#71
|
|||
|
|||
Road or Sidewalk?
maxo wrote in message ...
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:39:11 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote: "maxo" wrote in message news The classic "pass" around here is the guy that MUST get past you because you are a cyclist (!), then slows down and cuts you off making a right turn. [slaps forehead and says duh...] I get a couple of these per day even with my "assertive" style. I had one of these Must Get Around Cyclist drivers yesterday -- a big black Ford Imposition, Are you sure it wasn't a GMC Denial? Or a Chevy Subhuman? I'm looking for other catchy names too. He he. For some reason, my brain has latched onto this theme, so here are a few for you: (all Fords, for some reason...) Ford's new line: The Excavation/Infestation/Exploitation/Exhibition/Ejac... I'll stop there. The Incursion, which replaces the older Inversion that came with the Firestone tires... The Intrusion. The new pickup truck, The F-NotThrifty. The Implosion. The Deplorer, or maybe the Deplorable. Don't blame me, it was a slow day today! Jonathan |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Road or Sidewalk?
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Road or Sidewalk?
Steven Goodridge wrote:
r15757 wrote: That's well said I think. Cyclists almost always have some sort of audience out there and need to be cognizant of it. That's why I am very selective about running lights outside of work. I doubt the audience knows or cares whether or not you're working. All they think is "there goes another cyclist - what scofflaws they are! Well, let's see. First of all, the majority of non- messenger cyclists run lights all the damn time too, so let's not pretend that messengers are responsible for any great portion of motorists' red light-related ire toward cyclists. You didn't write that, but perhaps you were thinking it. Second, in cities where messengers are working every day people can pretty easily make the distinction between messengers and non-messengers. They understand the nature of the job, for the most part, and even if they don't I woudn't worry about distaste for messengers spilling over into the general cycling population. The lycra crowd, certainly, needs no assistance in creating problems for itself. If anything, the messengers should be bitching about the PR problems created by "club" cyclists on their group rides, blocking roads, riding two abreast, et cetera. Anyone who spends any time downtown will realize that messengers run lights as sure as the earth circles the sun, in general people don't think twice about it. The only cops who hassle messengers are the ones who are new to downtown. We should be more concerned with the more damaging messenger tricks and with commuters who take a whole lane when they don't need it. We do have a challenge to get people to view cyclists as equally entitled users of travel lanes, so that they don't see cyclists who use whatever portion of the lane is useful as "lane hogs". ...snip I agree completely. The first step would be to get those cyclists who actually _are_ hogging the lane for no good reason to quit doing it. Robert |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Road or Sidewalk?
Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
It wasn't right or wrong in any normal sense. It was part of the job. Civilian cyclists shouldn't ride like that. Is that clear? :-) It's clear that you're in some quasi-military fantasy! "Civilian cyclists" indeed! So what are you - a Commando Cyclist? Uh, whatever. In the past century of non-stop warfare the most effective military use of the bicycle was demonstrated by the Vietnamese nationalists, who defeated the French and then the US in large measure by loading bicycles each with hundreds of pounds of supplies and PUSHING them in long trains along jungle paths from North to South. The colonialists meanwhile could not fathom the use of anything but trucks and were bombing the roads, suckers. Have to as in have to. ... and you refuse to realize that most people who flout traffic laws think exactly the same: "I've got a good reason for doing this,... No the vast majority of people who blow lights have no good reason for doing it, and they know it. They do it anyway, just because they can. Messenger work is work, it is not some scofflaw joyride. ...and I'm way better than the average dummy these laws are _really_ designed for... BANG!!!" I am more concerned with what happens to experienced riders like me who are likely to get their BANG!!! while riding lawfully. Talk about a rude awakening. It's a question of Awareness, once again. It all comes back to Awareness. Experienced cyclists get hit when their awareness lapses. Please stop pretending this is new information. And please stop pretending that vehicular cyclists don't know this and teach this. I can hear you now. "If we just follow them, Traffic laws work _remarkably well_. And, oh yeah, most experienced riders who are hit by cars are riding lawfully when they get hit. Thank you and good night!" There is no conflict between telling people that cycling is not unusually dangerous, and telling people that they need to be alert while riding. You act as if you don't believe that statement. All I have been saying is that cyclists need to stay alert, you are fighting it every step of the way. Let me ask you Frank, WHY do cyclists need to stay alert, in your words? I believe most people understand the latter point instinctively, yet when teaching cycling classes, I emphasize it with practical details. Again, this is part of the official curriculum. I believe the "safety industry" has deluded people on the former point - that is, deluded people into thinking all cycling is an "extreme" activity. Consequently, I spend some time in those classes and in these forums rebutting that delusion. I believe that you are so immersed in the helmet crap that it is clouding your judgment. Many of those who think cycling is plenty dangerous are people who have broken bones or have been in some bad accident and they wish not to repeat the experience if they can help it. Get it? It doesn't mean they will stop riding, it means they will have a different attitude when they do. It's called learning. Deluded is what they used to be. Again, I have no idea what you propose as an alternative ... perhaps meditating on "vigilance" and "distrust" before riding into traffic with no skills at all? Skill is important, but yes people should take a moment before they leave the house, consider that the stakes are high, and commit to maintaining consistent vigilance throughout whatever ride or drive they are about to take. This vigilance won't spoil the ride. Vigilance in itself can actually be fun--mountain bike trail riding is essentially an exercise in vigilance/concentration, for instance. In fact only one thing can spoil the ride and that's a collision resulting from a moment of non-vigilance. So, vigilance it is. Yes, traffic IS people - and the traffic rules work specifically because they were designed with people's limitations in mind. Despite your fear mongering, the rules DO work remarkably well. There is no "hanging by a thread."