Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/9/2010 5:37 PM, James wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/8/2010 9:12 PM, James wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here beside
this shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get a two-level effect
with a little path running down the middle.


A path! A path!

Then you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with.... a
herring.


Now we have the discussion going in the right direction!

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food
trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a
hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.


What if we built a giant badger?

I think that this thread is finally improving.

On 12/9/2010 9:25 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/9/2010 4:34 PM, James Steward wrote:
[...]
The point of the law is to require slow vehicle operators (bicycles and
tractors for example) to not unreasonably prevent the the progress of
other vehicles. The solution is to move off the road and let others
pass if you are traveling unreasonably slow, and not hog the lane.

People towing caravans [...] do just this. [...]

Not so in the US. Or self-propelled caravans (motor homes) for that matter.


Ever drive in the Rockies? One RV can back up traffic for miles. There
are pullovers every so often intended to get the slower traffic out of
the way.
If the RV doesn't pull over when there's a place to do so, the cops will
force him to. Not to mention the drivers behind.

On 12/10/2010 12:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:14 pm, Duane wrote:
On 12/9/2010 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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/...2009/04/passin...

Didn't ask YOU for a study, I asked the guy that I was responding to
what he felt personally.

Duane, at this point, you don't have to tell me you don't want to look
at the results of a study! Of _course_ you don't want to look at the
results of a study! You've said many times you're not interested in
reading anything about the issues we discuss. I'm astonished you
bothered to look up your own laws!

You missed the part where "YOU" was emphasized. I already know what
YOU are going to respond. I wasn't asking YOU. I was looking for an
impression from the person that I responded to.

On 12/10/2010 12:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 3:39 pm, Duane wrote:
You can't drive a car on a road without a license and your license
can be suspended. Drivers don't have a right to the road. They have
a privilege.

You can't ride a bicycle on any road where the authority having
jurisdiction prevents it.

I would suggest you do more reading on this issue, but I realize the
suggestion would be rejected.

Driving a car is a privilege that can be suspended for any number of
reasons and can't even be exercised without the proper licensing. How is
that a right?


And I admit, I know little about the law in Quebec. Maybe it's true
that cyclists in Quebec have no right to the road. That might go a
long way to explaining your timid, deferential attitudes and your
complaints that cycling up there is so much hell.

MV operators have no right to the road either unless they license their
vehicle, have a valid operators license, carry insurance and then they
can drive where the AHJ tells them that they can drive.
Currently in the Town of Beaconsfield where I live, I'm required to
license my bikes. Same thing when I lived in Albany NY. In New Orleans
where I grew up, there were no requirements for licensing but it wasn't
unusual to see signs where bikes were prohibited. Typically long windy
roads with high speed limits. (Think Jayne Mansfield - dead man's curve)

Ohio is very much better than that, in many ways. For example, here,
we actually do have a right to the road. We also have a law stating
that municipalities cannot enforce laws that fundamentally differ from
the state laws regarding cycling. They are specifically forbidden to
prohibit cyclists from non-freeway roads.

You should realize how lucky you are then. Based on some other
discussion here that Jay is responding to, (don't remember where
exactly) this doesn't seem to be the case everywhere in the US.

On 12/10/2010 12:54 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Duane wrote:
On 12/9/2010 11:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 9, 1:55 am, 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.

I was curious about what the Quebec Highway code says about your
controlling the lane so I looked it up.

--First your idea about having a right to be on the road is relative:

295. The person responsible for the maintenance of a public highway may,
by means of the proper signs or signals,

(1) indicate traffic stops;
(2) prohibit U-turns at such locations as may be determined by him;
(3) lay out pedestrian walkways;
(4) reserve traffic lanes for certain manoeuvres or for the exclusive
use of bicycles, certain classes of road vehicles or road vehicles
carrying the number of passengers indicated by proper signs;
(4.1) regulate bicycle traffic in a cycle lane;
(4.2) prohibit, limit or otherwise regulate bicycle traffic in lanes
used by road vehicles or in places used by pedestrians;

-- 4.2 should be of note as far as your right to the road.

--Second, a car is not allowed to pass a bike in the same lane unless
it's safe to do so (not sure who determines safe...) and if he has to
cross a solid line he can:

341. No driver of a road vehicle may pass a bicycle within the same
traffic lane unless there is sufficient space to allow him to do so in
safety.
--snip
Exceptions.
344. The driver of a road vehicle may cross a line described in section
326.1 providing that he can do so in safety, to pass a farm tractor or
other farm machine, a road vehicle carrying a slow-moving vehicle sign,
a horse-drawn vehicle or a bicycle.

