| |
Main
Date: 24 Jan 2007 18:24:44
From: nash
Subject: drivers speeding away
|
Hello fellow environment guardians.
This came to my attention when reading clean air tips at www.aircare.ca
"Avoid rapid acceleration (putting the pedal to the metal) which can produce
more than 40 times the emissions of normal driving."
That means when ever a driver gets pissed off from seeing a cyclists and
speeds up to get away from you like you are vermin he is polluting the air
40X more than if you were not there in front of him.
I know it IS there fault but that puts my world out of wack cause I believed
I was improving air quality and now it is a few degrees less so.
Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the motor
and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get everyone
shutting off the motor then. haha
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 23:06:55
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <1170433528.843825.18580@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
frkrygow@gmail.com writes:
> On Feb 2, 5:11 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <1170261361.851213.149...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> > (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
>> >> > example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
>> >> > clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
>> >> > just go, and stop confusing everybody.")
>>
>> >> I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
>> >> to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
>>
>> > Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
>> > one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
>> > everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
>> > I flow better within it.
>>
>> Sure, that's ultimately what the rules of the road
>> are for -- to make traffic flow better.
>>
>> I'm glad you brought this up, though, because
>> it invokes the social component of interacting
>> with fellow urban traffic. And I've found that
>> social component to be at least as significant
>> as awareness, or adherence to the "rules of the
>> road." Of course it takes more awareness than
>> adherence to the rules of the road to recognize
>> an operator of a vehicle as a /fellow/, than as
>> their vehicle, itself.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I recall a pair of images from a "Sprocketman" cartoon book for kids.
> The picture on the left was a view of a crowded city street, showing
> cyclists, pedestrians, car drivers, a bus with driver and passengers,
> etc.
>
> The matching picture pointed out that they were _all_ just people
> getting around, or words to that effect. That picture showed all
> those people in the same positions, but on foot instead of in their
> vehicles. The bus picture, with the driver standing in front of rows
> of standing passengers, seemed particularly funny.
>
> But it does make a couple good points. For example, no matter how big
> and classy your car is, you're still just another person who's allowed
> to use the roadway. You don't get extra privileges because you're
> driving an Escalade.
>
>> Two people at a lonely intersection, co-operating
>> instead of contending -- what's wrong with that?
>> Even if it's mutually decided that the guy on the
>> left may go first?
>
> Perhaps not much. But the four-way stops I go through on the way to
> work are not lonely, they're usually busy. And if the guy to my right
> starts waving me through, the guy to my left might run out of patience
> and zoom across at the same moment I accept the invitation.
>
> Let me give another, more extreme examplel of excessive politeness.
> The nice young teenage guy who lived next door was once approaching
> from the south on a busy two lane road as my wife and I rode south.
> We were getting ready to make a left turn onto a side street, and I
> noticed a gaggle of cars approaching from our rear. I was near the
> center line, figuring to turn as soon as the teen passed us.
>
> But he didn't. He began slowing and slowing, then came to a full stop
> in his lane, enthusiastically waving for us to turn in front of him.
> Cars behind him were blowing their horns, and cars behind us were
> squeezing by to our right. (My mistake - I didn't take the lane,
> because I figured we'd be gone before they arrived.)
>
> There are all sorts of non-standard moves that work out fine in
> deserted road circumstances. But I'm disussing interacting traffic in
> volume, not just one driver on a deserted country road. And I think
> there's no question that things almost always work out best if people
> follow the rules, instead of trying to be overly creative. The rules
> work.
Y'know, for a long time I've been listening to you
and Robert hashing it out, and I've come to to the
conclusion that your both right, but coming at the
ultimate point of the dialogue from divergent directions.
But I recently half-saw a documentary on TV (the
CBC news channel, to be honest) that put everything
into perspective. The documentary was about car drivers,
but it could pertain to any road/street user. It made
a distinct point about separating operational/technical
skill from innate behaviour.
I believe you're approaching the discussion from the
operational skill angle, while Robert approaches it
from the behaviour angle. No wonder you two have
never been able to reach consensus!
Anyways, here's an interesting approach to the
psychology of driving:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/LEONj/leonj/leonpsy/instructor/driving1.html
I guess it applies to riding as well.
Skills are good to have.
Behaviours can also be good to have.
Or, they can also be bad, and shoot us
in the foot despite our skills.
It's easy to be objective about skills;
not so easy to be objective about (let
alone govern) our own behaviours.
So I see you as saying: "Thou shalt not",
while i see Robert as saying: "Tread carefully."
With the right combination of skills and
behaviours, we can ride with more assurance
than with a bad combination of skills and
behaviours. But our own behaviours are
definitely in the mix, and they're part of
what ultimately gets us by, or lets us down.
So anyways, we ride according to a combination
of acquired skills *and* innate behaviours (some
of which we might need to re-learn or reconcider
to keep us from getting clobbered.)
An open mind is the universe.
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: 15 Feb 2007 18:13:50
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
So anyways, we ride according to a combination
of acquired skills *and* innate behaviours (some
of which we might need to re-learn or reconcider
to keep us from getting clobbered.)
An open mind is the universe.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
that was beautiful, I could almost cry when people make up lol
But seriously, you are right as I have experienced. I use to race around
trying to stay athletic. Averaging 15MPH so any car that would not let me
do that pissed me off. And visa versa the drivers I do not like are the
ones racing around as if where they are going is more important than where
you are so damn you all. SUVs and hot rods alike piss me off and drivers
who do not know the rules are probably the most annoying.
I am in awe of the nerve of those people whether they are in the grocery
store pushing me away or on the street.
Now, and my body can tell you. I do not feel like I have to race
against my self all the time. I do not get so pissed off anymore and no one
knows I was anyway so what good did it do. Just burned me up.
I can still go 28 miles to Vancouver so that is all I really need as
long as I can do it safely not necessarily the fastest ever.
An open mind is a beautiful thing
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 10:22:28
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
> > > through the eyes of a bike messenger.
> >
> > You can continue to believe that, if it makes you feel better.
>
> I'm just looking for some plausible explanation for your attitude that
> rules of the road are not important ("worthless shit," I think you
> said)...
You are definitely not going to win any awards
for reading comprehension. For a third
time:
> > I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
> > awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
> > (2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
> > road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
> > of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
> > rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
> > safer than 2 which is safer than 1.
Now do you think 3 safer than 2 or is 2 safer than 3?
> > And second, messengers spend a substantial portion of
> > their time riding in a completely lawful, conservative fashion
> > anyway.
>
> Yet their injury rates are quite high. See
> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
'Their injury rates are quite high,' Frank says. That's
really interesting that you should say that, because
that rate (injury/mile) for the messengers of Boston,
according to this survey and reasonable assumptions
about how many miles a Boston messenger would
ride in a year, seems about the same or
better than the rate found for experienced LAB
members in the Moritz study. That's the rate
you consistently cite as evidence that cycling is
incredibly safe.
For a full-time messenger, getting into an injury-causing
wreck every 30,000 miles or so (the rate in the Moritz study
which you consistently cite) means getting hurt about
.5 times per year, which is near the rate in the Harvard
study. To you, this rate magically seems 'quite high'
when applied to messengers and amazingly low when
applied to LAB members. To me, it's an
unworkable rate. But you've got to remember that
among those counted were a large number of
abject rookies, many of whom would have very little
experience riding in traffic, much less as messengers,
and dabblers who would not last through the month.
This tells us that the veteran messengers of Boston,
even though they experience thousands of interactions
each day, must havean injury-per-mile rate that is far
lower than that recordedby Moritz for LAB members.
Indeed, among the hundreds of messengers I've
known quite well, the injury rates of the veterans
tend to be at least 2-3 times better than the rate
in the Moritz survey, and better still than the rates
suffered by their hapless rookie compatriots, who I have
compared to the guys on Star Trek with the red shirts.
If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
to occur under a green light than a red one. That's
a key bit of knowledge I picked up over the years;
you will now choose to ignore it, I imagine.
