| |
Main
Date: 27 Feb 2007 22:02:29
From: mark
Subject: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too enthusiastic
about helmets for my taste.
k
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 15:21:58
From:
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On 1, 11:41 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote in part:
> There is no benefit to bicyclists, only increased hazards from motorist
> encroachment, obscuration, visual blending, and reduced buffer and
> sightlines.
Incorrect, it benefits cyclists to coexist and
cooperate with other road users, whether they
be pedestrians or drivers of vehicles.
If everybody rode like you, nobody would be
able to ride on the road legally.
That's not your ultimate goal, is it?
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 19:02:38
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On 1, 11:41 am, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote in part:
>
>
>>There is no benefit to bicyclists, only increased hazards from motorist
>>encroachment, obscuration, visual blending, and reduced buffer and
>>sightlines.
>
>
> Incorrect, it benefits cyclists to coexist and
> cooperate with other road users, whether they
> be pedestrians or drivers of vehicles.
Yes, I espouse coexisting.
>
> If everybody rode like you, nobody would be
> able to ride on the road legally.
How do you know how I ride? Frankly, everybody should ride like I do.
There would never be a bicycle-motor vehicle collision.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 06:34:05
From: landotter
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On 1, 3:41 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2007 17:46:28 -0800, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com>
[snip]
> >Virtually every rider I see on the road around here is wearing a
> >helmet and also doing something exceptionally stupid. I'd rather see
> >bare heads and common sense. I'd also like to see and hear talk about
> >risk and numbers. Don't say "A helmet will save your life" which is
> >the current meme and makes people exceptionally cocky, just tell them
> >that a "helmet can reduce some head injuries, lacerations, but does
> >not guarantee against death." Sounds a bit pedantic, but I really
> >think most folks just don't get it.
>
> Worse - there is more than a hint (from population level studies) that
> they have a net negative effect on public health.
Oh, you mean the way that treating helmet as the goddess Panacea
actually increases risk taking? That's documented and quite apparent
in the way people ride, at least around here.
A helmet by and of itself will certainly prevent or reduce a certain
type of injury, but the hype around them is more dangerous. I mean, I
just ran into my neighbors the other day, who I'd done a bike tune up
for, and they were wrong way riding with their damn dog on a leash. I
begged them to reconsider such risky (idiotic) behavior, and they
asked why I wasn't wearing a helmet. Nothing wrong with them in
theory, but in practice, they seem to make intellects go soft.
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 00:08:29
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
In article <1172680439.171466.291730@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >,
"landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > writes:
> On Feb 28, 6:47 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2007 22:15:53 -0800, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
>> >head injuries by 85%. This is one of very few bike safety pieces that
>> >doesn't make that claim. Perhaps slow progress is being made.
>>
>> Noting the steady increase in MHL's in the USofA, one cannot call that
>> "progress".
>
> Ugh. I'd literally move to a different city than comply with such
> stupidity. On the other hand, if a local ordinance required me to
> register my bike and get a $50 "cycling license" after passing a road
> test, I'd have no problem with that.
Well, I sure would! Just like I'd have a problem
with having to pay to walk!
What's next -- having to pay to breathe?
Heck, we non-driving riders should be paid back.
Screw commodification of intrinsics!
Free is free.
Okay, I'm calmed down now. At least I didn't
resort to vulgar language. I deleted it.
Except maybe for the "screw" thing.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 00:09:12
From:
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> OK. I found the relavent Illinois statute.
>
> Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
> roadways -Riding on roadways
> and bicycle paths.
> (a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a
> roadway at less than the normal speed
> of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing
> shall ride as close as
> practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under
> the following situations: ...
>
>
> Like in most states, it's a discriminatory law that should be repealed.
How is it discriminatory? Even with the laundry list
of exceptions it only applies when moving 'less than
normal speed of traffic' -- otherwise grab all the lane you
want. If you need to pass, take the passing lane.
Seems like you are demanding special
treatment for cyclists, not fighting discrimination.
Cyclists are definitely discriminated
against in this society; but not in those ride-to-the-right
laws with their laundry lists of exceptions and
exemptions.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 13:41:12
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>OK. I found the relavent Illinois statute.
