A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Please don't help so much



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 26th 12, 04:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Frank Krygowski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,365
Default 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  
Old June 26th 12, 06:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default 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  
Old June 26th 12, 07:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default 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  
Old June 26th 12, 07:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
sms88
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default 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  
Old June 26th 12, 09:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Frank Krygowski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,365
Default 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  
Old June 27th 12, 12:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
thirty-six
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,049
Default 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  
Old June 27th 12, 04:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Frank Krygowski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,365
Default 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  
Old June 27th 12, 05:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default 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  
Old June 27th 12, 04:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Frank Krygowski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,365
Default 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  
Old June 27th 12, 06:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.