> > About 6 hours per day on the bike in a
> > typical 9-10 hour day. 250 days per year. About
> > 15000 miles and 1500 hours per year in
> > moderate-heavy traffic. And you expect veteran
> > messengers to defer to you and your ilk as
> > the acknowledged experts on traffic cycling?
> > Sorry, Charlie.
>
> :-) As I pointed out, a messenger's priority set and perspective is
> far different from a normal cyclist.
>
> Yes, if I wanted advice on how to run red lights and survive, I'd
> consult with a bike messenger. In fact, I promise to write to you
> first!
>
> But if I want to move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
> risk of injury, while obeying laws, I think I'll pay more attention to
> the 50 to 100 experts who have made the most significant contributions
> to the understanding and teaching of Vehicular Cycling. And as far as
> I know, there's not much overlap between those groups.
If you want to know how to run lights, ask the person
who does it all day long every day. That would be a messenger.
If you want to 'move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
risk of injury, while obeying laws' ask the person who does that all
day long every day. That would also be a messenger.
As I said, a messenger in just a few years -- in addition to running
tens of thousands of lights -- will accomplish more
law-abiding and 'predictable' cycling than many of your '50-100
experts' will manage in their entire lives. It is right to
wonder then who the real experts might be.
> > Dear Mr. Fantasy, the 'adrenalin junkies' of which you
> > speak have accident rates that are far lower than any
> > accident rate you have ever cited on this newsgroup
> > as evidence that cycling is massively safe.
>
> Really? Odd, the results of the survey at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
> ergonomics/bike/
> seem to dispute your claims.
No, they don't.
> > No, it was 11 years avg. between 'serious'
> > crashes, at their paltry ~2500 miles per year.
>
> <sigh> Unfortunately, in Moritz's survey of bike commuters, ...
It wasn't a survey of bike commuters, it was a study
of LAB members. Although many of them were
commuters, most of the mileage reported in the survey
was in fact recreational.
> he defined $50 damage to equipment as "serious." So if you're walking
> your bike, drop it and bend an STI shifter, that gets reported as a
> "serious crash." IMO, it was a flaw in the survey methodology.
It seems you have to draw the line somewhere.
This is a vast improvement over the Kaplan survey
where respondents were left to draw their own line.
Where would you draw it?
>"Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than
> those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a
> problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have
> any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture
> wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be
> 40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between
> those kinds of injuries. " [Kifer]
Kifer's survey of touring cyclists jibes very well with the
Moritz survey of LAB members (who averaged over 14
years cycling experience). In both surveys we find
that about 1/3 of respondents had experienced at
least some sort of minor cycling injury in the previous
year; and about 10% had experienced some more
substantial injury in the previous year, while averaging
just a few thousand miles per year. Remember,
this is among populations who do most of their
riding for recreation, and much of the reported mileage
would be on lonely roads.
Tell me again: how do these surveys help prove that
cycling is 'extremely safe?'
Let's get real. These surveys record similar
accident rates to the one that gives the Boston
messenger population its off-the-charts occupational
hazard.
Robert
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 08:25:28
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Feb 2, 5:11 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <1170261361.851213.149...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> > (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
> >> > example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
> >> > clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
> >> > just go, and stop confusing everybody.")
>
> >> I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
> >> to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
>
> > Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
> > one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
> > everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
> > I flow better within it.
>
> Sure, that's ultimately what the rules of the road
> are for -- to make traffic flow better.
>
> I'm glad you brought this up, though, because
> it invokes the social component of interacting
> with fellow urban traffic. And I've found that
> social component to be at least as significant
> as awareness, or adherence to the "rules of the
> road." Of course it takes more awareness than
> adherence to the rules of the road to recognize
> an operator of a vehicle as a /fellow/, than as
> their vehicle, itself.
Agreed.
I recall a pair of images from a "Sprocketman" cartoon book for kids.
The picture on the left was a view of a crowded city street, showing
cyclists, pedestrians, car drivers, a bus with driver and passengers,
etc.
The matching picture pointed out that they were _all_ just people
getting around, or words to that effect. That picture showed all
those people in the same positions, but on foot instead of in their
vehicles. The bus picture, with the driver standing in front of rows
of standing passengers, seemed particularly funny.
But it does make a couple good points. For example, no matter how big
and classy your car is, you're still just another person who's allowed
to use the roadway. You don't get extra privileges because you're
driving an Escalade.
> Two people at a lonely intersection, co-operating
> instead of contending -- what's wrong with that?
> Even if it's mutually decided that the guy on the
> left may go first?
Perhaps not much. But the four-way stops I go through on the way to
work are not lonely, they're usually busy. And if the guy to my right
starts waving me through, the guy to my left might run out of patience
and zoom across at the same moment I accept the invitation.
Let me give another, more extreme examplel of excessive politeness.
The nice young teenage guy who lived next door was once approaching
from the south on a busy two lane road as my wife and I rode south.
We were getting ready to make a left turn onto a side street, and I
noticed a gaggle of cars approaching from our rear. I was near the
center line, figuring to turn as soon as the teen passed us.
But he didn't. He began slowing and slowing, then came to a full stop
in his lane, enthusiastically waving for us to turn in front of him.
Cars behind him were blowing their horns, and cars behind us were
squeezing by to our right. (My mistake - I didn't take the lane,
because I figured we'd be gone before they arrived.)
There are all sorts of non-standard moves that work out fine in
deserted road circumstances. But I'm disussing interacting traffic in
volume, not just one driver on a deserted country road. And I think
there's no question that things almost always work out best if people
follow the rules, instead of trying to be overly creative. The rules
work.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 02:11:45
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <1170261361.851213.149990@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
>> > (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
>> > example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
>> > clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
>> > just go, and stop confusing everybody.")
>>
>> I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
>> to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
>
> Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
> one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
> everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
> I flow better within it.
Sure, that's ultimately what the rules of the road
are for -- to make traffic flow better.
I'm glad you brought this up, though, because
it invokes the social component of interacting
with fellow urban traffic. And I've found that
social component to be at least as significant
as awareness, or adherence to the "rules of the
road." Of course it takes more awareness than
adherence to the rules of the road to recognize
an operator of a vehicle as a /fellow/, than as
their vehicle, itself.
Two people at a lonely intersection, co-operating
instead of contending -- what's wrong with that?
Even if it's mutually decided that the guy on the
left may go first? That goes against the legal
grain, but sometimes it's sociably beautiful, and
it works, when performed in a way that nobody
involved is too terribly put-out, and everybody
gets to go. Everybody wins. Except the Rules
and the Rule-Followers.
Y'know? Torah/Mitzvah. Letter of the law/spirit
of the law. Give/take (and by taking, give [and
take]).
You can't win, but that's okay because you're
not competing. It's not a contest or a game.
You're just trying to get around, just like
everybody else around you. You're one
of them. You're one of Us. Mobile people.
Continue to keep your eyes on the street and
seeing & anticipating what's happening up ahead.
Keep being safe and watch out for U-turners who
look like just left-turners.
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 Feb 2007 12:45:09
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
On Feb 1, 11:37 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Taken as a whole, car-bike collisions happen due to mistakes by either
> > party, and yes, inattention is a mistake. But it is certainly not the
> > only one. For one example, riding far enough left to avoid door
> > zones, to prevent unsafe passing, and to maximize visibility is a
> > tactic that helps prevent driver mistakes. Which is why it's a key
> > vehicular cycling principle.
>
> I know--classic stuff. Amazing how you guys always list these
> great reasons to ride left, but always seem to leave out the
> most important reasons. It's like there is a chunk of your
> brain missing.
Since I've explained at least 15 times that the "awareness" you count
as "most important" is NOT left out, I suppose I should ignore that
idee fixe of yours. Obviously, you're not going to understand.
> > I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
> > through the eyes of a bike messenger.
>
> You can continue to believe that, if it makes you feel better.
