Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 8, 10:14 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have NEVER said I always "aim for," or ride in, the middle of a
lane. I have many times said I share a lane whenever it's safe to do
so. However, it's not safe to do so in a ten foot lane, unless
perhaps the passing vehicle is a motorcycle or other bicycle.

Right. But when in you are "controlling the lane," as I specified, you
always aim for the general center of the lane? Or are there times when
you choose to ride further left?


Riding in the
middle of such a lane gives a five-foot buffer to right side hazards,
less than the width of a standard suburban sidewalk.

So you seem to be saying you, too, would ride in the middle of that
lane when a truck is behind. Don't be shy about saying that.

Read it again. That is most certainly not what I am saying, or even
what I "seem to be saying."

To be clear what I am actually saying is that a fixation on a down-the-
center lane position, when so many other 'positions' are open and
available, is questionable at best. In most situations a five-foot
buffer to right side hazards will be woefully inadequate. Dangerous,
you might say. You give a good example of how dogmatic adherence to
arbitrary vehicular cycling guidelines ("primary position, secondary
position") can lead to a decrease in rider safety.

It makes me wonder: Have you really thought this through, in terms of
maximizing actual space? Or is the 'lane-controlling' center lane
position more about theater?

Probably on such a street I would be riding close to the middle of the
road, not the middle of the lane. But it massively depends, on so many
things. I also don't mind moving over to help someone pass if
possible. If a street required constant "lane controlling" in front of
anxious traffic I would also try to find a better one.

On 12/8/2010 10:48 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,
Jay wrote:

On Dec 7, 4:27�pm, Tim wrote:
In , �T m Sherm n
" wrote:

On 12/6/2010 11:04 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In , � Peter
�wrote:
[...]
�Medicine, in the US, via a number of mechanisms, is pretty
much �a cartel.
Bull****. �But you have to stop mixing things up to be able to
understand that.

The financing of medical care in the US is a cartel.

You'd have to prove collusion between insurance companies to
prevent competition or inflate prices to demonstrate that health
care finance is a cartel. �It may very well be, and if so it is one
of many (along with the oil industry, the cell phone industry, the
music industry, the movie industry, the...). �Drug companies, OTOH,
operate as monopolies rather than as cartels.

Insurance policies and premiums are approved by state regulators.
Premiums are set based on actuarial data, and annual increases must
be approved. Insurance companies are treated like regulated utilities
and not cartels in the sense that they are competitors engaged in
illegal price fixing or other monopoly-like activity. The problem
is that there are too few insurers competing for business, so there
is no real choice for consumers.

There are at least a dozen competing health insurance companies in my
state. Four of them split up most of the market share

Pretty much a cartel, then.

and another four
or five take most of what's left with a few smaller players. What's the
minimum threshold for effective competition? There are three times as
many insurance companies as there are paid TV signal providers here (and
many people spend as much or more on TV service than they do on health
insurance premiums).

Commercial television and radio broadcasting in the US is the government
practically giving away a limited public resource to the well connected.

Patent rights may give drug companies "monopolies" on certain drugs
in the same way that Shimano has a monopoly on Di2, but the drug
companies are not "monopolies." Since we are talking about multiple
competitors, it would have to be a trust or a cartel in any event.

Drug companies have legal monopolies on drugs covered by patent
protection, and then maintain those monopolies as long as possible once
the patents expire by tying up the generic drug with lawsuits over
things like pill coatings. Another favored technique is to modify the
delivery system to get new patent protection for an old drug (Advair is
a great example of this).

The problem is that market forces are very, very weak in the health
care industry. The capitalist model does not work well. I am pushing
for a complete overhaul: socialized voo-doo. -- Jay Beattie.

Fine by me. Simple, straightforward, universal coverage.


Letting people die in the streets also works, as long as civil unrest is
kept to level where it can be controlled by the military and government
backed death squads.

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

On Dec 8, 10:03*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions.

Great logic.
Yes there is little question that you are not a lawyer. we will ad
that to your lengthy resume of non-existent skills.
And of course if YOU have concluded it is bad decision, it MUST be a
bad decision.

If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. *

Bull****, Frank.
Is it bad law that bicycles are considered "vehicles" under the
"vehicle codes" of most states? That means both rights and
responsibilities. I would remind you that there is even a cult that
promotes "vehicular cycling." Perhaps you have heard of it?

The relevant Colorado Law:
42-4-1412. Operation of bicycles and other human-powered vehicles.
(1) Every person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall
have **ALL OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES APPLICABLE TO THE DRIVER OF ANY
OTHER VEHICLE UNDER THIS ARTICLE,** except as to special regulations
in this article and except as to those provisions which by their
nature can have no application. [emphasis added]

There's no
guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
(And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. *Or the
near-useless LAB.)

Third, the bicycle section of the Oregon law specifically permits
controlling a lane. *That's in the section 2c that you quoted
yourself.

Frank we understand your obsession with "controlling a lane."

Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. *I absolutely controlled
the lane many times, as always. *

LA-DE-FRICKIN'-DA
"As always." Your words not mine.