>>
>>Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
>>roadways -Riding on roadways
>>and bicycle paths.
>>(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a
>>roadway at less than the normal speed
>>of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing
>>shall ride as close as
>>practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under
>>the following situations: ...
>>
>>
>>Like in most states, it's a discriminatory law that should be repealed.
>
>
>
> How is it discriminatory? Even with the laundry list
> of exceptions it only applies when moving 'less than
> normal speed of traffic' -- otherwise grab all the lane you
> want.
It discriminates because bicycle drivers are in most cases (since they
are mostly slower) not entitled to the benefits of a full lane as are
other drivers. Instead, they must enable motor traffic to encroach into
their lane, taking advantage of bicyclists' narrowness at our expense.
There is no benefit to bicyclists, only increased hazards from motorist
encroachment, obscuration, visual blending, and reduced buffer and
sightlines.
There is no provision for using the right lane of a multi-lane road. Why
can't faster drivers simply use an inside/left lane to pass? The left
lane is not good enough for those poor motorists, they've got to have
the bicyclists' right lane too?
Wayne
We're traffic, so quit micromanaging our lateral position!
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 18:49:51
From:
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On Feb 28, 8:21 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I timed about 40 seconds on helmets. Not a lot out of the 7:24, but
> > they gave helmets at least three times the coverage they gave to any
> > other specific issue. As an example, they gave about 10 seconds to
> > talking about lights. Are helmets four times as important as lights?
>
> What percentage of the audience of such a video would ride at night?
It's probably small. But so is the population that really needs
helmets.
And, FWIW, it's been claimed that roughly half of Florida's bike
fatalities happen at night, almost entirely to unlit cyclists. I pick
Florida, BTW, because that's apparently the only state that's
attempted to measure that. Some safety experts think it's reasonable
to extrapolate that data nationally.
Admittedly, the data is not bulletproof, partly because everybody is
paying attention to the hats, and nobody pays much attention to
anything else.
Including lights.
As indicated by the 40 seconds on helmets, 11 seconds on lights.
> > And are they _really_ "the single most important piece of safety
> > equipment you can use"? More than, say, brakes?
>
> Of course not, but the media would never be able to say that.
All I'm asking for is realistic information. That quoted statement is
false, and trite, propaganda.
> > At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
> > head injuries by 85%.
>
> Actually, if you consider that most accidents are minor falls, wearing
> gloves probably reduces injuries by 85%.
Yes, and knee pads ditto. Shall we go into the knee pad business and
start lobbying to have our products declared "most important," or
"essential," or even mandated?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 17:46:28
From: landotter
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On Feb 28, 7:24 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Ugh. I'd literally move to a different city than comply with such
> > stupidity.
>
> I don't find that wearing a foam hat is stupidity. What is stupid is
> the suggestion that it, and it alone, would protect me from a drunken
> fool driving a Hummer straight at me.
That's what I'm getting at. Helmet as panacea is very very dangerous.
I don't actively campaign against them or anything, just understand
their limitations. I wore a hard Vetta in the 80s when I was younger
and more apt to meet the ground. Now that I'm older and a far better
rider, I'll take my chances.
Virtually every rider I see on the road around here is wearing a
helmet and also doing something exceptionally stupid. I'd rather see
bare heads and common sense. I'd also like to see and hear talk about
risk and numbers. Don't say "A helmet will save your life" which is
the current meme and makes people exceptionally cocky, just tell them
that a "helmet can reduce some head injuries, lacerations, but does
not guarantee against death." Sounds a bit pedantic, but I really
think most folks just don't get it.
Add to that the fact that at least 3/4 of folks that I see are wearing
the damn things with loose straps on the back of their head like a
yarmulke. Their kids of course are taking clues from the 'rents and
wearing theirs in the same fashion.
>
> > On the other hand, if a local ordinance required me to
> > register my bike and get a $50 "cycling license" after passing a road
> > test, I'd have no problem with that.
>
> $25, and I'll sign on.
