ride faster!

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 3:32:53 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:
On 17/10/2019 10:24 a.m., Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:49:01 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:

The alternate is not to cycle on the sidewalk in the first place, when
it is known that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding
on the road ;-)

I generally agree. But it strikes me that someone who rides on the pavement all the time, or any time it is permitted, is probably also a gutter bunny, and that truck driver would have collected him either way.

I'd be interest to hear where you got your information "that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding on the road".


Seems to me that this would depend a lot on the road and the sidewalk.
We had a couple people killed in Montreal going through an underpass and
being rear ended by trucks. You'd have to see the setup. Steep
underpass. Dark. Narrow. Truck didn't see the cyclists etc. There
are sidewalks there and the city decided to allow cyclists to use them.

Before the danger danger brigade gets fired up, this is a one off. I
wouldn't recommend using sidewalks generally.

I take your point, Duane. Horses for courses. Maybe it is because the Irish are born scofflaws -- which is how I have always grasped that Krygowski is a purse mouth fascist net-curtain twitcher whose regime wherever and whenever would be permanent witch hunt -- but I don't understand why those riders didn't grasp instantly that they were exposed to serious danger and ride on the pavement regardless of the law. I would, and I'd go to court and win the case, and then lean on the pols until the law was changed.

Andre Jute
It just takes one man to see a wrong

On 10/17/2019 2:48 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 17.10.2019 um 06:16 schrieb John B.:
The alternate is, of course, to stop and let the Big Mother cross the
sidewalk just as he damn well pleases. Whereupon, you will of course
be alive but have lost an unimaginable amount of prestige and
undoubtedly people all over town will be pointing their finger and
shouting "That's the candy ass that stopped for the truck".

The alternate is not to cycle on the sidewalk in the first place, when
it is known that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding
on the road ;-)

Correct! And we can extend that principle to cyclists in cities riding
wrong-direction in bike lanes, whether "protected" or not. The
mechanisms of danger are very similar.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 17/10/2019 11:28 a.m., Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 3:32:53 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:
On 17/10/2019 10:24 a.m., Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:49:01 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:

The alternate is not to cycle on the sidewalk in the first place, when
it is known that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding
on the road ;-)

I generally agree. But it strikes me that someone who rides on the pavement all the time, or any time it is permitted, is probably also a gutter bunny, and that truck driver would have collected him either way.

I'd be interest to hear where you got your information "that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding on the road".


Seems to me that this would depend a lot on the road and the sidewalk.
We had a couple people killed in Montreal going through an underpass and
being rear ended by trucks. You'd have to see the setup. Steep
underpass. Dark. Narrow. Truck didn't see the cyclists etc. There
are sidewalks there and the city decided to allow cyclists to use them.

Before the danger danger brigade gets fired up, this is a one off. I
wouldn't recommend using sidewalks generally.

I take your point, Duane. Horses for courses. Maybe it is because the Irish are born scofflaws -- which is how I have always grasped that Krygowski is a purse mouth fascist net-curtain twitcher whose regime wherever and whenever would be permanent witch hunt -- but I don't understand why those riders didn't grasp instantly that they were exposed to serious danger and ride on the pavement regardless of the law. I would, and I'd go to court and win the case, and then lean on the pols until the law was changed.


I don't know why they would risk it. I guess part of it is that there
is a lot of construction around Montreal the last few years so you have
these large trucks that were not there before.

I don't ride in that area very often but I imagine I would not have used
the sidewalk either. It wouldn't have occurred to me.

Andre Jute
It just takes one man to see a wrong

On 10/17/2019 2:47 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/16/2019 4:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/video/cyclist-t-b...y-to-be-alive/

Had he been just a bit slower, he would have been killed.

That's a perfect illustration of the dangers of sidewalk riding. And
it's why people's "feelings" of safety are often nonsense. The rider
doubtlessly thought he was safer riding that way. He was very wrong.

And the precise same danger applies to wrong-way (or bi-directional)
bike lanes, even if they claim to be "protected." It's one of the
reasons the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found them to cause
over 11 times as many car-bike crashes.

"Protected" indeed!


--
- Frank Krygowski

If the cyclist thinks he is protected riding that way he is an idiot. If I was riding there I would think 'I'm riding here and there is a big chance the truck driver doesn't notice me' because:
- I'm riding in the wrong direction,
- the driver is in a high position and will easily over look me,
- a driver taking a right turn will likely only be concentrating on oncoming traffic from the left.