I specifically remember doing that at
5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
one example. *Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. *I didn't get busted.

So Frank did you knock off a liquor store or two while you were there?
You know it's not illegal if you don't "get busted."

Get with Mionske. *See what he says. *Seriously.

He's one lawyer, with at best, one opinion. And Frank, believe it or
not, he may may not agree with you, despite YOUR impeccable legal
credentials. Seriously. Frank you're an idiot.

DR

On 12/8/2010 10:39 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
T�m Sherm�n� " wrote:

On 12/7/2010 9:39 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:12 AM, T�m Sherm�n� �_� wrote:
On 12/6/2010 11:04 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In , Peter
wrote: [...]
Medicine, in the US, via a number of mechanisms, is pretty
much a cartel.
Bull****. But you have to stop mixing things up to be able to
understand that.


The financing of medical care in the US is a cartel.


It doesn't stop there.

Indeed, the artificial barriers to becoming a provider are almost on
the level of the old medieval guilds.

I see. The standards for becoming a physician should be lower than they
are? This would make health care safer and more effective? Maybe we
shouldn't require four years of college, four years of medical school
and 7-12 years of internships and residencies.

Hell, how hard can neurosurgery be, anyway?


If there is free movement of capital, why not labor?

Outsource medical training to India - many intelligent and capable young
people there who would be happy to work as doctors in the US for
$50-75K/year.

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

In article . org,
Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:

On 2010-12-09, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? "" wrote:
On 12/8/2010 8:22 AM, Duane H?bert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:13 PM, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:22 AM, Duane H?bert wrote:
On 12/6/2010 9:21 PM, T?m Sherm?n? ?_? wrote:
On 12/6/2010 10:08 AM, Duane H?bert wrote:

At home I use Outlook Express for a news reader.[...]

Bill Gates holding a gun to your head?


Huh?

Why would anyone use a Micro$oft product when better, free alternatives
are available? (Assuming that they are given a choice.)


I haven't got around to installing TBird at home. Last year when I
tried it, it sucked too much. The current version seems ok - I'm using
it at work.

The "Huh?" was more about you telling me to use a newsreader that will
let me respond to your posts in lieu of you not doing funny things to
your header.

So huh?

My header is UTF-8 compliant.

Alas, usenet is not. It's a 7-bit medium.

All headers must be ASCII. Header titles
must be exactly as prescribed. HOWEVER... there are
means to communicate and render glyphs outside
ASCII. You have some reading to do, but I
promise it is rewarding reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2047

--
Michael Press

On Dec 8, 6:50 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/8/2010 10:26 AM, RobertH wrote:



On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, T m Sherm n _

How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
traffic.

False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles.
Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
driver.

What is there in "defensive driving" useful to cyclists that is not
covered under vehicular/effective cycling?

Sure, Tom, I'll take that one.

Defensive driving emphasizes the specific ways that _lawful_ vehicle
operators are victimized in garden-variety collisions (In terms of
cycling, a 'looked-but-failed-to-see error' by a left-turning driver
has the most serious damage x frequency vector) and teaches strategies
to avoid them. Defensive driving emphasizes the need for awareness
above and beyond simply following the rules of the road. The
foundational assumptions of defensive driving are strongly supported
by factual evidence.

Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.
Vehicular Cycling emphasizes assertiveness and rule-following over
defensiveness. In Vehicular Cycling, a defensive mindset is in fact
viewed as superfluous and unnecessary. Riders who express the
necessity for defensive posture in traffic are berated and ridiculed
until they go away shaking their heads in wonder and disgust at their
fellow man.

On Dec 8, 10:30*pm, James wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

DR picked you up on this once already today.

I have NEVER said I always "aim for," or ride in, the middle of a
lane. *I have many times said I share a lane whenever it's safe to do
so. *However, it's not safe to do so in a ten foot lane, unless
perhaps the passing vehicle is a motorcycle or other bicycle.

In a previous post in this thread you wrote:

* I'm going to continue to ride in the center of the lane,
* and I'm not going to cede
* my legal right to the road out of fear the trucker is really a
* murderer.

Need you be reminded of your own words twice in one day? *Or does
"middle" not also mean "centre" in your dictionary?

Let's add his subsequent:
"Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. I absolutely controlled
the lane many times, AS ALWAYS."

Sounds like his standard tactic.

DR

"fiultra5" wrote in message
...
On Dec 8, 1:26 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

Let's face it, Microsoft is what made the computer what it is today, a
common appliance found in just about every home in America.

A common appliance much cursed by everyone, except those who have the
brains and the money to buy a Mac.

The last time I looked, Macs continue to be super expensive whereas PCs
keeps dropping in price. I have seen Windows 7 Home Premium desktop
computers for $300 at Wal-Mart. It is all about money, not brains. Wal-Mart
has also put our local bike shop out of business and for the same reason ...
price!
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 12/9/2010 12:46 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:03 pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:00 pm, Jay wrote:





On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank wrote:

Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?

http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-1...ase-revisited/

http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/...aking-with-bob...