I can get you a plastic Tennessee bike plate for $2 at Wally World.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 09:41:16
From:
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On 28 Feb 2007 17:46:28 -0800, "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Feb 28, 7:24 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu>
>wrote:
>> landotter wrote:
>> > Ugh. I'd literally move to a different city than comply with such
>> > stupidity.
>>
>> I don't find that wearing a foam hat is stupidity. What is stupid is
>> the suggestion that it, and it alone, would protect me from a drunken
>> fool driving a Hummer straight at me.
>
>That's what I'm getting at. Helmet as panacea is very very dangerous.
>I don't actively campaign against them or anything, just understand
>their limitations. I wore a hard Vetta in the 80s when I was younger
>and more apt to meet the ground. Now that I'm older and a far better
>rider, I'll take my chances.
>
>Virtually every rider I see on the road around here is wearing a
>helmet and also doing something exceptionally stupid. I'd rather see
>bare heads and common sense. I'd also like to see and hear talk about
>risk and numbers. Don't say "A helmet will save your life" which is
>the current meme and makes people exceptionally cocky, just tell them
>that a "helmet can reduce some head injuries, lacerations, but does
>not guarantee against death." Sounds a bit pedantic, but I really
>think most folks just don't get it.
>
Worse - there is more than a hint (from population level studies) that
they have a net negative effect on public health.
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 16:06:03
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:02:29 +0000, k wrote:
> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too enthusiastic
> about helmets for my taste.
A big nitpick -- if they were going to address quick releases at all, they
should have done a much better job.
I guess we're supposed to be enthusiastic about such projects, but I don't
think it was all that great. About half of it was fine, half of it not
well thought out, and overall just plain boring and uninspired. I know
twelve year olds who make much better videos.
Sorry.
Matt O.
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 08:33:59
From: landotter
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On Feb 28, 6:47 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2007 22:15:53 -0800, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
> >head injuries by 85%. This is one of very few bike safety pieces that
> >doesn't make that claim. Perhaps slow progress is being made.
>
> Noting the steady increase in MHL's in the USofA, one cannot call that
> "progress".
Ugh. I'd literally move to a different city than comply with such
stupidity. On the other hand, if a local ordinance required me to
register my bike and get a $50 "cycling license" after passing a road
test, I'd have no problem with that.
Wrong way riding, lighting, turn signaling, stopping for lights and
signs, yielding when you don't have the right of way--any single one
of these basic road rules is far far more important than the mild
protection a lid will give to a small portion of your body in the
event of a tumble.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 20:24:27
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
landotter wrote:
> Ugh. I'd literally move to a different city than comply with such
> stupidity.
I don't find that wearing a foam hat is stupidity. What is stupid is
the suggestion that it, and it alone, would protect me from a drunken
fool driving a Hummer straight at me.
> On the other hand, if a local ordinance required me to
> register my bike and get a $50 "cycling license" after passing a road
> test, I'd have no problem with that.
$25, and I'll sign on.
--
David L. Johnson
When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that
your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 17:57:48
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
David L. Johnson wrote:
> I don't find that wearing a foam hat is stupidity. What is stupid is
> the suggestion that it, and it alone, would protect me from a drunken
> fool driving a Hummer straight at me.
Gee, no strawman argument there! LOL
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 18:14:43
From:
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On 28 Feb 2007 08:33:59 -0800, "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Feb 28, 6:47 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2007 22:15:53 -0800, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
>> >head injuries by 85%. This is one of very few bike safety pieces that
>> >doesn't make that claim. Perhaps slow progress is being made.
>>
>> Noting the steady increase in MHL's in the USofA, one cannot call that
>> "progress".
>
>Ugh. I'd literally move to a different city than comply with such
>stupidity.
Good luck; the last time I checked into it, there were 37 states in
the US where there are MHLs (states including DofC and those entities
more properly known as commonwealths).
You could move to the UK; they have a much more rational view of the
value of cycle helmets...
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 20:27:28
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
> Good luck; the last time I checked into it, there were 37 states in
> the US where there are MHLs (states including DofC and those entities
> more properly known as commonwealths).