I'm just looking for some plausible explanation for your attitude that
rules of the road are not important ("worthless shit," I think you
said) and fear and hyper-awareness are needed to overcome the terrible
danger of bicycling on the road. I think the bike messenger thing
might be behind it.
> But, first of all, I actually became a messenger relatively
> late in my life as a bicyclist.
Not unusual.
> And second, messengers spend a substantial portion of
> their time riding in a completely lawful, conservative fashion
> anyway.
Yet their injury rates are quite high. See
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
> Even rookie messengers in their first few years
> probably do more 'vehicular cycling' than 90% of self-styled
> 'vehicular cyclists' accomplish in their entire lives.
Well, by God, since you're so opposed to "vehicular cycling," you'd
better get them to stop!! ;-)
> > Typical bike messengers spend about 40 hours per week rushing around
> > on their bikes in city traffic.
>
> Call it 30.
OK, I'll accept your quibble.
> About 6 hours per day on the bike in a
> typical 9-10 hour day. 250 days per year. About
> 15000 miles and 1500 hours per year in
> moderate-heavy traffic. And you expect veteran
> messengers to defer to you and your ilk as
> the acknowledged experts on traffic cycling?
> Sorry, Charlie.
:-) As I pointed out, a messenger's priority set and perspective is
far different from a normal cyclist.
Yes, if I wanted advice on how to run red lights and survive, I'd
consult with a bike messenger. In fact, I promise to write to you
first!
But if I want to move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
risk of injury, while obeying laws, I think I'll pay more attention to
the 50 to 100 experts who have made the most significant contributions
to the understanding and teaching of Vehicular Cycling. And as far as
I know, there's not much overlap between those groups.
> Dear Mr. Fantasy, the 'adrenalin junkies' of which you
> speak have accident rates that are far lower than any
> accident rate you have ever cited on this newsgroup
> as evidence that cycling is massively safe.
Really? Odd, the results of the survey at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
ergonomics/bike/
seem to dispute your claims. So - got data?
> > But that situation doesn't apply to any but a tiny minority of
> > cyclists. For anyone else, from raw beginners to long distance
> > tourists to dedicated commuters and utility cyclists, there are great
> > benefits to just riding with legal competence. If they don't run that
> > light, they're not going to lose a $10 bonus. ...
>
> So many myths about messengers out there...
> But messengers are still required, several times
> per day as part of the job, for a variety of reasons,
> to haul ass through traffic and break laws. They do
> it because they signed up for it and that's what
> they are being asked/required to do...
Whatever, Robert. That's just another quibble on your part.
> > [Ordinary bike commuters are]
> > able to relax a bit until the green comes, they can skip the
> > nighes car crashes, they don't have to worry about traffic tickets,
> > they can take their time negotiating lane changes, etc. And once they
> > learn to ride properly, they hardly ever get injured in even a minor
> > way. Remember the Moritz survey of commuters? 11 years between even
> > minor scrapes.
>
> No, it was 11 years avg. between 'serious'
> crashes, at their paltry ~2500 miles per year.
<sigh > Unfortunately, in Moritz's survey of bike commuters, he
defined $50 damage to equipment as "serious." So if you're walking
your bike, drop it and bend an STI shifter, that gets reported as a
"serious crash." IMO, it was a flaw in the survey methodology.
He also defined "seeking medical treatment" as "serious." But the
median cost of medical treatment was just over $150. It's pretty
obvious that we're talking about a median injury equal to road rash
cleaned out at the ER. Even a broken finger incurs much more expense
than a mere $150.
Of course, we've been over this many, many times. And of course,
you'll continue to distort the facts so you can hang on to your
"bicycling is dangerous" viewpoint.
> > > If you ride a lot for a long time it is not unlikely that
> > > you will be injured in some substantial fashion at some
> > > point in a bike-related injury.
>
> > That's fearmongering.
>
> Aah. Sorry, it's plain truth. Why do you
> fight it so hard?
Because words like "not unlikely" and "some subtantial" are
intentionally foggy, and chosen to instill fear. It's also true - and
more accurate - to say "Even if you ride for a long time, it's
unlikely that you'll be injured in any serious way." Why choose
phrasing designed to scare people away from cycling?
> It must really get you down.
> It is well accepted by all reasonable persons who
> look at this issue that cycling is far more
> injurious, on a per-hour or per-mile basis, than
> either driving or walking.
Only if you define "injurious" to include every scraped knee, and to
exclude cycling's health benefits.
Yes, if you were to bike everywhere instead of drive everywhere,
you'll almost certainly fall off your bike someday, and get the most
common bike injury - literally, a skinned knee. OTOH, if you drive
everywhere, you're far more likely to die early due to the effects of
being sedentary.
Like most of American society, you're accepting large and common risks
(e.g. death by heart disease) due to a fear of uncommon, minor risks
(falling off a bike).
> It is obvious to any
> sane and reasonable person why this is so.
> Shall we dredge up the Ken Kifer survey that
> found 'an injury is 33 times more likely to
> occur from riding a bike as opposed
> to driving a car for the same distance'? Whoops,
> looks like I just did...
>
> www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm
To quote:
"Q. 19: When asked about the nature of their most serious cycling-
related injury during the last 12 months,
161 said there was no accident or no injury that was a problem the
next day.
53 said they experienced road rash or other significant abrasions.
4 said they experienced minor concussion resulting in nothing worse
than a headache.
9 said they had a puncture wound, simple fracture, or broken bone.
2 said they had a major concussion resulting in loss of consciousness
or other short-term brain injury.
2 said they had a compound or skull fracture, and/or multiple broken
bones and non-permanent injuries.
None said they had a permanent injury or disability of any kind.
Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than
those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a
problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have
any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture
wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be
40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between
those kinds of injuries. "
And it's worth noting that the survey was not a random sample. In
other words, it's likely that a person who _had_ been injured in a
bike accident would be far more likely to seek out and respond to a
survey on bike accidents, compared to a person who had never had a
bike injury. (This, BTW, is one of the reasons I bowed out of helping
Ken with that survey.)
> > Avoiding car-bike collisions is no more of a concern
> > than avoiding car-pedestrian collisions - or, for that matter, house
> > fires, falling down stairs, drowning while swimming, being struck by
> > lightning...
>
> Avoiding car-bike collisions no more of a concern
> to regular CYCLISTS than house fires, stairs, etc.??
> Do you even read what you write?
Let's see: Do regular cyclists ever walk down stairs? Why yes, they
do! Can they seriously injure themselves doing so? Of course! In
fact, serious injuries from stairs are among the more common reasons
for visiting emergency rooms. Should a person therefore worry while
using stairs? No. Only the most timid people do.
Drowning while swimming is far more common than dying from car-bike
collisions. They're also more common per hour exposure. Should a
person therefore worry all the while he swims?
Deaths from being hit by a car while crossing a street are far more
common than deaths from car-bike collisions. They're also more common
per hour exposure. How much should a person worry before stepping off
the curb?
There are all sorts of dangers in life. Cycling is NOT one of the big
ones, especially for cyclists who ride properly.
You choose to scare people with tales of great harm due to cycling. I
choose to show people that cycling is not unusually harmful, and in
fact has benefits that greatly outweigh its minor risks.
Sorry that offends you so.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 08:37:59
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Taken as a whole, car-bike collisions happen due to mistakes by either
> party, and yes, inattention is a mistake.
These collisions tend to involve simultaneous mistakes
from both parties and one of the mistakes is almost always
inattention. It takes two to tango. If we can get real about
the nature of these snafus we might figure out how to
avoid them.
> But it is certainly not the
> only one. For one example, riding far enough left to avoid door
> zones, to prevent unsafe passing, and to maximize visibility is a
> tactic that helps prevent driver mistakes. Which is why it's a key
> vehicular cycling principle.
I know--classic stuff. Amazing how you guys always list these
great reasons to ride left, but always seem to leave out the
most important reasons. It's like there is a chunk of your
brain missing.
