Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Dec 11, 8:59*am, Phil W Lee wrote:

That's almost all roads here.
But can you explain how a driver is more inconvenienced by a cyclist
using the lane properly,

Properly? This is a trick question right? Properly means keeping to
the right (on this side of the Atlantic.
But a cyclist riding in the center of the lane can make a safe passing
opportunity less so.
As I said:
"(forcing the driver completely into the other lane in order to pass)"

The only reason drivers expect cyclists to hug the kerb is because so
many do.
Nobody said anything about "hugging a curb." There are no curbs on the
roads I described.
DR

On Dec 11, 7:40*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"RobertH" wrote in message

...

On Dec 10, 7:55 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

Your response was much more polite than mine. *You must be new dealing
with
this
guy.

Here's an old exchange with Frank where, in exasperation, I reply to
his formulaic spiel using using recycled responses from older threads.
In the recycled quotes there are references to still older threads.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...se_frm/thread/...

At least he's consistent. *Sounds pretty much like the same stuff that I was
greeted with
when I first posted here. *

Frank Krygowski - once a ****tard, always a ****tard.

DR

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/10/2010 3:20 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/10/2010 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:18 am, wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:43 am, Frank 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.

Anticipation and crash avoidance (eg swerving and panic stops) are two
completely different animals.

If you're swerving or panic stopping, your anticipation has failed
you.

What does VC have to say about anticipating the mistakes of other road
users?

As with Duane, I can help you find a library if you like.

Your an idiot.

Correction: "You're an idiot".


Tom, here's a helpful grammar resource:
http://www.wordspy.com/waw/20021113161202.asp

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Dec 11, 2:14*am, Phil W Lee wrote:

But there IS a clear distinction between the use of "vehicles" which
is all encompassing, and "motor vehicles" which is not.
The statute you quote says you must conform to the requirements for
vehicles, but does not say that you must conform to those requirements
for motor vehicles.
Sadly, (and maybe not surprisingly) English is a foreign language to
Americans, so maybe that's why their lawyers have difficulties in
understanding it.

It is amazing that such a simple point causes confusion, isn't it?

We have a similar set of requirements here, and bicycles are indeed
supposed to conform to vehicular rules, but NOT when those are
explicitly stated to be for motor vehicles.
As an example, speed limits only apply to motor vehicles (except in
Royal Parks, which can make their own byelaws, and chose to state "any
vehicle" as part of their speed limit rule, instead of "motor vehicle"
as used in the national legislation....

On the bright side, it says you have the same rights as well as the
same duties, so you can't be hounded off the roads onto facilities.

I know this has been mentioned before, but things are more complicated
here in the U.S. because traffic laws are not national laws; they are
state laws. There is a national advisory committee that studies these
issues, gathers professional input and comment, and publishes model
traffic laws. States are urged to follow the model and do so in most
ways, but they differ in some details. And unfortunately, most state
legislators seem to consider bikes mere details.

So in Oregon, a right turning motorist is prohibited from merging into
a right-side bike lane before he turns; he must cut across it at the
last second. In neighboring California, a right-turning motorist is
prohibited from cutting across the bike lane at the last second; he
must merge into it before he turns. In some states, bike facilities
are mandatory-use. In neighboring states, they're optional... etc.

Worse, some (maybe most?) states permit local regulation of bicycles,
with sometimes bizarre results. One man made it his mission to
correct that in Ohio, after finding that some suburbs of Cleveland
required riding on sidewalks, or even required cyclists to dismount
and walk their bikes across all intersections!
http://bikelaws.org/neo-bikelaws.htm
Fortunately, Ohio now has a law prohibiting local laws that are
fundamentally different from state law.

I'd be happier with nationally uniform laws, if they were good ones.
But the current situation seems to be, effectively, no law at all.
I've many times seen cops completely ignore the most blatant
violations by cyclists, and I've known of cases where cops ignored
blatant violations of cyclists' rights by motorists. :-(

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:36:40 -0500, "Duane Hebert"
wrote:

So you can eventually ignore him?

It's quite easy. ^k, "mark read", "global", "until inactive", "apply
filters to folder now", enter

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

On 12/11/2010 10:38 AM, A.Muzi wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/10/2010 3:20 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:

Your an idiot.

Correction: "You're an idiot".


Tom, here's a helpful grammar resource:
http://www.wordspy.com/waw/20021113161202.asp


So you have the following sign in your shop window:

- Bicycle's for "Sale" -

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Dec 11, 7:36 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/11/2010 8:36 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

wrote in message
....
On Dec 10, 7:55 pm, "Duane wrote:

Your response was much more polite than mine. You must be new dealing
with
this
guy.

Truthfully I first experienced the whole ordeal maybe 10 or more years
ago. The ordeal loses its effect after you've experienced it 30 or 40
times.

So you can eventually ignore him?

Frank Krygowski does not bother me, but then I had already come to the
same conclusions on Hell Mutts and farcilities (sic) before being a
regular on RBT.


It appears to be a pretty simple formula: If it fits with his way,
great; if it doesn't, cover it in ****.

Maybe it takes an engineer to understand an engineer?


Maybe. I have no degree (or high school diploma), but have always
been very interested in how things work. I didn't come here for the
argument, but still can't help myself sometimes.

On 12/11/2010 11:06 AM, Dan 0vermªn wrote:
I didn't come here for the argument

Abuse is down the hall in Room 12.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 12/11/2010 10:28 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:40 am, "Duane wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 10, 7:55 pm, "Duane wrote:

Your response was much more polite than mine. You must be new dealing
with
this
guy.

Here's an old exchange with Frank where, in exasperation, I reply to
his formulaic spiel using using recycled responses from older threads.
In the recycled quotes there are references to still older threads.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...se_frm/thread/...

At least he's consistent. Sounds pretty much like the same stuff that I was
greeted with
when I first posted here.

Frank Krygowski - once a ****tard, always a ****tard.

DirtRoadie - once a troll, always a troll.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/11/2010 10:38 AM, A.Muzi wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/10/2010 3:20 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:

Your an idiot.

Correction: "You're an idiot".


Tom, here's a helpful grammar resource:
http://www.wordspy.com/waw/20021113161202.asp


So you have the following sign in your shop window:

- Bicycle's for "Sale" -


That sign's on Dave Barry's's "Bike" Shoppe For Grammarian's

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971