busier roads sometimes but only when I have to.

I mostly just ride.

And if you can use the roads for those sections, why not use them
elsewhere?

If you travel a busy road for 10 miles instead of 1 mile it is 10 times
as dangerous and you chances to get hit are 10x. It's that simple.

That assumes that the chances of getting hit are proportional to
distance. I reckon it's more related to hazards. Though somebody did
mention that being hit from behind is a particular problem in the US, so
maybe the drivers over there are indeed that bad.

sms wrote:
On 10/21/2014 7:40 AM, Joerg wrote:

It's the infrastructure. Germany has a very nice bike path system in
most areas. Not as good as the Netherlands where I also live for many
years and did just about everything by bicycle. Some of the
infrastructure in Germany seems to fall into disrepair. When I was there
a month ago I wish I had a mountain bike on some stretches. I didn't, so
had to walk some parts in order not to wear down the bike.

The problem with cycle paths, and I see this in my area too, is that
they greatly increase the number of inexperienced riders. Many of these
riders would not ride on streets, even streets with bike lanes. These
riders often can't stay to the right, they don't stop when the separated
path crosses a regular road even when there are stop signs and signs
warning that cross-traffic does not stop.


Same here. But look at the bright side: We all started out
inexperienced, except we started early at maybe ages 3-4. In our area
the increase in bike paths, lanes and trails has brought a very welcome
effect: A reversal of the bike shop extinction process. For a while the
numer of bike shops here in town dropped from two to zero. Now we've got
two brand new ones. This is excellent.

I regularly take inexperienced riders out on trails. Yeah, it's
intitially boring rides for me but after dropping them off at the end of
a ride I generally go back onto the trails and step on it, to get in my
exercise.


But the problem with bicycle lanes is that they are so often blocked by
illegally or legally parked or stopped vehicles, used as right turn
lanes even before the dashed line, or used as a right hand passing lane
if a vehicle is turning left and holding up traffic. You also have a lot
of drivers making turns directly across the bicycle lane without looking
for bicycles coming up from behind.


Right. But they do the same if there is no bike lane. Less so since I
have a very bright front light which is in flash mode a lot during
daytime. That seems to pierce through via the rear view or right mirrors.


It's also important to not take the alleged reduction in cycle paths in
Germany out of context. First of all, there is no evidence that cycle
paths are being removed. There is this horrifically written paragraph:

"Turn-around in Germany: Germany, the country that started the trend
toward separating cyclists to clear the roads for cars, now is going the
other way. “Fahrradstraßen” (bicycle boulevards) are streets that are
turned over to cyclists as the main users. Cars are still allowed, but
are considered secondary users. Munich, the largest city in southern
Germany, is installing on-street bike lanes and signs that legitimize
cycling on the street (above), even where there are separate paths. This
approach has been successful: Cycling has increased by 70% in the last
nine years."


If bike paths were especially bad or screwed up in their design you can
see an increase. But as a generally trend, not. Most people simply do
not feel safe on a bike when big trucks rumble by at 3ft or less distance.


No where do the actually say that cycle paths are being removed, they
simply say that bicycle boulevards and bicycle lanes are being added.
This is not "going the other way," it's going the same way--increasing
the bicycle infrastructure. You can't always put in a separate bicycle
path, but you can usually put in bicycle lanes if you're willing to
remove street parking, remove vehicle lanes, or make lanes narrower.


I can only say what I was told by people over there and have seen with
my own eyes, how bike paths started to deteriorate after they took down
the blue "must use" signs. The asphalt all cracked, major weeds and even
little trees pushing through those cracks. Like this:

http://www.bz-berlin.de/berlin/mitte...chluckt-radweg

No kidding, the red-bricked path used to be a bike path. You are
essentially forced back onto the street. BTW, that li'l white sign means
"road damage" and when they mount such a permanent sign that usually
means "... and we have no intentions or funds to fix the road anytime
soon, so live with it". That promises to be fun on a road bike with
100psi in the tires. Better carry some Motrin and Flexoril pills.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 10/21/2014 8:58 AM, Joerg wrote:
sms wrote:
On 10/21/2014 7:53 AM, Joerg wrote:

There are a lot of cycle paths in the U.S. where a cyclist would be
foolish not to use them, but they are not forced to use them.