> > And messengers
> > typically run hundreds of thousands of lights without incident but
> > get tagged while daydreaming in a green light intersection.
>
> I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
> through the eyes of a bike messenger.
You can continue to believe that, if it makes you feel better.
But, first of all, I actually became a messenger relatively
late in my life as a bicyclist. I had already reeled off about
100,000 miles as a century rider, tourist, racer, and commuter.
I was a messenger for 15 years and also commuted
by bike every day for almost 20 years, year-round.
I've seen it from all sides.
And second, messengers spend a substantial portion of
their time riding in a completely lawful, conservative fashion
anyway. Even rookie messengers in their first few years
probably do more 'vehicular cycling' than 90% of self-styled
'vehicular cyclists' accomplish in their entire lives.
Messengers earn an understanding of traffic because
they are out in it all the time using a variety of styles
and techniques.
> Typical bike messengers spend about 40 hours per week rushing around
> on their bikes in city traffic.
Call it 30. About 6 hours per day on the bike in a
typical 9-10 hour day. 250 days per year. About
15000 miles and 1500 hours per year in
moderate-heavy traffic. And you expect veteran
messengers to defer to you and your ilk as
the acknowledged experts on traffic cycling?
Sorry, Charlie.
> If they are to make an adequate
> living, they're forced to routinely violate traffic laws.
> Their long
> hours of practice give them skills to (generally) get away with
> illegal tactics, and their "adrenalin junkie" attitudes help them
> enjoy the risk they impose on themselves. I can see how such a
> character would feel that rules are unimportant, and traffic is
> dangerous.
Dear Mr. Fantasy, the 'adrenalin junkies' of which you
speak have accident rates that are far lower than any
accident rate you have ever cited on this newsgroup
as evidence that cycling is massively safe. And yet,
such characters still have a respect for the dangers of traffic.
It's not hard to see the cause-and-effect! (Or is it?)
> But that situation doesn't apply to any but a tiny minority of
> cyclists. For anyone else, from raw beginners to long distance
> tourists to dedicated commuters and utility cyclists, there are great
> benefits to just riding with legal competence. If they don't run that
> light, they're not going to lose a $10 bonus. ...
So many myths about messengers out there,
this is probably the most prevalent, the idea that
messengers break laws because they're trying
to pad or maximize their paycheck. Fact is, a
courier is just as likely to scrounge an extra ten or twenty
by going extra slow than by going extra fast. Where
the runs come up, and when, it's pretty much random.
It's not like there is this bottomless pool of deliveries
and the messengers get as many as they can
drop. It used to be like that, sometimes, at the
busiest outfits. Not anymore. Now you are just
as likely to get rewarded with extra cash by
reading the paper for another five minutes.
(Friedman sure is an innocent little fellar, aint he?)
But messengers are still required, several times
per day as part of the job, for a variety of reasons,
to haul ass through traffic and break laws. They do
it because they signed up for it and that's what
they are being asked/required to do, not because
they think they're going to make any extra cash
doing it. (It is also part of the job requirement that
they not damage people or property as they
break traffic laws like they're goin out of style, which
in fact they are.) Yes, it is fun.
It should also be noted that if you see someone
who looks like they might be a messenger, the
chance that they are an actual messenger is
quite small, and most folks wouldn't be able to
recognize a real messenger even if she rode up and
delivered to them a bite on the ass.
> to be able to relax a bit until the green comes, they can skip the
> nighes car crashes, they don't have to worry about traffic tickets,
> they can take their time negotiating lane changes, etc. And once they
> learn to ride properly, they hardly ever get injured in even a minor
> way. Remember the Moritz survey of commuters? 11 years between even
> minor scrapes.
No, it was 11 years avg. between 'serious'
crashes, at their paltry ~2500 miles per year. 'Minor scrapes' were
much more frequent. About 1/3 of respondents (LAB members,
avg. 48 y.o. male professional with college degree) reported
suffering some kind of crash in the previous year; about 10%
suffered a 'serious' crash in the previous year.
www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm
> > If you ride a lot for a long time it is not unlikely that
> > you will be injured in some substantial fashion at some
> > point in a bike-related injury.
>
> That's fearmongering.
Aah. Sorry, it's plain truth. Why do you
fight it so hard? It must really get you down.
It is well accepted by all reasonable persons who
look at this issue that cycling is far more
injurious, on a per-hour or per-mile basis, than
either driving or walking. It is obvious to any
sane and reasonable person why this is so.
Shall we dredge up the Ken Kifer survey that
found 'an injury is 33 times more likely to
occur from riding a bike as opposed
to driving a car for the same distance'? Whoops,
looks like I just did...
www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm
So, what numbers do you have that would dispute
this?
If you think stating the truth is 'fearmongering,'
it can only mean that you find the truth to be
frightening. And that's okay, Frank, if you're
scared of the truth as you seem to be. But you
need to accept reality and deal with it so you
can make that first big step: pulling that bike
down from its hook in the garage. You want
fearmongering? I'll give you fearmongering--
you're going to have a heart attack if you
don't exercise regularly. Now go ride.
> Despite your fearmongering...
Okay.
> More fearmongering.
Uh huh.
> Fearmongering.
All right.
> Avoiding car-bike collisions is no more of a concern
> than avoiding car-pedestrian collisions - or, for that matter, house
> fires, falling down stairs, drowning while swimming, being struck by
> lightning...
Avoiding car-bike collisions no more of a concern
to regular CYCLISTS than house fires, stairs, etc.??
Do you even read what you write?
> > Do you honestly believe that?
>
> Yes! The number of pedestrian, motorcyclist, and car occupant deaths
> in the US each year absolutely dwarf the number of bicyclist deaths.
> When you have only 800 bike deaths versus roughly 5000 pedestrian
> deaths, roughly 2500 motorcycist deaths, and roughly 40,000 car
> occupant deaths?
Oh, I see. You mean 'often' in terms of absolute numbers, not
in terms of per encounter rates, like every other reasonable
person would mean it. Gotcha. Well, if you can absorb
the basics of statistical analysis we can begin to have
an actual discussion.
.
> > I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
> > awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
> > (2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
> > road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
> > of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
> > rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
> > safer than 2 which is safer than 1.
>
> If you can absorb the fact that #4 is what's taught in vehicular
> cycling books and classes, we'll both save a lot of time on this
> discussion.
You think you're teaching #4, but you're fooling
yourself. I'm trying to help you see how
you could _actually_ teach #4, but you
don't seem willing to listen.
Anyway, we all love #4 right? The question is do you
think 2 is safer than 3, which it seems you must to
remain consistent.
Robert
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2007 08:36:01
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 31, 12:48 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <1170219522.788427.190...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> frkry...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> >> Bikes are not cars. bikes are more like canoes, and
> >> cars are like cabin cruisers. A canoe can do some stuff
> >> that a cabin cruiser can't.
>
> > Of course. But let's get the context of my rek right. What do you
> > say to, for example, the brand new bike cop in my village who asked me
> > "Um... so, which side of the road am I supposed to ride on? I really
> > don't know."
>
> I'd suggest he should default to the good ol' ROW rules
> that he already knows about -- rules that have existed
> since the Roman iters.
And you are allowed that choice. My choice was to explain it by
reference to rules for cars, instead of Roman chariots. My way worked
fine. Perhaps yours would too...
> > The quick answer is that the rules of the road are almost entirely the
> > same for cars and bikes. Or: "If you wouldn't do it in a car, you
> > probably shouldn't do it on a bike." (That would have prevented him
> > from passing my car by riding facing traffic, which is what started
> > the discussion.)
>
> In my jurisdiction, official cyclist Emergency Responders are
> allowed to ride against traffic, ride on the sidewalk, and
> break all kinds of other laws in the course of their duties.
We all know that things are different for "Emergency Responders."