--And specific to your riding in the middle of the lane, it doesn't look
like it's going to get big support he

487. Subject to section 492, every person on a bicycle must ride on the
extreme right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic,
except where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left
turn.

491. Subject to section 479, no person may ride a bicycle on a public
highway on which the maximum speed allowed is over 50 km/h unless

(1) he uses a cycle lane separated from the roadway and specially laid
out to prevent vehicles from crossing over from the roadway to the cycle
lane or vice versa, or having that effect
(2) he is 12 years of age or over; or
(3) he is taking part in an excursion led by a person of full age.

Cycle lane.
492. Where the public highway includes a cycle lane, persons riding a
bicycle other than a power-assisted bicycle must use the cycle lane.

--I've trimmed things that didn't pertain to bikes so here's the link if
you want to read the whole thing:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gou...rch/telecharge....

I doubt that Quebec is the only place in North America that has these
laws but will you now claim that everyone riding legally in Quebec is
skulking on the "Extreme" right of the road?

If those are the laws in Quebec, then (as I just said in another post)
you have my sympathy. Things are _far_ better in most US states,
including mine. A few states I've ridden in have mandatory sidepath
laws, and I've experienced the stupidity they produce, but most do
not.

So again: my sympathy to you.

I don't really need your sympathy. Whether it's a guaranteed right or
not, is not that important. No one is hiding in the bushes waiting to
take away my privilege of riding a bike.

Where it bothers me a little is the bit about being forced to ride in a
bike lane when one exists. I typically ride faster than the traffic in
the bike lanes so if they're crowded, I don't use them.

Like I said, at least now I know why that truck was on my ass. I was in
the wrong.

On 12/10/2010 1:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:52 pm, Duane wrote:
On 12/9/2010 12:37 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:


If that's the case, you are going to be ground meat whichever part of
the road you are using, since the truck will only have 9" each side in
the lane.

In which case I'm getting out of the way.

Onto the sidewalk again, eh?

Ground meat again eh? If those are the two choices,
I know which I will take.

On 12/10/2010 1:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:19 am, Jay wrote:

Like I said, I don't
disagree with you about taking the lane sometimes...

Good. And I assume you no longer think I'll "get busted" if I do that
in Oregon.

... I take the lane on
the Sellwood Bridge and some of the lane on Barbur Blvd as indicated
in my prior posts...
Again, I think the better
part of discretion is staying out of the lane to the extent possible
to let vehicles pass except those vehicles with a track record of
mayhem (TriMet) or in those places where even the innocent can run you
down due to road features (the off camber, hard right turn I mentioned
in a prior post).

There is always judgment involved. But in general, I've found (as Dan
Gutierrez showed in the graph I posted earlier) that too-close passes
happen only when I'm close to the right. I factor that in. There

If that graph showed that too-close passes happen ONLY when you're too
close to the right and then you were in the middle of the lane and
someone passed you too closely, would that be enough for you to say that
the graph was incorrect? Of would you think that you were having an out
of body experience or something?

You ask me why I don't read what you post. When I'm in the middle of
the lane on a two lane road, the car behind me is going to pass me to
the left when there's no oncoming traffic. What keeps him from passing
just as close? In fact, it seems to me that since he has to move
farther to the left, the chances are better. And if he's annoyed
because I'm in his way, he may do it intentionally. I've certainly had
them pass too close.

If you want to say that it's less likely that you will be passed too
closely when you're in the middle of the road, maybe you have a point.
But you can't say that it happens ONLY when you're close to the right.

On 12/9/2010 5:13 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 9, 1:39 pm, Duane wrote:
On 12/9/2010 3:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Then you and I are too far apart on fundamentals to ever agree.

Finally something I can agree with.

+1
And for the record, while I do not "support" Duane, I do agree with

Man. And I was just working on the newsletter for my new cult!

On Dec 9, 10:47*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:19*am, Jay Beattie wrote:



Like I said, I don't
disagree with you about taking the lane sometimes...

Good. And I assume you no longer think I'll "get busted" if I do that
in Oregon.

No, you can and should get busted if you promenade down a street and
don't pull over when traffic stacks up behind you! The likelihood
that you will get busted is low since the police are not on every
street corner. -- Jay Beattie.

On Dec 10, 8:49*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 12:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I would suggest you do more reading on this issue, but I realize the
suggestion would be rejected.

Driving a car is a privilege that can be suspended for any number of
reasons and can't even be exercised without the proper licensing. How is
that a right?

Driving is NOT a right, and of course I never said it was. On the
contrary, I've said that society needs to emphasize that it's a
privilege.

Read the first two chapters of Mionske's _Bicycling & The Law_ for
discussion of rights to the road.

- Frank Krygowski