In many jurisdictions they are. For example by California Vehicle Code
21208.

https://calbike.org/bicycling-in-cal...ring-the-road/

Quote "On a roadway with a bike lane, bicyclists traveling slower than
traffic must use the bike lane except when making a left turn, passing,
avoiding hazardous conditions, or approaching a place where a right turn
is authorized".

You're talking about bike lanes here, not separated bicycle facilities.
Yes, you're often required to use a bike lane, just as you're required
to stay to the right on a road with no bicycle lane.

Our friend was talking about separated bicycle facilities and how
Germany used to _require_ that bicycles use them instead of the road.

We don't have a lot of separated bicycle facilities where there is a
non-freeway road right next to them. The Great Highway and Sunset
Boulevard in San Francisco are two I can think of. Cyclists can use the
road if they want to but I don't think I've ever seen one foolish enough
to do that. There is no bicycle lane on the road, and on Sunset
Boulevard there is no shoulder at all.

,565m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501 367f076adff

In Monterey we will often use the road instead of the multi-use path
because the multi-use path is hopeless; crowded with pedestrians, people
standing in the middle of it on their cell phones, cars parked in or
across it, children on bicycles going everywhere, and surreys.

On 21/10/2014 17:20, Joerg wrote:

Most people simply do
not feel safe on a bike when big trucks rumble by at 3ft or less distance.

IME big trucks don't do that to me. They're driven by more experienced,
better trained drivers, and give me more room.

Of course I do do one thing which helps them do this : My riding
position means they have to make an explicit overtaking move, they can't
just come by staying in lane.

On 10/21/2014 11:58 AM, Joerg wrote:
sms wrote:
On 10/21/2014 7:53 AM, Joerg wrote:

Where the heck have you lived? Of course one is forced to use them. In
Germany there are blue traffic signs with a bike on them and then that
requires you to use the bike path. In California it's even simpler: It's
written into the law.

Wow, 'cyclists not forced to use cycle paths" is turns into 'cycle paths
have been decommissioned.' Note that he did not say that they were removed.

There are a lot of cycle paths in the U.S. where a cyclist would be
foolish not to use them, but they are not forced to use them.


In many jurisdictions they are. For example by California Vehicle Code
21208.

https://calbike.org/bicycling-in-cal...ring-the-road/

Quote "On a roadway with a bike lane, bicyclists traveling slower than
traffic must use the bike lane except when making a left turn, passing,
avoiding hazardous conditions, or approaching a place where a right turn
is authorized".


Bike lanes are not cycle paths. Quebec laws specifically states that
cyclists are not required to ride in cycling paths if they don't wish to.

For bike lanes the law requires you to ride on the extreme right unless
turning left or avoiding an obstacle. If you comply with the law and
there is a bike lane you are going to be in it. Unfortunately, if there
is a protected bus lane you are going to be in that as well. This is
currently being reconsidered so we'll see what happens.

They only way you can legally skirt that is by keeping your cycling
speeds in the 35-50mph range. That gets to be quite exhausting :-)


Bike paths here have a 20k/h speed limit. Bike lanes have the same
speed limit as the road.


In Germany I once passed a car on its left. What I didn't notice was
that this car had a li'l blue hump which promptly started flashing. They
didn't nail me for passing but IIRC I had to pay 10 or 20 Deutschmarks
for exceeding the speed limit, right on the spot, and got a receipt.


... There are
some paths that are so crowded with slow, clueless riders, that an
experienced rider wanting to go fast will not use them.


Out here usually only on weekends. And it's mostly all over early Sunday
afternoon because then they'll sit on their couches, beer and chips in
hand, watching ballgames. Something I've never enjoyed, ever.


Bike paths here are usually crowded except in the early morning so I can
sometime take them on my way to work to avoid traffic. Coming home not
so much.

Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2014 15:40, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2014 01:35, Joerg wrote:

Yes, but constructive dissing, meaning trying to get the
authorities to
improve it. This generic "Away with bike paths" is a disservice to
bicycling in general.

This misstating of what is being argued is an even greater disservice.
It's not "Away with bike paths", it's "**** bike paths are
dangerous and
most of them are ****". There is an important difference.


In a German NG they state that bike path in general are bad. In the US
this is less often heard but I've heard it.

AFAIK it's a lot safer to cycle in Germany than the US. What are they
doing right? So far you've told us they're closing bike paths, and many
of them say bike paths in general are bad - yet they're still doing
better.


