AG: Aunt Granny's Advice, or How to become an elderly cyclist:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:12:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/11/2014 8:14 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


You need to implement the "free enterprise" system that we have here.

You do something wrong; the cop stops you; you pay him the fine and go
your way; or you do something wrong; you surrender your drivers
license and must report to the Police Officer's home office in 3 days
time to pay the fine and have your license returned.

Of course, if you pay on the spot the fine goes into the "Police
Benevolence" fund and is used to improve the life of the police
officers, which provides a certain amount of enthusiasm, in the Police
ranks, for law enforcement.

So, the free market philosophy applied to policing! I think that would
be approved by roughly half the American public.

Until the first time they were pulled over, that is.

Foreigners complain loudly about the "corruption", but I always
wondered. The purpose of a fine is to impress on the evildoer that
this is not a good thing to do. Does it matter who, in the end,
receives the money?

As paying the fine is the punishment, whether this money goes into the
government coffers to be spent on the minister's upcoming trip to
London (with wife and family) or goes into the pockets of the poor
policeman would seem immaterial.

And, it does make for very industrious policemen, eager to enforce the
law.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

That's the common fear, of course: "What if they don't slow down or
change lanes? What if they run me over?" It's why most cyclists will
balance on a 4" fog line 2" away from a pavement dropoff as motor
vehicles squeeze by inches from their elbow, rather than ride centered
in a narrow lane.

Those of us who have learned to ride in the "primary position" know that
the "What if..." is superstition. It probably happens much less often
than hits-from-behind while riding in a bike lane. Riding in primary
position soon becomes much less scary than edge riding.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

You are violently agreeing with me.

I'm usually a spectator at these strange, but oddly-common, events.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:32:37 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Dec 2014
18:18:38 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

You are worrying about something that happens so rarely that it barely
even has any place in the statistics.
The risk of getting wiped out by someone trying to squeeze past in an
inadequate space is certainly many times greater.
Which is why it is recommended practice in every reputable cycle
training course I know of.

No, that isn't really true. Both John Forester and Kenneth Cross
discussed it in their writings and strangely they draw different
conclusions with one arguing that the overtaking risk is negligible,
and on the other hand an analysis that characterizes the overtaking
collision as the most deadly of all car-bike crashes.


--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:01:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

That's the common fear, of course: "What if they don't slow down or
change lanes? What if they run me over?" It's why most cyclists will
balance on a 4" fog line 2" away from a pavement dropoff as motor
vehicles squeeze by inches from their elbow, rather than ride centered
in a narrow lane.

Those of us who have learned to ride in the "primary position" know that
the "What if..." is superstition. It probably happens much less often
than hits-from-behind while riding in a bike lane. Riding in primary
position soon becomes much less scary than edge riding.

But Frank, I described an accident that happened where a little
village road joined a main highway - two women and two kids on a small
motorcycle "seized the lane" and were hit by an overtaking truck
traveling probably 50 or 60 KPH. Two dead at the site and two taken to
the hospital.

When I described the accident you replied with something like - "well
they shouldn't have done that".

Now you say it is the best option. But your "best option" resulted in
two dead at the scene and two with severe injuries who may have died
later.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/16/2014 8:32 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:32:37 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

You are worrying about something that happens so rarely that it barely
even has any place in the statistics.
The risk of getting wiped out by someone trying to squeeze past in an
inadequate space is certainly many times greater.
Which is why it is recommended practice in every reputable cycle
training course I know of.

No, that isn't really true. Both John Forester and Kenneth Cross
discussed it in their writings and strangely they draw different
conclusions with one arguing that the overtaking risk is negligible,
and on the other hand an analysis that characterizes the overtaking
collision as the most deadly of all car-bike crashes.

Note that the two "on the other hand" statements do not really conflict.
It's not much different than airliner crashes: Yes, they're very
deadly; but yes, the risk is still negligible.

As I've posted many times, American bicyclists probably ride ten million
to fifteen million miles per fatality. (Estimates vary, even estimates
by the same researcher, even those whose entire academic career is
focused on these issues.) That risk of fatality is, by any rational
evaluation, negligible.

It's true that if a cyclist is going to be killed by a car, being hit
from behind is a more common mechanism than many others - although it's
far from being the only one. But nobody has demonstrated that being hit
from behind is more likely when one rides conspicuously at lane center
of a narrow lane. We know that hit-from-behind fatalities occur even in
bike lanes. And while there's not definitive proof, there's lots of
evidence that "primary position" riding reduces that tiny risk.

Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence that hits-from-behind are a small
percentage of all car-bike crashes. The latest one I came across is
from the city of Cambridge, MA. There, hits-from-behind were 4% of
car-bike crashes. See
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Trans...formation.aspx

That’s:
Angle (90 degree, usually) 32%
Dooring 20%
Left Hook 19%
Sideswipe (squeeze by!) 12%
Right hook 10%
Rear end 4%
Head on 1%
Unknown 2%

If cyclists didn't ride in gutters where they were less visible, and
where they tempt motorists to squeeze by, I think that 4% figure would
be even lower.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/16/2014 8:39 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:01:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

That's the common fear, of course: "What if they don't slow down or
change lanes? What if they run me over?" It's why most cyclists will
balance on a 4" fog line 2" away from a pavement dropoff as motor
vehicles squeeze by inches from their elbow, rather than ride centered
in a narrow lane.

Those of us who have learned to ride in the "primary position" know that
the "What if..." is superstition. It probably happens much less often
than hits-from-behind while riding in a bike lane. Riding in primary
position soon becomes much less scary than edge riding.

But Frank, I described an accident that happened where a little
village road joined a main highway - two women and two kids on a small
motorcycle "seized the lane" and were hit by an overtaking truck
traveling probably 50 or 60 KPH. Two dead at the site and two taken to
the hospital.

When I described the accident you replied with something like - "well
they shouldn't have done that".

Now you say it is the best option. But your "best option" resulted in
two dead at the scene and two with severe injuries who may have died
later.

I may be recalling incorrectly, but I thought that incident involved
suddenly swerving in front of a rapidly overtaking motor vehicle.
That's not how it's to be done.

In any case, putting up one lane-center, hit-from-behind incident
doesn't prove that primary position riding is dangerous. After all, I
can put up accounts of horrific crashes to cyclists riding to the right
of wide lanes, or even riding in bike lanes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:46:01 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 8:39 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:01:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)

That's the common fear, of course: "What if they don't slow down or
change lanes? What if they run me over?" It's why most cyclists will
balance on a 4" fog line 2" away from a pavement dropoff as motor
vehicles squeeze by inches from their elbow, rather than ride centered
in a narrow lane.

Those of us who have learned to ride in the "primary position" know that
the "What if..." is superstition. It probably happens much less often
than hits-from-behind while riding in a bike lane. Riding in primary
position soon becomes much less scary than edge riding.

But Frank, I described an accident that happened where a little
village road joined a main highway - two women and two kids on a small
motorcycle "seized the lane" and were hit by an overtaking truck
traveling probably 50 or 60 KPH. Two dead at the site and two taken to
the hospital.

When I described the accident you replied with something like - "well
they shouldn't have done that".

Now you say it is the best option. But your "best option" resulted in
two dead at the scene and two with severe injuries who may have died
later.

I may be recalling incorrectly, but I thought that incident involved
suddenly swerving in front of a rapidly overtaking motor vehicle.
That's not how it's to be done.


Perhaps I was not detailed enough. They rode from a small, one lane,
one way, village road onto the main N.S. Phuket highway. The small
road merges with the main road at the exit of a very large 90 degree
bend. They entered the road and started down the outer lane of the
road. A large truck hauling a 4 wheel trailer - probably approaching
80 ton capacity, and loaded - was approaching around the bend. From
living in the village I would guess that two women and two kids on a
90 cc Honda may have been traveling about 15 KMH. The truck was likely
doing 50 - 60 KPH, at least I usually am going about 50 KPH on that
curve and the big trucks sometimes pass me.

The truck driver obviously saw the woman and made an attempt to stop,
apparently braked rather violently as he lost the trailer which was
lying crosswise in the road when I came by a few minutes after the
crash.

The truck couldn't stop in time and hit the motorcycle that was,
apparently, well into the lane. Two dead in the crash and two severely
injured.

Had they not "taken the lane"...

In any case, putting up one lane-center, hit-from-behind incident
doesn't prove that primary position riding is dangerous. After all, I
can put up accounts of horrific crashes to cyclists riding to the right
of wide lanes, or even riding in bike lanes.

Right, ignore it as it happens so seldom.... I'm sure that the woman's
family agrees completely.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/16/2014 6:18 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 14 Dec 2014
20:25:44 -0400 the perfect time to write:


There's a thread on alt.usage.english with the subject line: "is this
the silliest term of art ever?"

I've been tempted to mention "controlling the lane". You can't
control anything but your own body parts, and not always those, but if
you ask nicely, people nearly always give you what you need.

Or what they *think* you need; clear communication is the key to safe
riding.

If there is any clearer way to communicate "I'm using this lane, if
you want to go past or around me you'll have to use the next one over"
than to occupy the centre of the lane, please do tell.

The problem seems to be the theory that "if he sees me he'll slow
down". But what if he either doesn't want to slow down or cannot for
some reason. The downside risk seems far greater than any possible
benefit that might be gained by getting one's name in the obituary
column. Even the Times :-)


That's the thing. I think the OP was saying that she questioned the
word "Controlling" and I agreed.