Yes, they're wrong -- at least in Oregon. I know that because of
this:

"Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for impeding traffic,
even though defendant's conviction involved his use of bicycle and
definition of offense referred only to motor vehicles; nothing in
vehicle code provided that such offense be applied only to motor
vehicles. ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
185 Or.App. 81."

So, go ahead and impede traffic in Ohio, but not here. You'll get
busted.

First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. Both of
you are in PDX, IIRC.

Why would I? I can read statutes, in fact, I've even written a few.

Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions.
If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. There's no
guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
(And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. Or the
near-useless LAB.)

A bicycle is treated identically to a motor vehicle for most purposes,
including the impeding statute. Sorry, that's the law. The opinion
was correctly decided, and there is no impetus for changing the law.

Quebec Highway code defines a bicycle as a vehicle and treats it the
same as a motor vehicle with a few restrictions.

One being that other MVs are required to allow a minimum distance when
passing and can cross the lane to do so.

The second being that a bike must take a bike lane when one is available
with exclusions for turns.

And in any case, any road can prohibit usage for any type of vehicle.
There are roads that don't allow bike (mostly autoroutes - similar to
interstates) just as 18 wheelers can be prohibited from residential areas.

So all of the obstruction laws apply.


Third, the bicycle section of the Oregon law specifically permits
controlling a lane. That's in the section 2c that you quoted
yourself.

No it doesn't. Read again, and read all the relevant sections. They
work perfectly together.

I couldn't find any rule that allows that here either. The only thing
that I found similar to that is the section stating that slower vehicles
need to yield to traffic. I think this is mostly intended for RVs to
pull to the side when climbing in the hills but I'm not sure.


Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. I absolutely controlled
the lane many times, as always. I specifically remember doing that at
5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
one example. Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. I didn't get busted.

I do all sorts of stupid things and don't get busted. All the streets
you mentioned are narrow and slow, and typically I'm trying to get
around traffic, particularly riding east (downhill).

So do the typical Mvs where I come from. You have to pay attention to them.

On 12/8/2010 10:56 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay wrote:





On Dec 8, 9:40 am, Frank wrote:

On Dec 8, 11:26 am, wrote:

On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°

How does defensive driving apply? The only similar situation would be
on a low-powered scooter that could not keep pace with other motorized
traffic.

False. When you're simply cruising down the road in your vehicle, the
principles of defensive driving apply, whether you're being passed or
not, because you have to be ready for encroachment from the wings,
watch the road surface, etc. While you're being passed these
principles of defensive driving are even more important.. Furthermore,
when you're being passed, in any vehicle, the principles of defensive
driving should be applied to your relationship with that anonymous
driver to the extent that it is practicable to apply those principles.
Obviously in passing situations the operator of the vehicle being
passed must rely at least somewhat on the faculties of the passing
driver.

So, Robert: Of course, I know you'd be ever alert, well prepared,
extremely skillful and always taking responsibility for your own
safety, etc.

But in a 10 foot lane, curb at the right, with an 8.5 foot truck
behind you, where exactly would you ride?

Probably the same place he always rides, being that very few people
shift their position in the lane based on vehicles approaching from
the rear. "Oh, look, its an Escalade, better get left." "No, its
just a Prius, I should ride further right." "But wait, its a
Kenworth, better go down the center." Really, I'm riding a bike, not
a yoyo.

Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
must yield" laws.

Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?

http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-1...ase-revisited/

http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/...aking-with-bob...

AFAIK, most states do not have a "slow moving vehicle must yield"
law. A few do have one, but it's restricted to situations where there
are (typically) five vehicles held behind _and_ there is a safe place
to pull over. If slow moving vehicles had to yield all the time, we
would have no right to the road, motorhomes would never make it out of
the flatlands, and commerce would become severely limited.

I'm pushing the "where would you ride" question because certain
posters were exaggerating the danger of bicycling, implying that one
can't trust motorists not to smash you. I'm trying to see who really
dives into the gutter or onto the sidewalk whenever a vehicle
approaches. I chose those dimensions because they're common in my
area, and there's no rational way to try to share that lane - at
least, not in my view nor according to any cycling instructional
material I know of.

Based on that, I would control that lane and not try to share the lane
to let the truck squeeze by. Do you agree?

By the way, Frank, I don't necessarily disagree with your proposition
that sometimes the only safe thing to do is take the lane -- or a
larger part of it. I DO take a larger portion of the lane to prevent
busses from passing me in certain places because they will squeeze me
in to the curb, and probably with great satisfaction. There is also a
down hill, off camber turn out of down town where cars tend to hug the
inside curb, and I ride out in the lane there, although I'm usually
going about the speed of traffic. In your truck scenario, I might
ride farther out in the road if I were approaching a turn where the
truck likely would cut the curve, if only innocently. On one lane
roads, I just ride to the right but not in the gutter, and cars and
trucks seem to get by without scaring me too often. I would never
take the whole road just because some people might pass me too
closely. -- Jay Beattie.

Don't you find that people tend to pass you more closely when you take
the whole road and tend to give you more distance when you're somewhat
to the right? That's be my experience for the most part. The maniac
drivers trying to terrorize me are not the norm.