... Wrong, sorry, it only seems that way to the uninitiated. Behind a thin veil of apparent order and predictability is the human element which, other than a few physical parameters, is the SOLE determiner of the movement of traffic. We must deal with traffic on the level of the young woman who just spilled a bit of Big Gulp on her favorite CD while negotiating a busy intersection in her Celebrity, not on the level of hopeful civil servants and engineers in some remote nerve center. Forget what the signal says, forget where the lines are, forget who has the right of way. What good is law if the driver doesn't know it? What good is a lane marker if the driver doesn't see it? What good is the cyclist's right-of-way if the cyclist goes unnoticed? None, none, and none. Concern yourself instead with what the people are DOING, and what they could do, based on the physical parameters that govern their vehicular extensions. When that is taken care of, you can worry about PR and projecting whatever type of image you want to project. Anything else is distraction. Yeah, yeah, I know, you already teach that, right? Instead, there are millions and millions of trips taken daily by people of all ages, skills and mental abilities. The level of injury is low enough that nobody worries "I may get hurt!!!" before setting off in their car, or on foot. Wrong again, Frank. Plenty of people worry they could get hurt in traffic, people who have been hurt before. People who know. The only people who don't worry that they may get hurt are innocent people like you who haven't yet experienced a bad accident. Like I said, it is pathological mass-delusion. What we have now, thanks in part to propaganda such as yours, is that many people _do_ think that when considering a bike ride. This despite the fact that biking in traffic is as safe as walking near traffic! My "propoganda" is based on considerably more experience than you possess. I hope people realize that. There are many people who adopt a certain paranoid style because they have been injured in the past, or have seen others get injured. They are not victims of propaganda, Frank. It's just that they were able to peek behind the veil that you still think is reality. And it's quite ironic to hear a "commando cyclist" excusing his violation of road rules, all the while wringing his hands about the danger of cycling. It's amazing you see no connection. I see no connection! That's a laugh. I have demonstrated with your own statistics that you do not understand the nature of the connection between traffic law and cycling accidents. I have personal experience. Again, I may not do as many miles as you, but my experience stretches over more than thirty years, countless cities, several countries, and decades of bike commuting.... Think of it as time in the saddle. How much time actually spent riding? I'd wager that, even with your long career, I've spent about four times as much time actually riding my bike. I say this only in response to your trumpeting your own supposedly monumental experience. I'm sure there are others out there with twice as much experience as me and they are laughing at us both. Really it's not about miles or hours. The last measure of urban cycling experience is the serious collision. Those who have felt that indescribable weight and violence, and have recovered, have received the greatest gift. The gift of Knowledge. The world's not perfect - but when I'm biking, the world's a nice place indeed. I'm with you. Riding a bike makes me happy. It might be the only thing keeping me remotely sane. I want others to experience the same world. I'm not about to accept the use of fear-mongering to drive them away. Look, if there are people out there who are afraid to cycle but think nothing of barrelling down the highway at 70 mph, then to hell with them. They're idiots. Who cares what they think or if they'll ever ride bikes. They will make idiot bike riders. It's not going to help us to have them out teetering around on the roads. But the new cyclists who love to ride, they are going to ride, and they deserve to hear the straight ****. We relate our experiences in hopes that they can avoid the painful incidents that are common to beginners. And we are honest about the shortfalls of traffic law, so they can better protect themselves from serious injury resulting from car-bike collision, because that is the bottom line of urban cycling whether you like it or not. Robert |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Road or Sidewalk?
The anonymous RobertH wrote... the usual stuff.
Robert, I'm going to leave this topic now. We're not going to change each others' minds. I'll continue using actual data to explain that on average, cycling is not very dangerous. I'll use similar data to show that cycling according to the rules of the road is significantly _safer_ than "average" cycling. I'll continue teaching my students and others about the rules of the road. I'll teach them to be alert, as I've always done, and I'll continue teaching accident prevention moves for the rare circumstances where they're needed. You may continue your pre-ride meditations on the intense danger you believe awaits you. And it's fine by me if you keep blowing off red lights because your time is so important. I really don't care. I understand that you think 30+ years of adult cycling gives me insufficient knowledge. Ditto for consulting at the state level on bike facility and safety issues, running a bike club, running a large organized ride, extensive touring, extensive commuting, etc etc. So I'll just keep working at it. Maybe someday I'll have the kinds of accidents you have had, and that will give me some weird legitimacy in your mind. But I doubt it. -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
buying my first road bike | Tanya Quinn | General | 28 | June 17th 10 10:42 AM |
Big Sur | mcmiller | General | 2 | May 15th 04 12:04 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Need to go faster / New to road bikes | Ken | General | 25 | September 11th 03 03:59 PM |
Considering a Road bike for commuting... good idea? | Mike Beauchamp | General | 116 | August 18th 03 11:44 PM |