Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote in
message ...
On 12/10/2010 3:20 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:18 am, wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:43 am, Frank wrote:

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.

Nope, that's a lie. We've been over this repeatedly.

If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
techniques.

Anticipation and crash avoidance (eg swerving and panic stops) are two
completely different animals.

If you're swerving or panic stopping, your anticipation has failed
you.

What does VC have to say about anticipating the mistakes of other road
users?

As with Duane, I can help you find a library if you like.

Your an idiot.

Correction: "You're an idiot".

Thanks. So that should be "You're an idiot" then?

"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote in
message ...
On 12/10/2010 10:00 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
Read the first two chapters of Mionske's _Bicycling& The Law_ for
discussion of rights to the road.

He doesn't seem to be offering a free copy at his website so why don't
you tell me what it says?[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library

I would have figured that you would get sarcasm.

On Dec 10, 7:12 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"T m Sherm nT _ " " wrote in
...

On 12/10/2010 3:13 PM, Duane H bert wrote:

I expect that if enough people ride like I was that day, the traffic
jams resulting would probably have the wrong result.

If enough cagers were on bicycles instead, traffic jams would not be a
problem.

Yep. But that day is likely not coming soon. We need to figure out what to
do until then.

That's the thing. It's a jungle out there. Some people get off
playing the game and trying to a big shot dictator in the process.
They may feel the need to control and coordinate things for
everybody. Me, I ride it just like the jungle it is, watching out for
myself and trying not to trespass. I constantly size up the
circumstances, and make my own way. When a big truck comes up behind
and can't pass because of continuous traffic in the next lane, given
the option, I am outta there. I'm not scared, and I'm now cowed - I
just prefer to be free and unencumbered. I do not feel any need to
stubbornly force the issue just because I think I can. There are too
damn many of them to be educable as a lot. I'd rather just Ride Bike
without worrying about them. Let 'em stew in the bed they've made.
For me it's fun to get really creative. It's a completely different
approach to the whole business, and puts me into circumstances quite
unlike those of the vehicular cyclist, making completely different
actions appropriate.

On 12/10/2010 9:16 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"T�m Sherm�n� " wrote in
message ...
On 12/10/2010 10:00 AM, Duane H�bert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
Read the first two chapters of Mionske's _Bicycling& The Law_ for
discussion of rights to the road.

He doesn't seem to be offering a free copy at his website so why don't
you tell me what it says?[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library

I would have figured that you would get sarcasm.

Fun to play the straight man, it is.

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

On Dec 10, 8:00*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 10, 8:49 am, Duane H *wrote:
On 12/10/2010 12:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I would suggest you do more reading on this issue, but I realize the
suggestion would be rejected.

Driving a car is a privilege that can be suspended for any number of
reasons and can't even be exercised without the proper licensing. How is
that a right?

Driving is NOT a right, and of course I never said it was. *On the
contrary, I've said that society needs to emphasize that it's a
privilege.

Here cycling is given the same definition as driving with the exception
of the few lines that I pointed out in the Quebec Highway code.
The actual licensing of bikes is up to the municipality, mine being one
that chooses to take the opportunity to tax me. *Since this is not the
case across the province, they can't really enforce it as they don't
know which city I'm from when they see me riding.

Read the first two chapters of Mionske's _Bicycling& *The Law_ for
discussion of rights to the road.

He doesn't seem to be offering a free copy at his website so why don't
you tell me what it says?
Or better yet, tell us which states have the right to ride a bicycle
spelled out in their law as in Ohio?
It doesn't sound like Oregon does and I'm pretty sure that Louisiana,
New York and Massachusetts don't. *As we see, Quebec certainly doesn't.

That's the deal -- the only reason why a general book on "bicycles and
the law" makes any sense is that in the United States, most states
have adopted some version of the Uniform Vehicle Code which has about
ten or so provisions relating to bicycles. Most states have adopted
those provisions with changes, and in Oregon, significant changes.
And in Quebec, probably not at all. Anyway, I'm sure Bob would
appreciate your buying his book, but it would probably be meaningless
in Quebec, unless he has a section for each Canadian province.

I would skip his book and buy whatever the Province is publishing for
bicyclists. Every government seems to have its bicycle book. The one
in Oregon is nice, but it's wrong in a number of respects (ignores two
recent CA opinions). The ultimate authorities are the police and
common sense. The police do not care about Bob Mionske books or
glossy pamphlets. They read the law and apply it -- usually wiith an
institutional spin (the allowed passing on the right in PDX long
before it was made legal because it kept traffic moving. They want to
keep bikes out of traffic). Not that they are always right, but they
know the traffic court judges a whole lot better than the pierced
Bohemian fixie poseurs claiming that a fixed gear is a "brake" for
purposes of the UVC equipment rules for bikes.