That wasn't the question at the time. When this cop passed me on the
right at an intersection, there was no emergency, and I was the only
visible motor vehicle. He asked me about Rule #1 for normally riding
a bike on the road, because he did not know the answer. Keep the red
herrings in the fish bucket, please.
>
> > (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
> > example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
> > clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
> > just go, and stop confusing everybody.")
>
> I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
> to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
I flow better within it.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 21:48:38
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <1170219522.788427.190340@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
frkrygow@gmail.com writes:
> On Jan 30, 11:33 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <1169876727.084487.312...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>> frkry...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> > In teaching League cycling courses, I've taught mostly folks who have
>> > drivers licenses. With them, the most efficient way to describe "rules
>> > of the road" behavior is, I think, to say "If you wouldn't do it in a
>> > car, you probably shouldn't do it on a bike."
>>
>> Bikes are not cars. bikes are more like canoes, and
>> cars are like cabin cruisers. A canoe can do some stuff
>> that a cabin cruiser can't.
>
> Of course. But let's get the context of my rek right. What do you
> say to, for example, the brand new bike cop in my village who asked me
> "Um... so, which side of the road am I supposed to ride on? I really
> don't know."
I'd suggest he should default to the good ol' ROW rules
that he already knows about -- rules that have existed
since the Roman iters.
> The quick answer is that the rules of the road are almost entirely the
> same for cars and bikes. Or: "If you wouldn't do it in a car, you
> probably shouldn't do it on a bike." (That would have prevented him
> from passing my car by riding facing traffic, which is what started
> the discussion.)
In my jurisdiction, official cyclist Emergency Responders are
allowed to ride against traffic, ride on the sidewalk, and
break all kinds of other laws in the course of their duties.
Sure, the /rules/ are the same.
> We all know there are exceptions. You can't walk a car down a
> sidewalk.
I've seen that done.
> You can't make a two-stage pedestrian-style left turn in a
> car.
I've seen that done, too (rolling start w/ a dead engine.)
I also know of some local designated bike routes where a
section might be blocked-off to one direction of traffic.
But the wrong-way drivers will cut through there anyways.
And y'know what? As long as they don't hurt anybody, I
don't mind too much.
> But the "Same rules" concept eliminates a lot of weird ideas
> people may have, and does it all at once.
>
>>
>> > I also quote whoever
>> > said "Same roads, same rights, same rules." I also quote Forester's
>> > statement, "Cyclists fare best when they act, and are treated as,
>> > drivers of vehicles."
>>
>> Sometimes I derive no advantage by asserting my rights.
>> In those times, I have no qualms about letting drivers
>> go by, uninterferred-with by me. They don't hit me, I
>> don't hit them. Everybody's happy and unscathed.
>
> Yep. I'm not claiming you must always assert every right. But most
> often, you'll do best if you act like a legal vehicle and just follow
> the rules. That usually lets traffic flow most smoothly, too.
I find what works best is to just sociably interact with 'em.
> (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
> example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
> clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
> just go, and stop confusing everybody.")
I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
It gets it over with faster, and lets everybody else go
without being held-up by other people's stoopid arguments.
I'm tired of pointing up and yelling: "Hey! /I'm/ the
one with the stop sign! Just f****'n go so I can go next!
And let the world around us at this intersection go, too."
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: 30 Jan 2007 20:58:42
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 30, 11:33 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <1169876727.084487.312...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> frkry...@gmail.com writes:
> > In teaching League cycling courses, I've taught mostly folks who have
> > drivers licenses. With them, the most efficient way to describe "rules
> > of the road" behavior is, I think, to say "If you wouldn't do it in a
> > car, you probably shouldn't do it on a bike."
>
> Bikes are not cars. bikes are more like canoes, and
> cars are like cabin cruisers. A canoe can do some stuff
> that a cabin cruiser can't.
Of course. But let's get the context of my rek right. What do you
say to, for example, the brand new bike cop in my village who asked me
"Um... so, which side of the road am I supposed to ride on? I really
don't know."
The quick answer is that the rules of the road are almost entirely the
same for cars and bikes. Or: "If you wouldn't do it in a car, you
probably shouldn't do it on a bike." (That would have prevented him
from passing my car by riding facing traffic, which is what started
the discussion.)
We all know there are exceptions. You can't walk a car down a
sidewalk. You can't make a two-stage pedestrian-style left turn in a
car. But the "Same rules" concept eliminates a lot of weird ideas
people may have, and does it all at once.
>
> > I also quote whoever
> > said "Same roads, same rights, same rules." I also quote Forester's
> > statement, "Cyclists fare best when they act, and are treated as,
> > drivers of vehicles."
>
> Sometimes I derive no advantage by asserting my rights.
> In those times, I have no qualms about letting drivers
> go by, uninterferred-with by me. They don't hit me, I
> don't hit them. Everybody's happy and unscathed.
Yep. I'm not claiming you must always assert every right. But most
often, you'll do best if you act like a legal vehicle and just follow
the rules. That usually lets traffic flow most smoothly, too.
(Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
just go, and stop confusing everybody.")
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 20:33:21
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <1169876727.084487.312720@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >,
frkrygow@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> On Jan 26, 6:24 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <1169766269.903611.261...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> frkry...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> > On Jan 25, 11:41 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>
>> >> > ...Because "being predictable" connotes
>> >> > relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
>> >> > really gotta look after ourselves.You said it all when you said it.
>>
>> >> > Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
>> >> > it is about being "predictable."Sing it, Brother!!!
>>
>> >> New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
>> >> predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
>> >> ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
>> >> and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
>> >> the drivers keep them safe.
>>
>> > The implication you state is only in your own mind.
>>
>> > Beginning cyclists are admonished to be visible and predictable
>> > because, without such instruction, so many of them are neither.
>> > Without instruction, most of them don't seem to know that rules of the
>> > road even exist for cyclists. Their behavior is random and dangerous
>> > to themselves.
[Proper attribution restored at this point]
>> When I learned to ride (a handful of decades ago) I was
>> immediately taught the protocol of right-of-way. In fact,
>> I figure Effective Cycling's 5 basic principles pretty much
>> sublimate down to that.
>>
>> I guess following a protocol is a manner of being
>> predictable.
>>
>> So why not specifically say: "observe (or at least
>> recognize) right-of-way rules" instead of just a
>> mamby-pambyishly glib: "be predictable?"
>
> You need to understand that my statement "be predictable" is in the
> context of responding to Robert. That's not the vocabulary emphasized
> in class nor in the various books and websites that espouse vehicular
> cycling;
Actually, I'll contend that it indeed /is/ from
that very vocabulary.
A finger-wagging, mother-hennish admonishment to
"be predictable" -- WTH does ~that~ mean?!
But put it in terms of ROW, and it makes sense.
Also note that a lot of drivers will not recognize
cyclists' rights of way, so you'd better not rely
on it to avoid incidents -- ROW is given, not taken.
> it's merely the way it was brought up in this particular
> thread.
To be fair, it's my fault. I hijacked nash's original post.
The word "predictable" came up, and I was already enmeshed
in another discussion about how cyclists should be somehow
"predictable". So I guess I got a little set-off, like
nitroglycerin.
> In teaching League cycling courses, I've taught mostly folks who have
> drivers licenses. With them, the most efficient way to describe "rules
> of the road" behavior is, I think, to say "If you wouldn't do it in a
> car, you probably shouldn't do it on a bike."
Bikes are not cars. bikes are more like canoes, and
cars are like cabin cruisers. A canoe can do some stuff
that a cabin cruiser can't.
> I also quote whoever
> said "Same roads, same rights, same rules." I also quote Forester's
> statement, "Cyclists fare best when they act, and are treated as,
> drivers of vehicles."
Sometimes I derive no advantage by asserting my rights.
In those times, I have no qualms about letting drivers
go by, uninterferred-with by me. They don't hit me, I
don't hit them. Everybody's happy and unscathed.
Sometimes I can do stuff that cars can't. Again,
everybody's happy and unscathed.
