Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/9/2010 12:55 AM, RobertH wrote:
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.


Which planet is it that you live on?

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

On Dec 9, 1:39*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/9/2010 3:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Then you and I are too far apart on fundamentals to ever agree.

Finally something I can agree with.

+1
And for the record, while I do not "support" Duane, I do agree with
him and appreciate his well articulated perspective.
Nicely stated on its own, it looks absolutely brilliant compared side-
by-side with Frank Krygowski's prefabricated, one-size-fits-all, "I-
read-it-in-a-book-so-it-must-be-right" lunacy.

And if we have learned nothing else, we now know Youngstown State is
not an institution you want your kids to consider for their college
education.
DR

Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:12:08
+1100 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
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/...-question_9772

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.
Victorian Road Law.

quote
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians

(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver
or a pedestrian.
Penalty: 2 penalty units.
Note: Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.

(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
another driver or a pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other
vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slow in the
circumstances).

Example of a driver driving abnormally slow
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a
length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per
hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
at that speed on the length of road.
/quote

So a cyclist riding at 20 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and taking up the lane
would be considered to be abnormally slow. This is precisely the
circumstance on the Maroondah Hwy going over the Black Spur that I
posted a link to earlier.

Don't be more stupid than you can help.
The law as you state it above states quite clearly "a driver does not
unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only
because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles"

and even clarifies that in the example by stating: "when there is no
reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road."

I can't think of any more persuasive reason for the driver to be
driving at that (low) speed than that it is the maximum speed of which
the vehicle is capable.

Any other reasoning would put the statute at odds with the laws of
physics, and would have the effect of saying that any vehicle that
cannot travel at the speed limit is not allowed to use that stretch of
road.

So that law cannot possibly be applied if the vehicle operator is
driving as fast as the circumstances, or his vehicle's capabilities
(which includes his own, particularly if there is no power
assistance), allow.

The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and
tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of
other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others
pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane.

People towing caravans and tractor drivers and most cyclists do just
this. It's common courtesy.

Are you stupid enough to crawl along in the middle of the lane and hold
up a tonne of traffic?

JS.

Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/8/2010 9:12 PM, James wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here beside
this shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get a two-level effect
with a little path running down the middle.


A path! A path!

Then you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with.... a
herring.


Now we have the discussion going in the right direction!

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough
wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and
your father smelt of elderberries.


What if we built a giant badger?

JS.

On Dec 9, 3:13*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jay Beattie considered Wed, 8 Dec 2010
18:00:24 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

So, putting them together,

Why put them together?

First the disclaimer that you forgot - YANAL
Second, Jay IAL.

Third:
ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
185 Or.App. 81.

Fourth:
814.400 reads "Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every
person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions
applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any
other vehicle concerning operating on highways, ..."

Argue your head off, the issue has been decided in Oregon and your
argument lost.

DR

On Dec 9, 2:51*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:12:08
+1100 the perfect time to write:





Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
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.

Victorian Road Law.

quote
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians

(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver
or a pedestrian.
Penalty: 2 penalty units.
Note: Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.

(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
another driver or a pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other
vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slow in the
circumstances).

Example of a driver driving abnormally slow
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a
length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per
hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive
at that speed on the length of road.
/quote

So a cyclist riding at 20 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and taking up the lane
would be considered to be abnormally slow. *This is precisely the
circumstance on the Maroondah Hwy going over the Black Spur that I
posted a link to earlier.

Don't be more stupid than you can help.
The law as you state it above states quite clearly "a driver does not
unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only
because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles"

and even clarifies that in the example by stating: "when there is no
reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road."

I can't think of any more persuasive reason for the driver to be
driving at that (low) speed than that it is the maximum speed of which
the vehicle is capable.

Any other reasoning would put the statute at odds with the laws of
physics, and would have the effect of saying that any vehicle that
cannot travel at the speed limit is not allowed to use that stretch of
road.

So that law cannot possibly be applied if the vehicle operator is
driving as fast as the circumstances, or his vehicle's capabilities
(which includes his own, particularly if there is no power
assistance), allow.

Pretty clear - YANAL.
But you are nearly as good as Krygowski at changing facts to suit your
perspective of the moment.
DR

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:43 am, Duane Hébert wrote:

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.

Here's a graph showing the results of one study on that specific
topic. The author says the further he was left, the more clearance he
got. The closest passing happened when the cyclist was furthest to
the right, and they were all in-lane passes, i.e. people who figured
they could sqeeze by without going over the line.

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg

- Frank Krygowski

I find if I wobble around a lot, look over my shoulder lots and blow my
nose toward the traffic I get more room.


(Trouble with wobbling around a lot is that it takes concentration. I
naturally ride fairly straight lines, which comes from necessity racing
over pick-a-plank bridges. Blowing my nose comes naturally, especially
in cold weather or hay fever season.)

JS.

In article . org,
Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:

On 2010-12-09, Michael Press wrote:
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

I'm aware of how MIME works. It doesn't change the underlying foundation of
Usenet, it just makes it possible to piggyback non-ASCII content onto an
ASCII medium of transport.

Not a 7-bit medium as you assert.
Network News Transfer Protocol, rfc 3977, 3.1.1 reads

Note that texts using an encoding (such as UTF-16 or UTF-32) that may
contain the octets NUL, LF, or CR other than a CRLF pair cannot be
reliably conveyed in the above format (that is, they violate the MUST
requirement above). However, except when stated otherwise, this
specification does not require the content to be UTF-8, and therefore
(subject to that same requirement) it MAY include octets above and
below 128 mixed arbitrarily.

--
Michael Press

On 12/9/2010 4:34 PM, James Steward wrote:
[...]
The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and
tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of
other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others
pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane.

People towing caravans [...] do just this. [...]

Not so in the US. Or self-propelled caravans (motor homes) for that matter.

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

In article ,
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° " wrote:

On 12/8/2010 8:22 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:13 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:22 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/6/2010 9:21 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/6/2010 10:08 AM, Duane Hébert 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.

That is as may be. Is it strictly in accord with nntp?
(not saying it is or is not.)

--
Michael Press