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

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:06:15 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 12/18/2014 6:10 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

The problem with all the I did this or I did that is, at least in
California, the cyclists seem to be the culprits. See:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...es-statistics/

Which says that in the cases where the police can establish guilt the
cyclist is the guilty party in the majority of the cases.

Excerpt:

In 2011, officers determined fault in 701 crashes between a bicyclist
and a motorist in which a cyclist was hurt or killed, according to the
reports, submitted to California's Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System. Cyclists were found to be the party most at fault in
390 of those crashes, or 56 percent of the time.

In 2012, bicyclists were deemed to be at fault 60 percent of the time,
in 2013, 56 percent of the time and as of the date of the report, 57
percent in 2014.

Perhaps the battle cry should be "Obey the law" rather than "Take the
Lane".


And when the law is to not take the lane? Here you can only take the
lane if you're merging for a left turn or avoiding obstacles otherwise
you must "keep to the extreme right" to quote the highway code.

So if you're not to the extreme right, not avoiding an obstacle and not
turning and you get hit you would be deemed to be at fault. Which is
pretty unusual in that normally when someone is hit from behind, it's
the hitter and not the "hittee" who is at fault.

To me the legality is secondary. If I think by moving to the center I
can be safer in some situation I will do it. Better to fight a ticket
than an undertaker. I just don't think it's a panacea. I think in most
cases if the idiot is going to run you over in a bike lane where he
isn't supposed to be, he's likely going to run you over in the center
where you're not supposed to be.

We've had two death by trucks here recently. One was a woman run over
from behind when in the lane. Driver didn't know he hit her until he
hear a thump thump under his car. The other was a right hook where a
truck passed a cyclist and then turned right running over the rider.
Didn't know he hit the rider until a witness flagged him down blocks
later. Would a bike lane have save the first woman? Would taking the
lane have saved the second guy? Who knows?

While probably denied as anecdotal the "I didn't see 'em" accidents
you mention would seem to demonstrate that taking the lane can be a
risky endeavor.

Perhaps the battle cry should be changed from "Seize the Lane" to
"Stay out of their way".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:10:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/18/2014 6:10 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

The problem with all the I did this or I did that is, at least in
California, the cyclists seem to be the culprits. See:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...es-statistics/

Which says that in the cases where the police can establish guilt the
cyclist is the guilty party in the majority of the cases.

Excerpt:

In 2011, officers determined fault in 701 crashes between a bicyclist
and a motorist in which a cyclist was hurt or killed, according to the
reports, submitted to California's Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System. Cyclists were found to be the party most at fault in
390 of those crashes, or 56 percent of the time.

In 2012, bicyclists were deemed to be at fault 60 percent of the time,
in 2013, 56 percent of the time and as of the date of the report, 57
percent in 2014.

Yep. That's not an unusual result, or not very different from most
others. Most studies claim fault distribution is fairly close to 50/50.

All with the usual grains of salt, of course. Very often, the cop on
the scene knows nothing (or less) about bicycling. In many cases, the
cyclist's statements are absent or ignored. Very often, standard forms
used for reporting don't allow enough detail for later analysis.


Would you call that denial? Or rationalization? Sort of like the "I
didn't seem 'em" excuse by the motor vehicle operator so often denied
by the cyclist community.

But there's no denying the existence of wrong-way sidewalk riders,
no-lights-at-night riders, drunken cyclists, etc.

Perhaps the battle cry should be "Obey the law" rather than "Take the
Lane".

Certainly in my state, "Obey the Law" and "Take the Lane When Necessary"
are far from mutually exclusive. The second is actually a subset of the
first. Permission to take a lane when necessary is specifically written
into state law.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:58:44 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:18:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2014 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
While, hopefully, one can control oneself it is doubtful that
one can control outside events, or certainly not consistently.

Hmm. I think you may mean "not absolutely perfectly." I've been using
"lane control" (i.e. primary position) when necessary since about 1977.
It's never gotten me hit, I've never heard anyone coming from behind
claim they didn't see me. I'd say it certainly works consistently.