Which 37 states? I live in one where they recently repealed MHLs for
motorcylcists, and AFAIK none of the states contiguous to Pennsylvania
has a MHL. Clubs I ride with do, due to insurance issues and lawyers,
but not the state.
I was also not aware of a MHL in DC. Maybe for children, but these
states also require carseats for 14-year-olds.
--
David L. Johnson
You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but what canst
thou say? -- George Fox.
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 08:28:19
From: Mike A Schwab
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists
http://bikelib.org/
http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm
On Feb 27, 4:02 pm, k <kfel...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too enthusiastic
> about helmets for my taste.
>
> k
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 16:25:36
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
OK. I found the relavent Illinois statute.
Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
roadways -Riding on roadways
and bicycle paths.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a
roadway at less than the normal speed
of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing
shall ride as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under
the following situations:
Like in most states, it's a discriminatory law that should be repealed.
The reason I bring this up is because the LIB video, as well as other
sources of Illinois safety information I found, places emphasis on
micromanaging bicycle drivers' lateral position.
Wayne
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 16:32:51
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:45e5f34f$0$28123$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> OK. I found the relavent Illinois statute.
>
> Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
> roadways -Riding on roadways
> and bicycle paths.
> (a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway
> at less than the normal speed
> of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing
> shall ride as close as
> practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the
> following situations:
>
>
> Like in most states, it's a discriminatory law that should be repealed.
>
> The reason I bring this up is because the LIB video, as well as other
> sources of Illinois safety information I found, places emphasis on
> micromanaging bicycle drivers' lateral position.
You just made a blanket statement without any supporting info or reasoning.
Hell, let's do away barring Heavy Trucks from downtown streets or how about
letting the cars go nellie willy regardless if they are on the right or the
left of the divider. I ride like the law suggests and have a hell of a lot
less pissed of 4 wheelers at me. And roadrage to another car might be a
minor collision but there is nothing minor about a collision between a
bicyclist and a car. Well, at least not for the cyclists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3476 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 13:50:00
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
Daryl Hunt wrote:
> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>Like in most states, it's a discriminatory law that should be repealed.
>>
>>The reason I bring this up is because the LIB video, as well as other
>>sources of Illinois safety information I found, places emphasis on
>>micromanaging bicycle drivers' lateral position.
>
>
> You just made a blanket statement without any supporting info or reasoning.
> Hell, let's do away barring Heavy Trucks from downtown streets or how about
> letting the cars go nellie willy regardless if they are on the right or the
> left of the divider. I ride like the law suggests and have a hell of a lot
> less pissed of 4 wheelers at me.
Why do you need a law to "suggest" how/where to ride?
The reason heavy trucks are barred from certain streets is their weight
may destroy the street. The reason there are general traffic laws is to
protect the public. The reason bicyclists are micromanaged is.....?
And roadrage to another car might be a
> minor collision but there is nothing minor about a collision between a
> bicyclist and a car. Well, at least not for the cyclists.
Oh, I get it. The law, uh er "suggestion," is intended to protect
bicycle drivers from road rage.
Wayne
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 16:17:32
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
Mike A Schwab wrote:
> Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists
>
> http://bikelib.org/
> http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm
>
Mike,
I've tried to find the exact wording of the Illinois "as far right as
practicable" statute but could not. Do you have a citation?
Wayne
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 21:25:31
From: Kristian M Zoerhoff
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On 2007-02-28, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote:
> Mike A Schwab wrote:
>
>> Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists
>>
>> http://bikelib.org/
>> http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm
>>
>
> I've tried to find the exact wording of the Illinois "as far right as
> practicable" statute but could not. Do you have a citation?
(625 ILCS 5/11-1505) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 111505)
Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
roadways Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. (a) Any person
operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at
less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place
and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as
practicable to the righthand curb or edge of the roadway except
under the following situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal
cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway; or
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving
vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make
it unsafe to continue along the righthand curb or edge. For
purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a
lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle
and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a oneway
highway with two or more ked traffic lanes may ride
as near the lefthand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.
(Source: P.A. 83549.)
