Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/8/2010 8:50 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/8/2010 10:26 AM, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:35 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°

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

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

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

Well nothing based on any of the VC literature that I've read. Only
a zealot would tell you to - sorry - imply that you should never get out
of the way.

On 12/8/2010 8:52 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:50 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/8/2010 10:26 AM, RobertH wrote:


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

No "cult" affiliation necessary.

And no head zealot required.

On 12/9/2010 1:55 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.

Right but I think that this is only with the "Vehicular Cycling as
Religious Calling" crowd. What I've read of vehicular cycling is just
suggestions on some things that CAN work for you when you're forced into
the road with cars.

For example:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/practic...ng/VCIntro.htm


So to avoid hazardous conditions bicyclists should politely merge left,
and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past
-- just as any other driver would do. Some may think this unsafe for
bicyclists, but this is normal practice for all slow drivers: drive to
the right when it’s safe, but use a full lane when needed. The law is
the same for bicyclists precisely because this is the best and safest
way to operate a bicycle in traffic. As one police chief says, "It’s
just common sense and standard traffic rules."


This one is telling you to move left to avoid hazards, then go back to
the right. But a zealot would interpret this differently. I don't see
anywhere that tells you to not get out of the way if it's not safe.

On 12/8/2010 9:00 PM, 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.

Not saying that it isn't. OE is not the best, especially not for nntp.
But I have my OE set to accept UTF-8 headers. I can read your posts
at home but when I try to reply, it
fails telling me the header is too long. Since I use the same news
server here as at home, it must be the OE.

But a lot of people use OE.

On 12/9/2010 1:10 AM, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:14 pm, Frank wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems to be what every single person here is telling Frank.

On Dec 9, 12:46*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:03*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 8, 9:00*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um... perhaps because law is more complicated than that? If statutes
could be perfectly understood by only one lawyer reading and
understanding, there would never be a need to have two opposing
lawyers in court, would there?

Besides, law has many specialties. I don't know what's your area of
practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. One lawyer I know well
does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
indicate not all attorneys are equal!

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

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

Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong; but ISTM that you're effectively
claiming that if a cyclist can't keep up with the motor vehicles in a
narrow lane, he's not allowed to ride that road.

Correct? Because you're saying that O.R.S. § 811.130 , although it
specifically says "motor vehicle," must apply also to bicycles. And
you're saying a cyclist has to ride as far right as "practicable" even
though that statute, § 814.430, specifically grants permission to a
cyclist "to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is
too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side."

So by your logic, is cycling in Oregon legal only where there is
enough pavement width to share side by side with a motor vehicle, or
maybe on downhills?

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

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

You specifically said if I impeded traffic in Oregon (i.e., controlled
a lane that was too narrow to share) I'd get busted. Sorry, Jay, I
did so many times in Oregon, and saw countless other cyclists do the
same, and nobody got busted. I have to do this at least a little on
every bike ride I take, and I never get busted.

And incidentally, the "stupid thing" would be to squeeze into a door
zone or into a gutter to let someone pass by brushing my left elbow.

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?

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 9, 1:55*am, RobertH 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.

Keep it honest, Robert.

- Frank Krygowski

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

On Dec 9, 9:30*am, Duane Hébert wrote:


Right but I think that this is only with the "Vehicular Cycling as
Religious Calling" crowd. *What I've read of vehicular cycling is just
suggestions on some things that CAN work for you when you're forced into
the road with cars.

For example:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/practic...ng/VCIntro.htm

So to avoid hazardous conditions bicyclists should politely merge left,
and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past
-- just as any other driver would do. Some may think this unsafe for
bicyclists, but this is normal practice for all slow drivers: drive to
the right when it s safe, but use a full lane when needed. The law is
the same for bicyclists precisely because this is the best and safest
way to operate a bicycle in traffic. As one police chief says, "It s
just common sense and standard traffic rules."

This one is telling you to move left to avoid hazards, then go back to
the right. *But a zealot would interpret this differently. *I don't see
anywhere that tells you to not get out of the way if it's not safe.

I certainly don't see anywhere that it tells you "get out of the way
if a truck is behind you." Is that what you meant by "not safe"?

And did you read as far as this?: "Politely taking enough space for
your own safety is the heart and core of safely cycling in traffic.
You can't be safe unless you're willing to take some space; even if
you have to delay some cars."

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 9, 12:30*am, James wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

DR picked you up on this once already today.

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

In a previous post in this thread you wrote:

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

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

James, perhaps you're confused by "always."

I do not "always" ride in the center of the lane. When a lane is wide
enough to safely share it, I do so. It's when a lane is too narrow to
safely share, that I control the lane and don't share it.

If you really want to apply an "always" to the above, it's only in
this sense: Both situations crop up in every normal bike ride. I'm
always ready to do whichever is appropriate.

If you're still confused, tell me exactly what part you don't
understand. I'll try to make it even more clear.

- Frank Krygowski