My experience is that people do amazingly stupid things and riding, or
driving, in front of someone with the thought that, "Oh! He'll see me
and he won't hit me", is ludicrous.

Well, in a car or on a motorcycle, what do you do when you see another
motor vehicle - say, a large truck - approach quickly from behind?

As mentioned, a few years ago within about 15 miles of me we had a
couple Marines and three recruits killed when a trucker ran into the
rear of their car at a stop light. And yet, to this day, I see people
driving in front of large trucks, and even sitting stopped at traffic
lights when trucks approach from the rear.

Maybe those people should be driving off the road?

One of the most common statement I read in cases of motor vehicle
bicycle confrontations is, "I didn't see him".

Good reason to ride in a more visible position. Works for me!

As I've said before, my worst close call was back in about 1977, when I
was still an edge rider. It was a narrowly averted left hook by a
motorist who didn't see me in the roadside clutter of parked cars, etc.
After that, I learned to stay where I was conspicuous, and had more
room to maneuver.

Flashing lights has to help. I haven't seen any studies but just
driving and biking along I notice bikes that have flashies. I often
keep them on in the day when I'm riding. If they don't see you, it
doesn't matter if you're on the edge or in the middle. Mostly I do
ride on the edge though, simply because I can't keep up with the speed
of traffic so there are few places where it's considerate for me to
take a lane.

Flashing lights certainly, if bright enough, certainly do help. But,
unless really overcast or at night or early in the morning or evening
they have to be pretty bright to be noticeable. Certainly brighter
than the tiny little lights I sometime see used.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/18/2014 8:32 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:


One serious problem with the statistics is that I don't know of
anywhere that has any requirement in the method of obtaining the data
which actually separates true "run down from behind" from "Struck by
overtaking motor vehicle", and requires different entries in the
statistics for them.
Sideswipes may be squeeze by, or they may be lane changes - nothing
tells us which.
Likewise "rear ended" can often be used to describe failed overtakes,
or might be direct impact with no attempt even being made to move
over.
We just can't tell from the statistics as they are, and if you try to
compare internationally, the situation is even worse, since different
categories are used in different places and at different times or by
different researchers.
All I can say with any certainty is that I've been treated far better
on the roads when I've taken the lane as necessary than when I've
squeezed over to the side - and I've yet to hear of anyone who has
/genuinely/ tried both methods who has a different experience to mine.


I agree with all the above.

And we'll probably never get the improvement in data collection and
analysis needed to settle forever the question of which is safer
(primary position or edge riding). For one thing, bicycling is so
damned safe that few people are motivated to really study it. For
another, there's no money to be made by settling this question.

Actually... I suppose there is money to be made by the companies that
promote, then design and build "cycletracks." If they could prove that
primary position definitely doesn't work, they'd have done it by now.

The only bicycling issue that triggered tons of studies was the helmet
issue. And of course, there were hundreds of millions of dollars to be
made by deluding people into thinking they absolutely needed a hat made
of styrofoam - so by gosh, lots of studies tried to claim that was true!

--
- Frank Krygowski

I recently read a newspaper column by a doctor who made stretching
very complicated, with distinctions between "static" and "dynamic"
stretches, and a link to a video.

Before a ride, you wave your body parts around until you are sure that
all your joints work. That's the whole bit.

Of course, a set routine helps to make sure you haven't overlooked a
joint, and this is a good time to work on any range-of-motion problems
you may have.

In cold weather, it's also desirable to get your heart rate up before
going outside.


--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:49:09 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


I recently read a newspaper column by a doctor who made stretching
very complicated, with distinctions between "static" and "dynamic"
stretches, and a link to a video.

Before a ride, you wave your body parts around until you are sure that
all your joints work. That's the whole bit.

Of course, a set routine helps to make sure you haven't overlooked a
joint, and this is a good time to work on any range-of-motion problems
you may have.

In cold weather, it's also desirable to get your heart rate up before
going outside.