A core reason is that they still _have_ a ot more bike paths than the
US. In the US you can larger stretches of land and urbia that have
nothing at all.

Round here I reckon a core reason is that drivers have to look where
they're going anyway, otherwise they'll crash. The US has nice wide
straight roads where you can get away with texting, driving while drunk,
asleep, etc rather more than if you tried it on the roads round here.


It is still just as deadly for bicyclists using the road:

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Hit-a...273336531.html

Unfortunately even police officers do it:

http://www.dailynews.com/general-new...t-in-calabasas

This is one reason why I strongly believe in segregated bike paths.
Accidents like the ones above simply do not happen there as long as the
bicyclist is careful at intersections. I as a bicyclist then have safety
in my own hands, on roads I do not.

Bike lanes are not nearly as safea s the 2nd link evidences. They should
at least put rumble strips in everywhere like it's being done in some
places, it is very cheap to do.


And "They state"? Nothing like a bit of vague generalisation for making
your point.


The folks in de.rec.fahrrad, and most are hardcore. Plus others. As I
said, many cities have "gladly" complied and removed the requirement to
use an existing bike path. Which also meant they could just let it go, a
very sad example of which I just described. The reason is obvious, just
no to the "Away with bike path" crowd: More money back onto the gravy
train.

Why are they hardcore like that? With all that experience with bike
paths, could it be that they know that they're actually not necessarily
as great as one might hope?


Maybe. But with many I have the impression they ride aggressively. One
posted a video of one of his ride through a town and just watching
almost made me sick.


That's ok. As long as there is a path for those who feel safer on a
bike
path. Because else they'll be back in cars. Like I was for over a
decade
after moving to the US, triggered by seeing lots of crosses at the side
of roads with a front wheel before them. Clipped by a car at high speed
was the usual cause of death. So I preferred the car until they opened
up trails and now occasional new bike paths/lanes.

So in your opinion drivers in the US are too dangerous to share the road
with?


Yes. They are technically just as able but way more distracted. Some of
it is due to the fact that they drive longer stretches.

As mentioned above, I reckon a lot is because the driving is too easy.


Sure. Gliding along in every more cocooning cockpits and ever bigger
cars makes them feel invincible. Bicyclists are still jsut as
unprotected as before. Except for helmets but that doesn't help much if
you get clipped from behind at 50mph.


... But before you moved to the US did you use the roads?


Only if I had to. I never liked it because several of my friend got
badly hurt that way. As a highschool student I witness an accident right
in front of me (and of course the truck driver fled the scene).

Interesting - I'd not worry about using the roads in Germany. I believe
it's safer than here.


Well, then go ahead, it's your health and life :-)

Latest example I saw was when driving a truck there, some time around
2007 or 2008. Bicyclists ahead on a small two-lane county road, so I
slowed down, could not safely pass and stayed behind them at a distance.
Behind me some honking and fist waving. Eventually one of the guys had
it, gunned the engine, passed, cut right in front of me because it was a
close call with oncoming traffic. _Then_ he saw why I was so slow ...
*SCREEEEECH*


... Could the
difference be the drivers, not the infrastructure?


It's the infrastructure. Germany has a very nice bike path system in
most areas. Not as good as the Netherlands where I also live for many
years and did just about everything by bicycle. Some of the
infrastructure in Germany seems to fall into disrepair. When I was there
a month ago I wish I had a mountain bike on some stretches. I didn't, so
had to walk some parts in order not to wear down the bike.

So the infrastructure is falling apart. How are the cycling numbers
going? How is cyclist safety going? Are cyclist crashes going up or down
in Germany?


I noticed much fewer cyclists on such roads than when I lived there.
When asking friends I visited they said that people don't ride bikes
between the two affected cities much anymore, they ride more on weekends
and then for fun or training. Either by finding a safe route to the
touristic bike path along the Rhine river or they load them onto their
car's bike racks and head over there.


... Here we have a lot of
people cycling on the roads, but they're not being run over all the time
- there aren't lots of crosses at the side of roads. So why do we need
more bike paths?

To increase the number of people using bicycles. Else that number will
just remain about where it is now and once in a while a cyclist will get
killed or crippled.

So long as they're not presented as the solution for safety, and aren't
mandated, I've actually got not too many worries about that. However
aren't they mandatory in Germany?


When there is a blue sign like this you have to use the path:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/282steffen/8616095891/

Nowadays they take those signs down a lot. And then often let the bike
path go to the weeds.