Finally, common sense tells you that some legal maneuvers are idiotic
and counter productive in terms of usual driver response -- the "you
we're in the right but dead" scenario DR (I think) mentioned.
Bicycling is not rocket science. You don't need an advanced degree or
even a special certificate to be competent in traffic. -- Jay Beattie.

On Dec 10, 7:48*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/10/2010 9:16 PM, Duane Hebert wrote: "T m Sherm n _ " *wrote in
...
On 12/10/2010 10:00 AM, Duane H bert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
Read the first two chapters of Mionske's _Bicycling& *The Law_ for
discussion of rights to the road.

He doesn't seem to be offering a free copy at his website so why don't
you tell me what it says?[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library

I would have figured that you would get sarcasm.

Fun to play the straight man, it is.

Have you morphed in to Yoda? -- Jay Beattie.

On Dec 9, 10:21 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:56 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:



On Dec 9, 8:23 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.


snip


Get with Mionske. See what he says. Seriously.

The Court of Appeals has answered the question. I don't need to talk
to Bob...

I think it would be a really good idea. If nothing else, ask him if
he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. Ask him why.
You could then report back to us about what he says. It would be
interesting, don't you agree?

No. I could care less what he says, really. Why waste my time?

Is learning really considered a waste of time around here?


Frank, I value learning more than I can even say, yet you repeatedly
put me down as... let me see if I can remember all the offensive
adjectives you have for me - "incurious" comes to mind.



Frank, I *am* learning all the time and you know it. I learn new
things to consider every day, and I learn the *actual* probability of
them actually happening to *me* (not some study group of people who
are not like me and don't behave like me) when combined with the
various circumstance I am expose myself to in the real world. You and
I will *both* die with an infinity of lifetimes of learning yet to do.



Moreover, Frank, there are far more "positions" ;-) to learn than
those in your preferred books on "proper cycling", but I suppose that
sort of knowledge (and then learned skill ;-) might be of less
interest to some church-going fuddy-duddies ;-) I *could* spend my
time instead reading about proper cycling and His word, etc,, but take
my word for it - I have learned some *really* great stuff ;-) ;-) that
I'll bet you don't know, and it's relevent to my life.



I was a bright kid - A's in school, 99th percentile, bound for
academic glory - the whole nine yards. I went into adulthood with a
big know-it-all problem. Learning is awesome! I think I must have
been about thirty-something when I finally learned one of my most
important lessons - that *everybody* knows things I don't - things
that matter.

Frank, last week I was creating disk images of a REXX compiler on an
OS/2 system in my "lab". Somebody in France needed the software
urgently for a project. I used my a Windows system
to look up references for the imaging utility, a Debian Linux system
to look up screenshots of where the config files were on a Slackware
Linux system so I could start the FTP server and upload the image
files from the OS/2 box (which I built to triple boot OS/2, Linux, and
Windows and route IP across three separate layer 1 interfaces) to the
Slackware box and make them available to the guy in France to download
from my HTTP server.

Frank, I'm a certified firefighter and emergency medical responder.
They don't hand those out to people who spend all their time poring
over traffic studies - collecting the ones they like to trot out and
trying to shoot down the ones they don't. And they don't let you keep
them unless you continue learning and prove it.

Frank, II came to learn how to build, maintain, and repair bicycles.
I have learned so much - wildy beyond my expectations - and still
expect to learn more (naturally).

You may call me "innumerate", but a fire engine apparatus operator has
to be able to figure the friction loss in multiple lengths of
differing diameter fire hose and know the machine well enough maintain
the right pump pressure to keep the right flow rate to keep
firefighters alive, and this does not happen when it's convenient or
in a comfy classrom, library, church, or meeting hall.

You are on the verge of alienating just about *everybody* this time.
It is pathetic to watch you never give up trying to discredit
everything that doesn't say. "Frank is so right". Talk about
"assholeness". How pompous and presumptuous to assume what is
relevent to anyone else's life.


Think a bit next time before pouring your derision upon anything we
did.

On Dec 10, 10:48*pm, Dan O wrote:


That's the thing. *It's a jungle out there. *Some people get off
playing the game and trying to a big shot dictator in the process.
They may feel the need to control and coordinate things for
everybody. *Me, I ride it just like the jungle it is, watching out for
myself and trying not to trespass. *I constantly size up the
circumstances, and make my own way. *When a big truck comes up behind
and can't pass because of continuous traffic in the next lane, given
the option, I am outta there. *I'm not scared, and I'm now cowed - I
just prefer to be free and unencumbered. *I do not feel any need to
stubbornly force the issue just because I think I can. *There are too
damn many of them to be educable as a lot. *I'd rather just Ride Bike
without worrying about them. *Let 'em stew in the bed they've made.
For me it's fun to get really creative. *It's a completely different
approach to the whole business, and puts me into circumstances quite
unlike those of the vehicular cyclist, making completely different
actions appropriate.