> But I also express that concept in other ways, especially when I've had
> pre-driving kids in my classes. One advantage of a class over an
> Internet posting is that you can explain (and demonstrate) concepts in
> many ways.
Yet it still boils down to the basic rules of ROW.
That's really what it's all about.
If there's somebody around to yield ROW to, I do.
If not ... it's Open Road, and my discretion.
No "attitude" directed toward anybody. It's just
when you can politely go, you might as well go.
As long as you're confidently aware enough to go.
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: 29 Jan 2007 18:57:37
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 29, 4:08 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote:
> > > [Cyclists are] "Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are
> > > overlooked.
> > > Less often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars
> > > are
> > > overlooked.
> > Do you honestly believe that?Yes! The number of pedestrian, motorcyclist, and car occupant deaths
> in the US each year absolutely dwarf the number of bicyclist deaths.
> When you have only 800 bike deaths versus roughly 5000 pedestrian
> deaths, roughly 2500 motorcycist deaths, and roughly 40,000 car
> occupant deaths?
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Only because there are less bicyclists than peds or cars to overlook.
> Percent is the operable word.
No, not "only because." (And you should note that Robert's claim that
cyclists are "often overlooked" had no hint of a per-mile or per-hour
component.)
If you dig up the best per-mile or per-hour data, you'll find that
cycling is safer than transportational walking by both measures. It's
also safer by far than riding a motorcycle. Cycling is probably more
dangerous than driving per mile, but many countries' statistics
indicate it's as safe or safer than driving per hour.
And even the data that shows cycling more dangerous per mile than
driving a car is really just comparing infinitesmals. Does it matter
to you if your risk of fatality on the bike is one fatality per 10
million bike miles, or one fatality per 100 million bike miles? How
many years will it take you to ride 10 million miles?
The general public and the cycling public have become convinced that
cycling is very dangerous - and people like Robert take perverse
pleasure in reinforcing that belief. But the dangers of cycling are
greatly exaggerated, and are in fact less than the dangers of many
activities we happily engage in.
Furthermore, the best way to greatly improve cycling's statistics is
to get cyclists to stop doing the things that cause the greatest
problem. In other words 1) get them to obey existing laws, and 2) get
them to learn to use their right to the road. These aren't the only
possible routes to improvement, but they are the places to start.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 12:00:50
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 29, 11:59 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Furthermore, you're bonkers. Most of the car-bike wrecks
> > > suffered by experienced adult cyclists occur when
> > > the cyclist is riding predictably according to the rules
> > > of the road.
>
> > That's fearmongering. Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
> > pretty much according to the rules of the road. If they do happen to
> > experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
> > riding.
>You just repeated my statement, which you labeled
> 'fearmongering.' Your statement is just as much
> fearmongering as mine.
It reads that way _only_ because you distorted my meaning by moving my
following paragraph. Here it is, restored:
" > > But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as
> > explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
> > "experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
> > wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
> > fearmongering."
>
> >Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
> > pretty much according to the rules of the road.
> Exactly. And how many
> of them took EC classes or read the book? Very small
> percentage. How are you going to serve these cyclists--
> by teaching them the importance of riding according
> to the rules of the road, which they already do? Brilliant!
First, the courses or book have never claimed to be the only way to
learn vehicular cycling; just the fastest and best.
But I've had many very experienced cyclists in my classes, including
coast-to-coast tourists and utility cyclists with decades of
experience. They invariably tell me they learned a lot, and it was
obvious from watching them. As one example, a woman locally famous
for her utility cycling, her long distance tours and her international
cycling learned a _lot_ about emergency stops and turns.
And it's interesting that, despite nearly 40 years of city riding,
recreational riding and international touring, she'd never needed to
learn those skills. Why? Because despite your fearmongering, proper
riding is simply not very dangerous!
> These car-bike collisions tend to occur at the
> confluence of driver mistake and _cyclist inattention_.
Taken as a whole, car-bike collisions happen due to mistakes by either
party, and yes, inattention is a mistake. But it is certainly not the
only one. For one example, riding far enough left to avoid door
zones, to prevent unsafe passing, and to maximize visibility is a
tactic that helps prevent driver mistakes. Which is why it's a key
vehicular cycling principle.
> Experienced riders minimize these occurrences through
> increasing and maintaining their level of awareness, not
> by increasing and maintaining their level of rule-following.
As usual, you oversimplify. There are many tactics beyond mere rule
following that expert cyclists can use. Increasing "awareness" is
hardly the only one. And those tactics - _including_ awareness - are
a standard part of vehicular cycling, covered in books and pamphlets
and videos, taught in classes.
> And messengers
> typically run hundreds of thousands of lights without incident but
> get tagged while daydreaming in a green light intersection.
I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
through the eyes of a bike messenger.
Typical bike messengers spend about 40 hours per week rushing around
on their bikes in city traffic. If they are to make an adequate
living, they're forced to routinely violate traffic laws. Their long
hours of practice give them skills to (generally) get away with
illegal tactics, and their "adrenalin junkie" attitudes help them
enjoy the risk they impose on themselves. I can see how such a
character would feel that rules are unimportant, and traffic is
dangerous.
But that situation doesn't apply to any but a tiny minority of
cyclists. For anyone else, from raw beginners to long distance
tourists to dedicated commuters and utility cyclists, there are great
benefits to just riding with legal competence. If they don't run that
light, they're not going to lose a $10 bonus. Instead, they're going
to be able to relax a bit until the green comes, they can skip the
nighes car crashes, they don't have to worry about traffic tickets,
they can take their time negotiating lane changes, etc. And once they
learn to ride properly, they hardly ever get injured in even a minor
way. Remember the Moritz survey of commuters? 11 years between even
minor scrapes.
[Ah! My paragraph is below, hidden from above, so as to remove
context!]
> > But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as
> > explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
> > "experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
> > wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
> > fearmongering.
> If you ride a lot for a long time it is not unlikely that
> you will be injured in some substantial fashion at some
> point in a bike-related injury.
That's fearmongering. "Not unlikely?" "Some substantial fashion?"
There are roughly 15 million miles ridden between bike fatalities.
Dedicated bike commuters ride 11 years between crashes causing either
as little as $50 equipment damage, or about $110 medical costs.
Despite your fearmongering, cycling is safer than walking.
> Car-bike collisions are the worst and can have devastating consequences.
More fearmongering. "Can have..." sure. And car-pedestrian
collisions are worse. And car-motorcycle collisions are terrible too,
and about 40,000 people die each year from car-car crashes. Despite
the _possiblity_ of "devastating consequences," cycling is actually
extremely safe.
> Avoiding them is the most important task we have.
Fearmongering. Avoiding car-bike collisions is no more of a concern
than avoiding car-pedestrian collisions - or, for that matter, house
fires, falling down stairs, drowning while swimming, being struck by
lightning...
There are hazards in the world. We behave properly and try to avoid
them. But paranoia and fearmongering are signs of psychological
problems.
> > [Cyclists are] "Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked.
> > Less often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
> > overlooked.
> Do you honestly believe that?
Yes! The number of pedestrian, motorcyclist, and car occupant deaths
in the US each year absolutely dwarf the number of bicyclist deaths.
When you have only 800 bike deaths versus roughly 5000 pedestrian
deaths, roughly 2500 motorcycist deaths, and roughly 40,000 car
occupant deaths?
> > Ah. "Ride whereever you like on the road, Johnny. Just remember, as
> > you ride facing traffic and blow through red lights, please maintain
> > awareness."
>
> > Such pap.
>
> > Again: On these newsgroups, I've been saying that one should follow
> > the rules of the road, and I've presented much evidence that proper
> > cycling is plenty safe.
>
> > You long been claiming that cycling is dangerous. And we see you now
> > believe following the rules of the road is not particularly important.
>
> > The cause and effect is certainly easy to understand!
> Sorry, I'm just not a very clear writer sometimes.