Back when I used to run every day it was quite common to see runners
(particularly new runners) going through some stretching exercises
before setting off. I was lazy and just started running :-) I do the
same thing now that I cycle, - just get on and ride.

But, as I did as a runner, I do start out a bit slowly and then speed
up after the first few hundred yards.

It has always been my suspicion that most of the advice columns or
articles are triggered by the fact that the author is going to get
paid for what he/she writes :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Joy Beeson wrote in
:

I recently read a newspaper column by a doctor who made stretching
very complicated, with distinctions between "static" and "dynamic"
stretches, and a link to a video.

Before a ride, you wave your body parts around until you are sure that
all your joints work. That's the whole bit.

Of course, a set routine helps to make sure you haven't overlooked a
joint, and this is a good time to work on any range-of-motion problems
you may have.

In cold weather, it's also desirable to get your heart rate up before
going outside.

As someone who lives on the edge of the boreal forest, I find it does not
matter where I start my warm-up, inside or out, but then I am not yet 60. I
follow John B's approach and proceed at an easy rate of knots, typically for
the first 5 minutes, and then ramp it up. Stretches are important following
any useful exercise, and that is when one should do the "range-of-motion"
work since your muscles are warm.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On 12/21/2014 5:52 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

It has always been my suspicion that most of the advice columns or
articles are triggered by the fact that the author is going to get
paid for what he/she writes :-)

I've been in the position of having to write regular missives, whether
articles, email reminders or whatever. Even doing it as a volunteer,
one eventually feels the pressure of trying to think of something new to
say.

I imagine this is a much bigger stressor if one's paycheck and continued
employment depends on it.

And this is, I'm sure, one of the reasons that television programming is
so bad. TV burns through lots of content. The good stuff gets used up
early, then programs descend into the drek. Even Shakespeare would have
exhausted himself in a few seasons.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/21/2014 5:52 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

It has always been my suspicion that most of the advice columns or
articles are triggered by the fact that the author is going to get
paid for what he/she writes :-)

I've been in the position of having to write regular missives, whether
articles, email reminders or whatever. Even doing it as a volunteer,
one eventually feels the pressure of trying to think of something new to
say.

I imagine this is a much bigger stressor if one's paycheck and continued
employment depends on it.

And this is, I'm sure, one of the reasons that television programming is
so bad. TV burns through lots of content. The good stuff gets used up
early, then programs descend into the drek. Even Shakespeare would have
exhausted himself in a few seasons.

For a couple of years I wrote a weekly column in the local newspaper
about computer stuff and initially it was pretty easy to do but after
a while when you had covered most of the aspects of what you were
writing about and it began to be more and more difficult.

My impression of television is that it represents what the majority of
the viewers want to see. The networks apparently do stay on top of
what people are watching and take programs off the air when interest
in them drops although the sponsor's wants/needs certainly are taken
into consideration. But if Mr. Average Viewer really want to watch
Gilligan's Island then that is what they get.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/21/2014 5:52 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:49:09 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


I recently read a newspaper column by a doctor who made stretching
very complicated, with distinctions between "static" and "dynamic"
stretches, and a link to a video.

Before a ride, you wave your body parts around until you are sure that
all your joints work. That's the whole bit.

Of course, a set routine helps to make sure you haven't overlooked a
joint, and this is a good time to work on any range-of-motion problems
you may have.

In cold weather, it's also desirable to get your heart rate up before
going outside.

Back when I used to run every day it was quite common to see runners
(particularly new runners) going through some stretching exercises
before setting off. I was lazy and just started running :-) I do the
same thing now that I cycle, - just get on and ride.



But, as I did as a runner, I do start out a bit slowly and then speed
up after the first few hundred yards.


I find that starting off with a relatively easy pace is as good as
stretching before the start. I know guys though that want to take off
immediately so maybe it helps them to loosen up first.


It has always been my suspicion that most of the advice columns or
articles are triggered by the fact that the author is going to get
paid for what he/she writes :-)


Maybe but as someone who has had problems with ITB I can tell you that
stretching after a long ride is not bad advice.