<http://tinyurl.com/2mrklc >
Also note that "roadway" has a special definition under Illinois law:
(625 ILCS 5/1179) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1179)
Sec. 1179. Roadway.
That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for
vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a
highway includes two or more separate roadways the term "roadway" as
used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all
such roadways collectively.
(Source: P.A. 761586.)
In particular, the exclusion of shoulders from the "roadway" provides legal
justification for riding in the travel lanes, rather than off on the shoulder.
I've never tested this with anyone in an authority position, however, and I'm
perfectly using paved shoulders in some circumstances.
--
__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com
(_)/ (_)
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 16:30:10
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:frmFh.462$8i6.167@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> On 2007-02-28, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Mike A Schwab wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists
>>>
>>> http://bikelib.org/
>>> http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm
>>>
>>
>> I've tried to find the exact wording of the Illinois "as far right as
>> practicable" statute but could not. Do you have a citation?
>
> (625 ILCS 5/11-1505) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 111505)
> Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
> roadways Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. (a) Any person
> operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at
> less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place
> and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as
> practicable to the righthand curb or edge of the roadway except
> under the following situations:
> 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal
> cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
> 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
> private road or driveway; or
> 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but
> not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving
> vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians,
> animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make
> it unsafe to continue along the righthand curb or edge. For
> purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a
> lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle
> and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
> (b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a
> oneway
> highway with two or more ked traffic lanes may ride
> as near the lefthand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.
> (Source: P.A. 83549.)
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/2mrklc>
>
>
> Also note that "roadway" has a special definition under Illinois law:
>
> (625 ILCS 5/1179) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1179)
> Sec. 1179. Roadway.
> That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for
> vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a
> highway includes two or more separate roadways the term "roadway" as
> used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all
> such roadways collectively.
> (Source: P.A. 761586.)
>
> In particular, the exclusion of shoulders from the "roadway" provides
> legal
> justification for riding in the travel lanes, rather than off on the
> shoulder.
> I've never tested this with anyone in an authority position, however, and
> I'm
> perfectly using paved shoulders in some circumstances.
Sounds pretty sane to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3476 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 14:05:10
From:
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:30:10 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
<dhunt@colwestnospam.com > wrote:
>
>"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:frmFh.462$8i6.167@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> On 2007-02-28, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Mike A Schwab wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists
>>>>
>>>> http://bikelib.org/
>>>> http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've tried to find the exact wording of the Illinois "as far right as
>>> practicable" statute but could not. Do you have a citation?
>>
>> (625 ILCS 5/11-1505) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 111505)
>> Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
>> roadways Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. (a) Any person
>> operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at
>> less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place
>> and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as
>> practicable to the righthand curb or edge of the roadway except
>> under the following situations:
>> 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal
>> cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
>> 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
>> private road or driveway; or
>> 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but
>> not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving
>> vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians,
>> animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make
>> it unsafe to continue along the righthand curb or edge. For
>> purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a
>> lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle
>> and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
>> (b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a
>> oneway
>> highway with two or more ked traffic lanes may ride
>> as near the lefthand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.
>> (Source: P.A. 83549.)
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/2mrklc>
>>
>>
>> Also note that "roadway" has a special definition under Illinois law:
>>
>> (625 ILCS 5/1179) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1179)
>> Sec. 1179. Roadway.
>> That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for
>> vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a
>> highway includes two or more separate roadways the term "roadway" as
>> used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all
>> such roadways collectively.
>> (Source: P.A. 761586.)
>>
>> In particular, the exclusion of shoulders from the "roadway" provides
>> legal
>> justification for riding in the travel lanes, rather than off on the
>> shoulder.
>> I've never tested this with anyone in an authority position, however, and
>> I'm
>> perfectly using paved shoulders in some circumstances.
>
Contrast this with British Columbia, where recently it was decided in
court that the roaday on which a cyclists was required to ride "as far
to the right as practicable" _included_ the unpaved shoulder, should
there be any.
