Please don't help so much

On 6/28/2012 12:14 PM, Dan O wrote:
Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
supposed to, which was my point.

As you know, it is a wonderful feeling to take the mirrors off, and
trust that everyone around you will behave well.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On Jun 28, 5:22 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 6/28/2012 12:14 PM, Dan O wrote:

Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
supposed to, which was my point.

As you know, it is a wonderful feeling to take the mirrors off, and
trust that everyone around you will behave well.


Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.
[Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]
Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.

On 6/28/2012 10:36 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 28, 5:22 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 6/28/2012 12:14 PM, Dan O wrote:

Anyway, that only works to the extent that everybody does what they're
supposed to, which was my point.

As you know, it is a wonderful feeling to take the mirrors off, and
trust that everyone around you will behave well.


Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.
[Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]
Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.

Mirrors and brake lights are prohibited.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On Jun 28, 11:00 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 28, 8:40 am, Duane wrote:



On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
... 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?

Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
irrational as expecting them all to attack you.

¹or bikers

As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
it's because it was deliberate. Accidents are accidents. Thinking that
you can control that is ridiculous.

That's pretty simplistic, and ignores much that's well known to
competent cyclists.

The present case in point has covered that, but here it is again: If
you're in (say) an 10 foot lane and you have (say) an 8 foot wide
truck approaching from behind, you have two choices. One is to meekly
ride at the extreme edge of the lane, hoping that there won't be a
pothole to throw you or a twitch from the truck driver just as he's
brushing your elbow. If either of those (or a number of other things
happen), you'll be sideswiped. Most people would call that an
"accident," I think.

Your other choice is to realize there's no way the truck can safely
pass you without moving left. So you position yourself at or near
lane center, to make it obvious to the trucker that he'll have to
change lanes. When he does that, you will have prevented an accident,
or at least the strong possibility of one. You'll have done that by
using your legal right to the road - something I, for one, do not want
to lose.

Again, here's a site explaining the benefits of leftward lane
position. (Duane won't read this because he kill files people to whom
he loses arguments, so perhaps someone else should point it out to
him.)http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...motorists-with...

BTW, I notice that the "Skulk in the gutter" crowd never seems to cite
sources to justify their point of view. Why is that?


Frank, I get the idea of communicating your need for road space to
other operators, and I *do* position myself well into the lane (for
room to maneuver but also 'cause it's cleaner and usually smoother).
I also understand the idea of "controlling" the lane. But when faster
traffic approaches from behind, notices* me, and wants to pass, it
makes more sense to me to show a cooperative "I'll give and you give"
attitude, rather than a controlling "you don't know what you're doing"
attitude. Cagers are ****ed off enough as it is. You said yourself
they dislike us simply because we're there. Why exacerbate it by
being as "there" as you possibly can.

(* On the hopefully remote chance that they don't notice me, I sure as
hell don't want to happen to be in their path. I understand you
mostly like to ride in fair weather. Visibility and whether you are
noticed at all may become a much greater consideration when you ride a
lot in all conditions and live in the jet stream of the Mighty
Pacific.)

I get that your precious vehicular cycling principles are great way to
go for some people. They don't work for me; they would take the life
out of what Ride Bike! is to me (everybody read the Charlie Sheen
piece in RS a while back, right? ;-)

There's a huge middle ground between hogging the lane and "skulking in
the gutter". I think a competent bicyclist can have a diverse and
dynamic repetoire.

On 06/29/2012 12:47 AM, Dan O wrote:

There's a huge middle ground between hogging the lane and "skulking in
the gutter". I think a competent bicyclist can have a diverse and
dynamic repetoire.

Not on planet Boolean where everything is black OR white. Remember, on
that planet, it's a mortal sin to say "it depends."

Dan O wrote:
On Jun 28, 11:00 am, Frank wrote:


Again, here's a site explaining the benefits of leftward lane
position. (Duane won't read this because he kill files people to whom
he loses arguments, so perhaps someone else should point it out to
him.)http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...motorists-with...

BTW, I notice that the "Skulk in the gutter" crowd never seems to cite
sources to justify their point of view. Why is that?

Let me repeat the question: Why is that?

Frank, I get the idea of communicating your need for road space to
other operators, and I *do* position myself well into the lane (for
room to maneuver but also 'cause it's cleaner and usually smoother).
I also understand the idea of "controlling" the lane. But when faster
traffic approaches from behind, notices* me, and wants to pass, it
makes more sense to me to show a cooperative "I'll give and you give"
attitude, rather than a controlling "you don't know what you're doing"
attitude.

I think you are grossly overestimating the amount of information that
can be conveyed by the road position of the cyclist. It's easy to show
a motorist "There's not enough room for you to squeeze by in your
truck." But "You don't know what you're doing"? I doubt that many
motorists ever see that as the message.

Come to think of it, the only motorists who might interpret a cyclist's
more centered lane position that way would be the ones thinking they
could squeeze their wide vehicles through a narrow space without
subjecting the cyclist to excessive risk; and those do not, in fact,
know what they are doing.

Cagers are ****ed off enough as it is. You said yourself
they dislike us simply because we're there. Why exacerbate it by
being as "there" as you possibly can.

To avoid being run off the road or sideswiped; to avoid potholes, drain
grates, gravel, etc.; to avoid being forced into the door zone... do I
really need to go on?

Again: I have a _legal_ right to safe travel, and my state (as with
many) specifically grants me the right to take a centered lane position
when the lane is too narrow to share. You, apparently, think I should
cede that right and risk crashing or worse for the convenience of a
passing cager. No matter how highly you think of yourself, that's both
wimpy and anti-cyclist.