> You keep repeating the straw man that I would tell
> beginners to forget about traffic laws. Setting aside for
> a moment that nearly all beginners would be able to
> figure the basics of traffic cycling (ride according to
> basic rules with traffic not facing it) for themselves...
But of course, the 50% of dead cyclists who did _not_ figure out the
traffic laws should be temporarily ignored, right?
> And don't kneejerk your way to the conclusion
> that recognizing awareness as the key variable means
> completely writing off the utility of rule-following, because
> it doesn't.
I'm glad to see you don't want to "completely" ignore rule-following.
Perhaps we're making progress!
>
> I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
> awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
> (2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
> road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
> of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
> rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
> safer than 2 which is safer than 1.
If you can absorb the fact that #4 is what's taught in vehicular
cycling books and classes, we'll both save a lot of time on this
discussion.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 21:08:39
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
> > [Cyclists are] "Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are
> > overlooked.
> > Less often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars
> > are
> > overlooked.
> Do you honestly believe that?
Yes! The number of pedestrian, motorcyclist, and car occupant deaths
in the US each year absolutely dwarf the number of bicyclist deaths.
When you have only 800 bike deaths versus roughly 5000 pedestrian
deaths, roughly 2500 motorcycist deaths, and roughly 40,000 car
occupant deaths?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Only because there are less bicyclists than peds or cars to overlook.
Percent is the operable word.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 14:09:22
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:24:44 +0000, nash wrote:
> Hello fellow environment guardians.
> This came to my attention when reading clean air tips at www.aircare.ca
>
> "Avoid rapid acceleration (putting the pedal to the metal) which can produce
> more than 40 times the emissions of normal driving."
>
> That means when ever a driver gets pissed off from seeing a cyclists and
> speeds up to get away from you like you are vermin he is polluting the air
> 40X more than if you were not there in front of him.
> I know it IS there fault but that puts my world out of wack cause I believed
> I was improving air quality and now it is a few degrees less so.
Bicycle-car interaction aside...
Such acceleration is indeed a huge contributor to air pollution. This is
one reason for using roundabouts instead of 4-way stops or traffic lights.
> Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the
> motor
> and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get
> everyone shutting off the motor then. haha
I believe this is required in parts of Europe (Switzerland?)
Note that hybrid cars shut the engine off while stopped, and start
automagically when the accelerator is pressed.
Matt O.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 08:59:16
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > Furthermore, you're bonkers. Most of the car-bike wrecks
> > suffered by experienced adult cyclists occur when
> > the cyclist is riding predictably according to the rules
> > of the road.
>
> That's fearmongering. Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
> pretty much according to the rules of the road. If they do happen to
> experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
> riding.
You just repeated my statement, which you labeled
'fearmongering.' Your statement is just as much
fearmongering as mine.
>Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
> pretty much according to the rules of the road.
Exactly. And how many
of them took EC classes or read the book? Very small
percentage. How are you going to serve these cyclists--
by teaching them the importance of riding according
to the rules of the road, which they already do? Brilliant!
> If they do happen to
> experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
> riding [according to the rules of the road].
Yup. These car-bike collisions tend to occur at the
confluence of driver mistake and _cyclist inattention_.
Experienced riders minimize these occurrences through
increasing and maintaining their level of awareness, not
by increasing and maintaining their level of rule-following.
Isn't it obvious what the key variable is? And messengers
typically run hundreds of thousands of lights without incident but
get tagged while daydreaming in a green light intersection.
Isn't it obvious what the key variable is, and what the key
variable isn't? At some point those who continue to refuse
to understand the most self-evident truths about traffic
cycling will just have to get left behind as the rest of
the class moves on.
> But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as
> explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
> "experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
> wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
> fearmongering.
If you ride a lot for a long time it is not unlikely that
you will be injured in some substantial fashion at some
point in a bike-related injury. Car-bike collisions are
the worst and can have devastating consequences.
Avoiding them is the most important task we have.
For experienced riders, everything else amounts to
pomp and circumstance, sound and fury. Some
people understand this and some people don't.
I don't agree that it's 'fearmongering' to speak truth to
fellow cyclists. You sound like Dick Ch*n*y with that.
Also, it's weird getting lectured on how bad
it is or isn't 'out there' by a guy whose bike has no doubt
been hanging on a hook in the garage for several
weeks at least.
> > These collisions occur because cyclists
> > are often overlooked by drivers, no matter
> > how or where they ride, just as drivers overlook
> > motorcyclists and other cars;
>
> "Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked. Less
> often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
> overlooked.
Do you honestly believe that? What magical property
do cyclists possess that makes them harder to overlook
than cars and motorcycles? Is it the aura of self-righteousness?
> Not often enough to cause any large number of fatalities
> or serious injuries. Why the fearmongering?
>
> > Clearly, maintaining that level of awareness is of priy
> > importance, and everything else--from a safety
> > standpoint mind you--is secondary, including
> > rule-following.
>
> Ah. "Ride whereever you like on the road, Johnny. Just remember, as
> you ride facing traffic and blow through red lights, please maintain
> awareness."
>
> Such pap.
>
> Again: On these newsgroups, I've been saying that one should follow
> the rules of the road, and I've presented much evidence that proper
> cycling is plenty safe.
>
> You long been claiming that cycling is dangerous. And we see you now
> believe following the rules of the road is not particularly important.
>
> The cause and effect is certainly easy to understand!
Sorry, I'm just not a very clear writer sometimes.
You keep repeating the straw man that I would tell
beginners to forget about traffic laws. Setting aside for
a moment that nearly all beginners would be able to
figure the basics of traffic cycling (ride according to
basic rules with traffic not facing it) for themselves,
as I did when I was about 11 and headed downtown
to buy model airplanes at Levine's, that hypothetical lesson
should take about 15 seconds. The rest is anticipating
motorist mistakes, focusing awareness where and why, which
informs the decision of lateral positioning and everything
else. Without this vigilance, the rule-following framework
means little--it is actually safer to ride like a madman
anarchist with a high level of awareness than to ride
according to the rules of the road with one's head in
the clouds.
If you don't disclose to beginners what the key variable
is in their personal cycling safety--their own awareness --
then it seems to me you're just shooting smoke up
their asses. And don't kneejerk your way to the conclusion
that recognizing awareness as the key variable means
completely writing off the utility of rule-following, because
it doesn't.
I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
(2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
safer than 2 which is safer than 1. I know this because
of my particular background and experience.
You must believe that 2 is safer than 3 if you think that
plugging into the system is more important to cyclist safety than
awareness. In which case the beginners you teach are
ill-served.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 14:32:09
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
> I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
> awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
> (2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
> road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
> of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
> rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
> safer than 2 which is safer than 1. I know this because
> of my particular background and experience.
>
> You must believe that 2 is safer than 3 if you think that
> plugging into the system is more important to cyclist safety than
> awareness. In which case the beginners you teach are
> ill-served.
Robert,
I agree with much of what you say, as well as with much of what Frank
says. You are both right. However, you assume that your 4 categories
above are absolutes, while it is obvious that both awareness and rule
following are actually on continuums. Does ANYBODY fit in any of these
categories? For example, how does one ride without awareness and not
according to the rules of the road? Is he deaf and blind and moving
randomly?
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 21:16:37
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 27, 2:43 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The video shown in class has clips of motorists making right turns and
> > left turns, etc. into the paths of cyclists, and cyclists performing
> > the appropriate evasive maneuvers. How is that "lip service"?
>
> > Hell, our paper had photos of one of the courses I taught, showing a
> > student canted over in a 45 degree Jobst-like emergency turn during a
> > parking lot drill! How is that "lip service"?
>
> > The only way I know to make it more realistic would be to recruit a
> > volunteer motorist to try to run down the students during the on-road
> > exercises or during the road test. Maybe that would satisfy you?
> > Nonetheless, it would be unconscionably dumb.