In this country we have training for cyclists on how to use the road.
It's available for both school-age kids (bikeability) and there are
also
adult lessons. Would the people you know who won't use roads consider
such training?


Many have had it. So did someone in Germany in front of me who got
clipped and thrown off the bike by a truck. Training helps you exactly
zero in such a situation. Except self-training, like in a case I had. A
county road which I reluctantly used. Cars approaching at high speed,
some screeching, more screeching, I looked back, first car driver seems
to be on the verge of losing control and it's fishtailing. I hightailed
it through a deep rocky ditch and up the other side, way out into the
turf. Without serious mountain biking experience this would have been a
bad crash.

You are my hero. The training isn't about serious evasive action, it's
about preventing getting into problems in the first place. So road
positioning so you're visible, stuff like that - stuff people get wrong
all the time till they know better.

What exactly would you have done differently in the above described case?

I don't know. I don't get cars crashing around me. I also don't have
serious mountainbiking experience, and I'm unlikely to get it.

What was actually happening? Your description doesn't make it clear. Was
the road wide enough for two cars? Were the cars fishtailing due to poor
braking or what? Over here we have the MOT, which means car suspension
is inspected every year, and the ABS too. So a car braking hard won't be
fishtailing due to poor maintenance.


The first driver must have hit the brakes hard, maybe because seeing me
too late, I don't know. All it takes is some over-correcting by a lesser
experienced driver and the car begins to swerve. One driver smacked into
a rocky sloped here a couple weeks ago. Clear across where I sometimes
ride my bike.

The road was wide enough for two cars but not quite wide enough to also
safely pass a bicycle.

There was no crash, all cars passed after I had darted across the ditch.


Give me a more detailed description of what happened and I'll say what
I'd have done. It might end up being "get run over", but I don't know
until I know that detail.


So, there it is. It's all that happened. I have no idea whether the car
could have stopped in time or whether the others behind that one would
have then slammed into it.

It's this road and I was traveling west. The ditch is hard to see
because it is overgrown which makes a rapid high-speed trip through it
even more sizzling:

http://goo.gl/maps/LILPi


If I'm riding along the road, and a driver coming the other way has a
seizure and swerved into me, I'm not going to be able to avoid that. And
a bike path won't help. People do die in such circumstances.


There was no seizure involved, just a mistake by an obviously
inexperienced driver.


I will not use that stretch of county road anymore and use my car
instead until there is a bike path. Most destinations I can reach via
bush roads and trails though. Else I would not use the bicycle.

Interestingly in the UK and even more so in mainland Europe, it's safe
to use most small roads. That's where the best road riding is to be had.


In rural areas it can be. But emigrants from the UK have told me
otherwise when it comes to heavily traveled two-lane roads.

The best road riding is in rural areas, yes - that's part of what makes
it the best. Those glorious shots of the TdF are of mountains, lakes,
fields, valleys - they're not of congested city streets.

And I did say small roads. We've got plenty of A roads which are
two-lane - they're the heavily used ones, and generally best avoided.
Though there are of course exceptions.


I do use some less traveled ones myself and feel quite safe on them. But
I never go there without sufficiently bright flashing lights.


What do people do when their destination is off these trails?

Just what I do. I use this trail as an artery and knock off when my
destination is near. Much like taking a freeway exit and using side
roads for the last mile or two. Except the trail doesn't have many
signs, you have to knwo roughly where you are.

But how do you get from the trail to your destination without using
roads?

As I said, I scope out quiet neighborhoods. There is also a motocross
turf that allows me to cut out a stretch of dangerous two-lane county
road. I also grudgingly use busier roads sometimes but only when I
have to.

I mostly just ride.


That can get you a real white-knuckle ride out here, or a hospital trip.
On one road that I hadn't scoped out well enough (northern part of Bass
Lake Road, Cameron Park, CA) I thought I might get hit that very day.


And if you can use the roads for those sections, why not use them
elsewhere?

If you travel a busy road for 10 miles instead of 1 mile it is 10 times
as dangerous and you chances to get hit are 10x. It's that simple.

That assumes that the chances of getting hit are proportional to
distance. I reckon it's more related to hazards. Though somebody did
mention that being hit from behind is a particular problem in the US, so
maybe the drivers over there are indeed that bad.


Not bad but often distracted.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/