I get that your precious vehicular cycling principles are great way to
go for some people. They don't work for me; they would take the life
out of what Ride Bike! is to me (everybody read the Charlie Sheen
piece in RS a while back, right? ;-)

As you might expect, I feel little in common with a person who admires
Charlie Sheen, or emulates his personal style with a cycling style.

But most cyclists have no idea whether vehicular cycling principles
would work for them. As someone said, "It's not that vehicular cycling
has been tried and found to be too difficult; it's that vehicular
cycling has been assumed too difficult, and not even tried."

Yet those who do try it find it simply works.
http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 29, 7:49 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Jun 28, 11:00 am, Frank wrote:


snip


... do I
really need to go on?


It appears to be a compulsion.

(... [have you] read the Charlie Sheen
piece in RS a while back... ? ;-)

As you might expect, I feel little in common with a person who admires
Charlie Sheen, or emulates his personal style with a cycling style.


I'll take that as a "no"; but if you refuse to read or learn
anything...

But most cyclists have no idea whether vehicular cycling principles
would work for them. As someone said, "It's not that vehicular cycling
has been tried and found to be too difficult; it's that vehicular
cycling has been assumed too difficult, and not even tried."

Yet those who do try it find it simply works.

http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...2b5b68964b3370

On Jun 27, 4:39*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
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.

Dan, you still don't get it. *Riding "as far out of the way as
practicable" was what my friend was trying to do (even though I'd say,
and he'd now say, it was not safely practicable). *In doing that, he and
his wife were subjected to unreasonable risk by many motorists who did
not wait to safely pass. *When they moved to lane center, that stopped.

I learned the same thing years prior. *I still recall the rainy ride on
the narrow highway with tractor trailers passing a friend and me, when I
made the definite (and scary) decision to ride dead center in a ten foot
lane instead of at the rough edge of the pavement. *Yes, it was scary
when we heard the first semi hit his brakes. *But he and all subsequent
drivers waited until it was safe to pass, instead squeezing by with
inches of clearance plus water spray, as the previous truckers had done.



yes. perhaps the best thing to do, risky to initiate but it does work
when conditions are bad. if you squeeze over the driver has less
mental focus on you; and you are hidden by him to other vehicles
following him; they might naturally drive closer to the curb then you
get tagged.
if you check and see the line up behind getting a bit long then pull
over let them go by look a bit sheepish and say thanks- helps keeps
the nasty comments down. Im usually really easy going mild mannered -
but I can get really ticked off sometimes- and whatever happens next
ain t worth it.

one rule does not apply to all circumstances

things depend on where you are and local conditions-a difference in
the closing speed between you and other traffic is important to be
aware of- if the guy is risking getting slammed from behind because
you decide to drift out as he approaches is not a wise action, you
risk aggravating the driver;but by being out already your safe zone is
curbside.
I come back at night from long rides sometimes, I tend to ride in the
middle of the lane on the hump, avoiding roadkill, debris, potholes
and pooling water ; when a vehicle approaches I move over as his
headlights help illuminate the road better- I can be fairly confident
he has seen me and by moving over he can see I am not wanting to
encumber or challenge his passage- this is psychological manipulation.
out in the backroads, no witnesses, anything can happen- play it safe
reduce the chance having to deal with some nut.

On Jun 28, 2:00*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 28, 8:40*am, Duane wrote:





On 06/27/2012 09:04 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 06-27-2012 13:55, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 27, 8:07 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
... 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?

Expecting drivers¹ to do everything they are supposed to do is just as
irrational as expecting them all to attack you.

¹or bikers

As irrational as it is to think that any time a motorist hits a cyclist
it's because it was deliberate. *Accidents are accidents. *Thinking that
you can control that is ridiculous.

That's pretty simplistic, and ignores much that's well known to
competent cyclists.

The present case in point has covered that, but here it is again: *If
you're in (say) an 10 foot lane and you have (say) an 8 foot wide
truck approaching from behind, you have two choices. *One is to meekly
ride at the extreme edge of the lane, hoping that there won't be a
pothole to throw you or a twitch from the truck driver just as he's
brushing your elbow. *If either of those (or a number of other things
happen), you'll be sideswiped. *Most people would call that an
"accident," I think.

Your other choice is to realize there's no way the truck can safely
pass you without moving left. *So you position yourself at or near
lane center, to make it obvious to the trucker that he'll have to
change lanes. *When he does that, you will have prevented an accident,
or at least the strong possibility of one. *You'll have done that by
using your legal right to the road - something I, for one, do not want
to lose.

- Frank Krygowski-

the difference is accident or deliberate murder- you are correct in my
opinion but you have to know your battleground- we have a lot of dump
truck drivers out here now; they are worked pretty hard; many are
foriegners, so they don t have the same traffic instincts we who grow
up here- it makes a crucial difference in the way they drive. they
habitually run red lights at top speed while loaded. and yes they t
bone and kill as you might expect. cops must be paid-off by the
developers or I don t understand why they don t enforce simple speed
limits to begin with- but this is what happens. have to be really
careful some places- because if you get mushed its not like your word
against his- it's his word only.

On Jun 28, 11:36*pm, Dan O wrote:


Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.
[Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car]
Franco: What's-a behind me is not important.

gumball rally !

(saw that in the theaters when I was a kid and got the dvd for my
kids- I liked Zoltan, the mad Hungarian)