So I would have stopped.

I agree, but "he is an idiot" is most often wrong. Usually the person
doing that is just uninformed. They haven't been taught about the
dangers, they haven't bothered to read up on the matter, and they
haven't thought about it much at all. They just "feel" that riding a
bike on the road is dangerous; and that any bike facility is a good bike
facility, even if it's NOT a bike facility.

And that's one of cycling's main problems. At least in America, everyone
assumes there's nothing to learn about bicycling. You just do it!
However you want to! And they assume that if something "feels" safer, it
must be safer.

This extends even to many researchers - who these days are the Social
Justice Warriors (SJW) who plan to transform our culture by building
fancy bike lanes. Most of the research evaluating those monstrosities is
opinion research, asking "Does this feel safer to you?" People on bikes
answer "YES!!" even when crash count data shows much higher risk.

Weirdly, some of those researchers know all that and still lobby for
bike facilities proven more dangerous. Their rationale? "We must
transform society, do way with cars and get people exercising. And we'll
never do that if we don't lure people onto bike facilities, even if they
are more dangerous."

Talk about weird ethics!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:47:08 AM UTC+1, wrote:

If the cyclist thinks he is protected riding that way he is an idiot. If I was riding there I would think 'I'm riding here and there is a big chance the truck driver doesn't notice me' because:
- I'm riding in the wrong direction,
- the driver is in a high position and will easily over look me,
- a driver taking a right turn will likely only be concentrating on oncoming traffic from the left.

So I would have stopped.

Lou

Yes, and there is plenty of evidence of blind spots that the driver of a truck can't see. Cyclists should learn what they are and they out of them. A particularly obvious position I see cyclists take in the city is on the pavement side of the truck, when the truck already indicates he's going to turn across the cyclist's position -- and obviously, the truck driver can't see him. In such a case, I'm not surprised that after the incident the police decide the cyclist was to blame.

Andre Jute
Darwin

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 17/10/2019 10:24 a.m., Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:49:01 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:

The alternate is not to cycle on the sidewalk in the first place, when
it is known that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding
on the road ;-)

I generally agree. But it strikes me that someone who rides on the pavement all the time, or any time it is permitted, is probably also a gutter bunny, and that truck driver would have collected him either way.

I'd be interest to hear where you got your information "that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding on the road".


Seems to me that this would depend a lot on the road and the sidewalk.
We had a couple people killed in Montreal going through an underpass and
being rear ended by trucks. You'd have to see the setup. Steep
underpass. Dark. Narrow. Truck didn't see the cyclists etc. There
are sidewalks there and the city decided to allow cyclists to use them.

Before the danger danger brigade gets fired up, this is a one off. I
wouldn't recommend using sidewalks generally.

Andre Jute
Aggressive Passive Safety: Bicyclists should avoid tangling with mechanical contrivances bigger than they are.


And oddly, modified sidewalks are deemed the safest type of bicycle facility. https://bikeportland.org/2017/02/14/...lwaukie-217696 The previous on-street bike lane was far safer. You didn't get cars lunging over limit lines into "bike crossings," i.e. cross walks, and you didn't have to stop every fifty yards or less for cross-streets and driveways. You just rode along with the cars -- straight shot. But now we have an awesome facility where you get to dodge cars and pedestrians. Oh joy. I'd go on about the f****** nightmare ride into work this morning in a bike facility, but I've got things to do. I'm turning into that crazy old Tourette's guy yelling at cars, bikes and pedestrians. One day I'll wake up and be TK -- or a cockroach, one or the other.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/17/2019 12:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:

And oddly, modified sidewalks are deemed the safest type of bicycle facility. https://bikeportland.org/2017/02/14/...lwaukie-217696 The previous on-street bike lane was far safer. You didn't get cars lunging over limit lines into "bike crossings," i.e. cross walks, and you didn't have to stop every fifty yards or less for cross-streets and driveways. You just rode along with the cars -- straight shot. But now we have an awesome facility where you get to dodge cars and pedestrians. Oh joy. I'd go on about the f****** nightmare ride into work this morning in a bike facility, but I've got things to do. I'm turning into that crazy old Tourette's guy yelling at cars, bikes and pedestrians. One day I'll wake up and be TK -- or a cockroach, one or the other.

"$3.3 million for a one-mile path and the only separation that exists is
an unplanted dirt strip that’s just three-to-four feet wide. Menely said
residents suggested jersey barriers at the 224 intersection. He’s hoping
the scant vegetation fills in and/or that bollards get installed at key
locations."