Only one of a number of anti-cycling laws existing there...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 09:02:22
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
<jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message
news:ocndu2l67ssspsqbs75pk76b5utq6onkl9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:30:10 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
> <dhunt@colwestnospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:frmFh.462$8i6.167@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> On 2007-02-28, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Mike A Schwab wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists
>>>>>
>>>>> http://bikelib.org/
>>>>> http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've tried to find the exact wording of the Illinois "as far right as
>>>> practicable" statute but could not. Do you have a citation?
>>>
>>> (625 ILCS 5/11-1505) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 111505)
>>> Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
>>> roadways Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. (a) Any person
>>> operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at
>>> less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place
>>> and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as
>>> practicable to the righthand curb or edge of the roadway except
>>> under the following situations:
>>> 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal
>>> cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
>>> 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
>>> private road or driveway; or
>>> 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but
>>> not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving
>>> vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians,
>>> animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that
>>> make
>>> it unsafe to continue along the righthand curb or edge. For
>>> purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means
>>> a
>>> lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal
>>> cycle
>>> and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
>>> (b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a
>>> oneway
>>> highway with two or more ked traffic lanes may ride
>>> as near the lefthand curb or edge of such roadway as
>>> practicable.
>>> (Source: P.A. 83549.)
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/2mrklc>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also note that "roadway" has a special definition under Illinois law:
>>>
>>> (625 ILCS 5/1179) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1179)
>>> Sec. 1179. Roadway.
>>> That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for
>>> vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a
>>> highway includes two or more separate roadways the term "roadway" as
>>> used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all
>>> such roadways collectively.
>>> (Source: P.A. 761586.)
>>>
>>> In particular, the exclusion of shoulders from the "roadway" provides
>>> legal
>>> justification for riding in the travel lanes, rather than off on the
>>> shoulder.
>>> I've never tested this with anyone in an authority position, however,
>>> and
>>> I'm
>>> perfectly using paved shoulders in some circumstances.
>>
>
> Contrast this with British Columbia, where recently it was decided in
> court that the roaday on which a cyclists was required to ride "as far
> to the right as practicable" _included_ the unpaved shoulder, should
> there be any.
>
> Only one of a number of anti-cycling laws existing there...
Makes me glad to be living in the United States where the soft shoulder is
not part of the Road itself and we shouldn't be riding there. We have
Goatheads the size of volkswagons here and they live and breed there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3549 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 13:53:29
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote:
>>>
>>>In particular, the exclusion of shoulders from the "roadway" provides
>>>legal
>>>justification for riding in the travel lanes, rather than off on the
>>>shoulder.
>>>I've never tested this with anyone in an authority position, however, and
>>>I'm
>>>perfectly using paved shoulders in some circumstances.
>>
>
> Contrast this with British Columbia, where recently it was decided in
> court that the roaday on which a cyclists was required to ride "as far
> to the right as practicable" _included_ the unpaved shoulder, should
> there be any.
>
> Only one of a number of anti-cycling laws existing there...
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.
Hume
The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Edmund Burke
Wayne
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 18:51:36
From: mark
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
Thanks for the links, I'm going to pass them on to local law enforcement.
k
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 05:36:29
From: DanKMTB@gmail.com
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On Feb 27, 11:48 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> No shit. I'm sick to death of the helmet panaceaists. I'd rather they
> just stated the facts about lids, that they can slightly reduce the
> force of impact (by 3mph, last I checked) and prevent some
> lacerations. That would be a reality check, bringing them down from
> the status of "magic beanie" to "moderate injury prevention device".
I'm curious where the 3mph thing comes from, and what type of helmet
it refers to. My main issue with most helmets has always been
coverage, and how much of your head (not to mention face) a normal
bike helmet leaves exposed. BMX/skate style helmets cover the back of
the head far better than traditional helmets, and full-face obviously
covers even more. I'd be shocked if my BMX & full-face helmets only
reduced the impact by 3mph; they've both been exposed to many somewhat
severe hits and seemed to do their job quite nicely. I'd guess they
were using the ultra-light all foam helmets in the tests that produced
3mph?
Dan "the guy with the helmet that never fits in" K
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 22:15:53
From:
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On Feb 27, 7:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote:
> k wrote:
> > Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> > I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
> > enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>
> Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.