One way of expressing our differences, Dan, might be that I'm not as
confident as you. Specifically, I know that there are serious dangers
involved in (say) zooming onto a sidewalk, then zooming back into a
traffic lane. I know that very many car-bike crashes occur because
the cyclist does something different than the normal traffic moves.

So I stay very predictable. I think it's safe to say I never confuse
or startle a motorist. And I don't ride in a way that requires ninja
reflexes or extremely unusual skills. I get to just relax and ride.

And for all the static I'm getting about controlling the lane when
necessary and offending motorists: it just has not been a problem.
It's extremely rare that any motorist takes issue at all. They seem
to understand what's going on. If anything, it probably removes
confusion for the motorists. Rude ones are rare and easily ignored.

Look: When I take a typical bike ride, I'm probably passed by
hundreds of motorists. I know all about that situation. The typical
motorist around here probably doesn't pass even one cyclist per day.
He's not sure what to do.

There's no question I know more than he does. Why should I not be the
one making the decisions?

If any cyclist is NOT confident about their knowledge, fine. They can
let the guy in the car decide when it's safe to pass you, how close to
pass, etc. Those cyclists can think about all the cracks they've made
about dumb drivers - the ones they now trust with their lives.

I trust myself.

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/10/2010 10:09 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
[...] The ultimate authorities are the police [...]

Living in a police state is great.
http://www.themarshalsbaton.com/Soviet%20Generals_files/image021.jpg

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

On Dec 10, 9:09 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 10:48 pm, Dan O wrote:





That's the thing. It's a jungle out there. Some people get off
playing the game and trying to a big shot dictator in the process.
They may feel the need to control and coordinate things for
everybody. Me, I ride it just like the jungle it is, watching out for
myself and trying not to trespass. I constantly size up the
circumstances, and make my own way. When a big truck comes up behind
and can't pass because of continuous traffic in the next lane, given
the option, I am outta there. I'm not scared, and I'm now cowed - I
just prefer to be free and unencumbered. I do not feel any need to
stubbornly force the issue just because I think I can. There are too
damn many of them to be educable as a lot. I'd rather just Ride Bike
without worrying about them. Let 'em stew in the bed they've made.
For me it's fun to get really creative. It's a completely different
approach to the whole business, and puts me into circumstances quite
unlike those of the vehicular cyclist, making completely different
actions appropriate.

One way of expressing our differences, Dan, might be that I'm not as
confident as you. Specifically, I know that there are serious dangers
involved in (say) zooming onto a sidewalk, then zooming back into a
traffic lane. I know that very many car-bike crashes occur because
the cyclist does something different than the normal traffic moves.

So I stay very predictable.

That's fine for you. I don't give a rat's ass. I'm not incharge of
everybody else. I stay out of their way, and I go mine.

I think it's safe to say I never confuse
or startle a motorist. And I don't ride in a way that requires ninja
reflexes or extremely unusual skills. I get to just relax and ride.


Exactly. You amiably "cycle" down the lane. I rock my socks off.
Sure, I could choose actions that minimize every possible risk, but
that doesn't get me off. I'd quit. My washing machine "cycles"; I
Ride Bike.

And for all the static I'm getting about controlling the lane...

No, you're getting static about telling everybody *else* how to do
everything. It gets you responses like Duane's (which we already know
I have given you the same response - sorry about that :-) It doesn't
make either of us "supporters" of the other, BTW, just coinsidentally
exasperated and fed up with offensive, derisive BS.

... when
necessary and offending motorists: it just has not been a problem.
It's extremely rare that any motorist takes issue at all. They seem
to understand what's going on. If anything, it probably removes
confusion for the motorists. Rude ones are rare and easily ignored.

Look: When I take a typical bike ride, I'm probably passed by
hundreds of motorists. I know all about that situation. The typical
motorist around here probably doesn't pass even one cyclist per day.
He's not sure what to do.

There's no question I know more than he does. Why should I not be the
one making the decisions?


(see my other post)

If any cyclist is NOT confident about their knowledge, fine. They can
let the guy in the car decide when it's safe to pass you, how close to
pass, etc.

You're totally missing the point. You don't get it. But that's okay.

Those cyclists can think about all the cracks they've made
about dumb drivers - the ones they now trust with their lives.

I trust myself.


I have to admit I very hastily skimmed most of this post. Good for
you, though - you should trust yourself. And I think of you as a
friend (hence my apologies when I get offensive). I wish you well.