3.3 million dollars for one mile. Gosh, why can't we have those
_everywhere_??? (Oh, and can I please have a pony, too?)

Here's hoping the "scant vegetation" grows to be impenetrably dense and
eight feet tall. That would guarantee the bicyclists and motorists can't
see one another. Delicate bicyclists can pretend they're in a world
without cars. And motorists can pull out or turn in to drives and side
streets without noticing bicyclists until they run over them.

Um... is that a bug, or a feature? It's so hard to tell!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 17/10/2019 12:53 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:32:53 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 17/10/2019 10:24 a.m., Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:49:01 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:

The alternate is not to cycle on the sidewalk in the first place, when
it is known that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding
on the road ;-)

I generally agree. But it strikes me that someone who rides on the pavement all the time, or any time it is permitted, is probably also a gutter bunny, and that truck driver would have collected him either way.

I'd be interest to hear where you got your information "that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding on the road".


Seems to me that this would depend a lot on the road and the sidewalk.
We had a couple people killed in Montreal going through an underpass and
being rear ended by trucks. You'd have to see the setup. Steep
underpass. Dark. Narrow. Truck didn't see the cyclists etc. There
are sidewalks there and the city decided to allow cyclists to use them.

Before the danger danger brigade gets fired up, this is a one off. I
wouldn't recommend using sidewalks generally.

Andre Jute
Aggressive Passive Safety: Bicyclists should avoid tangling with mechanical contrivances bigger than they are.


And oddly, modified sidewalks are deemed the safest type of bicycle facility. https://bikeportland.org/2017/02/14/...lwaukie-217696 The previous on-street bike lane was far safer. You didn't get cars lunging over limit lines into "bike crossings," i.e. cross walks, and you didn't have to stop every fifty yards or less for cross-streets and driveways. You just rode along with the cars -- straight shot. But now we have an awesome facility where you get to dodge cars and pedestrians. Oh joy. I'd go on about the f****** nightmare ride into work this morning in a bike facility, but I've got things to do. I'm turning into that crazy old Tourette's guy yelling at cars, bikes and pedestrians. One day I'll wake up and be TK -- or a cockroach, one or the other.

-- Jay Beattie.


Yeah, on my commute there is a long section along a two lane road. The
road was wide enough to share on each side. The city put in a two way
bike lane where the side walk was making it an MUP and wider than the
sidewalk. Now the street is not wide enough to share the lane and the
"bike path" is bumpy from the dips in the mostly blind driveways
crossing it. Who comes up with this stuff?

Fortunately there's an easy bypass but this was a pleasant ride and the
bypass has more traffic.

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 12:21:23 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 17.10.2019 um 08:47 schrieb :
If the cyclist thinks he is protected riding that way he is an idiot. If I was riding there I would think 'I'm riding here and there is a big chance the truck driver doesn't notice me' because:
- I'm riding in the wrong direction,
- the driver is in a high position and will easily over look me,
- a driver taking a right turn will likely only be concentrating on oncoming traffic from the left.

So I would have stopped.

If you would have used a protective lane despite being aware of all
those risks, you are an idiot.

The biggest danger of providing a "proposedly safe" lane that is in fact
extremely dangerous lies in suggesting it is safe; people using it don't
think of the danger because they trust the highway authority to have
provided a good facility.

On the way tp the Altemonte Pass on Sunday, I was trying to find a street since that area has been grossly overbuilt since the last time I was there. It appeared that you couldn't turn on the street I wanted because it was also the exit from the freeway so I took the sidewalk directly past a gas station EXACTLY like the one where that man was hit. On the sidewalk or on the street the bicycle has right of way over ANYONE leaving a gas station in every state as far as I know.

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:24:56 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 7:49:01 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:

The alternate is not to cycle on the sidewalk in the first place, when
it is known that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding
on the road ;-)

I generally agree. But it strikes me that someone who rides on the pavement all the time, or any time it is permitted, is probably also a gutter bunny, and that truck driver would have collected him either way.

I'd be interest to hear where you got your information "that riding on a sidewalk is 3 times as dangerous as riding on the road".

Andre Jute
Aggressive Passive Safety: Bicyclists should avoid tangling with mechanical contrivances bigger than they are.

If the sidewalk if that dangerous why do you suppose the law says that anyone 13 and younger can ride on the sidewalk?