I timed about 40 seconds on helmets. Not a lot out of the 7:24, but
they gave helmets at least three times the coverage they gave to any
other specific issue. As an example, they gave about 10 seconds to
talking about lights. Are helmets four times as important as lights?
And are they _really_ "the single most important piece of safety
equipment you can use"? More than, say, brakes?
At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
head injuries by 85%. This is one of very few bike safety pieces that
doesn't make that claim. Perhaps slow progress is being made.
If we can get them to include data on how much good helmets _really_
have made in large, real-world populations, we'd have something. But
then, they'd have to admit they're essentially worthless!
Otherwise, pretty good video.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 20:21:46
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>> k wrote:
>>> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>>> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
>>> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>> Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.
>
> I timed about 40 seconds on helmets. Not a lot out of the 7:24, but
> they gave helmets at least three times the coverage they gave to any
> other specific issue. As an example, they gave about 10 seconds to
> talking about lights. Are helmets four times as important as lights?
What percentage of the audience of such a video would ride at night?
> And are they _really_ "the single most important piece of safety
> equipment you can use"? More than, say, brakes?
Of course not, but the media would never be able to say that.
>
> At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
> head injuries by 85%.
Actually, if you consider that most accidents are minor falls, wearing
gloves probably reduces injuries by 85%.
--
David L. Johnson
You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but what canst
thou say? -- George Fox.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 12:47:55
From:
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On 27 Feb 2007 22:15:53 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
>head injuries by 85%. This is one of very few bike safety pieces that
>doesn't make that claim. Perhaps slow progress is being made.
>
Noting the steady increase in MHL's in the USofA, one cannot call that
"progress".
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 20:48:24
From: landotter
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On Feb 27, 9:19 pm, Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOS...@comcast.net > wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:20:49 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
> >k wrote:
> >> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> >> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
> >> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>
> >Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.
>
> "The single most important thing" you can do for your safety? So as
> long as you wear a helmet, you can ignore the rest of the video,
> because you're safer than someone who doesn't wear a helmet, doesn't
> ride with traffic, doesn't avoid the door zone, doesn't watch out for
> traffic pulling into or out of driveways?? Silly me, here I thought
> using your noggin and watching where you're going were more important
> than wearing a helmet!
No shit. I'm sick to death of the helmet panaceaists. I'd rather they
just stated the facts about lids, that they can slightly reduce the
force of impact (by 3mph, last I checked) and prevent some
lacerations. That would be a reality check, bringing them down from
the status of "magic beanie" to "moderate injury prevention device".
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 16:20:49
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
k wrote:
> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.
Bill "the chick (Selene Yeager?)'s a babe" S.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 21:19:21
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:20:49 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>k wrote:
>> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>>
>> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
>> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>
>Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.
"The single most important thing" you can do for your safety? So as
long as you wear a helmet, you can ignore the rest of the video,
because you're safer than someone who doesn't wear a helmet, doesn't
ride with traffic, doesn't avoid the door zone, doesn't watch out for
traffic pulling into or out of driveways?? Silly me, here I thought
using your noggin and watching where you're going were more important
than wearing a helmet!
Pat
Email address works as is.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 22:43:46
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: NHTSA bicycle safety video
|
Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:20:49 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>> k wrote:
>>> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>>>
>>> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
>>> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>>
>> Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.
>
> "The single most important thing" you can do for your safety? So as
> long as you wear a helmet, you can ignore the rest of the video,
> because you're safer than someone who doesn't wear a helmet, doesn't
> ride with traffic, doesn't avoid the door zone, doesn't watch out for
> traffic pulling into or out of driveways?? Silly me, here I thought
> using your noggin and watching where you're going were more important
> than wearing a helmet!
The video was very basic, thus directed at novice cyclists. While one may
quibble with that one little sentence, I don't think a 30-second primer on
proper helmet fit out of a nearly 8-minute presentation is "too
enthusiastic" at all. (Unless one is ideologically anti-lid, that is.) As
for the door zone and other issues, they covered them rather well I
thougtht.
And again, the woman was a babe.
Bill S.
|
|