> If you think the 'rock dodge' and 'insta-turn' represent
> substantial endorsement of defensive driving ideology, then
> clearly you have no grasp of that ideology. The defensive
> approach to traffic begins before the ride and is maintained
> throughout, silly goose, it is not activated suddenly at the
> moment of crisis.
And again, your complaints are based on your mistaken assumption of
how these classes are taught. And your complaints are driven by your
need to instill fear in cyclists.
>
> Teaching evasive maneuvers does not even rise to the level
> of giving lip service. The lip service I was referring to is
> 'Anticipating Motorist Mistakes' which is buried in the back
> of the book as if it were some sort of afterthought.
??
Sorry, but I think you're off base again. If by "the book" you mean
John Forester's _Effective Cycling_, I find "Motorists' Overtaking
Errors" way, way before the back of the book. Ditto the emergency
evasive maneuvers you now think seem to think are useless. Similarly,
in the standard classes that cover this material, such concepts are
covered in the video shown the first day.
I think your real objection is that there's no attempt to instill
fear. Take it as a compliment - the Vehicular Cycling world has
decided to leave that up to you. ;-)
> Unfortunately for the denizens of Effective
> Cycling, anticipating motorist mistakes is actually the
> most critical task that a cyclist has. Dealing with those
> moments is all-important--everything else in between is
> just politics, pomp and circumstance, hurt feelings, and
> other worthless shit that means absolutely nothing next
> to the possibility of having your life altered suddenly and
> irrevocably for the worse.
Amazing! So riding on the proper side of the road is "just
politics"? Using lights at night is mere "pomp"? Stopping for
traffic lights and stop signs is just "circumstance"? Proper lane
position is "worthless shit"?
Apparently nothing matters to you but scaring people with the remote
possibility that a crash might alter their lives "suddenly and
irrevocably." Indeed, even telling them how to best avoid that
doesn't matter as much as scaring them!
Astonishing.
>
> > > The key variable
> > > is not rule-following or lack thereof, but the rider's
> > > awareness of his/her surroundings regardless of
> > > rule-following.
>
> > Sorry, but you're deluding yourself. I'm sure your ninja-like skills
> > allow you to judge the value of any and all traffic laws; but most
> > cyclists are mere civilians, so to speak. Given the high percentage of
> > people that overestimate their own judgement skills, and given the high
> > percentage of cyclist fatalities that are doing things like riding
> > facing traffic, riding at night without lights and/or riding drunk, I
> > think rule following is key. Pretending otherwise is specious, and
> > most of society realizes that.
> It is generally recognized that about half of cyclist fatalities
> could be eliminated with proper cyclist behavior ie rule-following
> lights, sobriety, adulthood, etc.
Yes, and yet you imply that training to reduce that half of the
problem is "worthless shit."
> Do you have any answer for
> the other half? You keep telling us how idiot child cyclists and
> drunks can ride more safely. This isn't exactly front page news.
> The issue of importance is how can experienced adult cyclists
> neutralize drivers' mistakes.
And you keep refusing to believe the fact that neutralizing drivers'
mistakes is part of vehicular cycling education.
> > The first awareness needed, at least regarding bike-car interaction, is
> > awareness of how to fit smoothly into the traffic flow. That happens
> > mostly by following the rules of the road, and those rules are
> > fundamental. Second in importance come the finer points such as proper
> > lane position, communication with other road users, etc. Like
> > obedience to basic traffic laws, those techniques greatly reduce the
> > need for lightning reflexes and psychic tricks.
>
> > The awareness of possible motorist mistakes and proper evasive
> > maneuvers is good, but it's hardly as important as the first and second
> > points I list above.'...hardly as important...'
> Well, there you have it, Frank
> feels it is much more important for a rider to be predictable
> FOR drivers than to be 'predictive' OF them. Some (me for instance)
> would see that as a dangerous abdication of personal
> responsibility.
AFAIK, you're the only person making that claim. And you're foolishly
wrong yet again.
To teach cycling, one MUST start by making sure people ride their
bikes correctly - for example, on the proper side of the road, with
decent lane position. If you don't, how do you teach cyclists to "be
predictive" of driver behavior? Do you put out one set of rules for
those who ride up the left gutter? Another set for those cowering in
the right gutter? A separate set for those who ride in the door
zone? Yet another for those who ride at night with no lights?
The sane way is to get cyclists riding predictably - that is,
according to best practice. Once everyone understands where they
should be on the road, THEN you can say "Now this is what you do if a
motorist approaches a stop sign to your right..."
> What you have given us above is a vehement
> repudiation of the defensive mindset...
Bullshit.
> Furthermore, you're bonkers. Most of the car-bike wrecks
> suffered by experienced adult cyclists occur when
> the cyclist is riding predictably according to the rules
> of the road.
That's fearmongering. Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
pretty much according to the rules of the road. If they do happen to
experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
riding.
But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as
explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
"experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
fearmongering.
> These collisions occur because cyclists
> are often overlooked by drivers, no matter
> how or where they ride, just as drivers overlook
> motorcyclists and other cars;
"Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked. Less
often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
overlooked. Not often enough to cause any large number of fatalities
or serious injuries. Why the fearmongering?
> Clearly, maintaining that level of awareness is of priy
> importance, and everything else--from a safety
> standpoint mind you--is secondary, including
> rule-following.
Ah. "Ride whereever you like on the road, Johnny. Just remember, as
you ride facing traffic and blow through red lights, please maintain
awareness."
Such pap.
Again: On these newsgroups, I've been saying that one should follow
the rules of the road, and I've presented much evidence that proper
cycling is plenty safe.
You long been claiming that cycling is dangerous. And we see you now
believe following the rules of the road is not particularly important.
The cause and effect is certainly easy to understand!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 17:58:06
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
"Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked. Less
often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
overlooked. Not often enough to cause any large number of fatalities
or serious injuries. Why the fearmongering?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I often feel that drivers treat you like you are not there. So they come
too close and too fast for me to react and by the grace of God I am not hit.
If you are invisible riding by the rules are not going to help if there is a
murderer on the road.
He is just stating the glass is half empty. It might save someone's life it
may not. Everyone has their own opinion.
In fact the US is run on fearmongering just look at the President. Scary
guy. You think you are protecting your way of life by fighting wars. Talk
about putting the ball in the wrong basket. lol
So if a driver is having a bad day he takes it out on you, cat and mouse.
Immature truly. In a rush always. Irresponsible.
I still think the rules are there to protect us. 30 miles/hr etc. Starts
breaking down when we push the limit. The one that never works is stay to
the right next to the curb. They keep pushing the limits of my safety so I
have to take back the safety gin.
Turning left I have to keep my eyes on cars overtaking my right side. I
leave plenty of room for a freight train to be on the left but they do not
take it most of the time. It is wierd.
SN
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 11:43:04
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > It is implied in defensive driving ideology that any
> > halfbaked idiot can follow the rules of the road--what is
> > really important is constant vigilance toward other road users
> > (aka the defensive mindset), whereas vehicular cycling
> > seems to hold dearest the adherence to the basic
> > traffic principles, while paying lip-service at best to
> > defensive driving principles.
>
> Again, your "seems to" statement above merely illustrates your own
> misunderstanding. To say vehicular cycling "pays lip service at best
> to defensive driving" is ludicrous.
>
> The video shown in class has clips of motorists making right turns and
> left turns, etc. into the paths of cyclists, and cyclists performing
> the appropriate evasive maneuvers. How is that "lip service"?
>
> Hell, our paper had photos of one of the courses I taught, showing a
> student canted over in a 45 degree Jobst-like emergency turn during a
> parking lot drill! How is that "lip service"?
>
> The only way I know to make it more realistic would be to recruit a
> volunteer motorist to try to run down the students during the on-road
> exercises or during the road test. Maybe that would satisfy you?
> Nonetheless, it would be unconscionably dumb.
If you think the 'rock dodge' and 'insta-turn' represent
substantial endorsement of defensive driving ideology, then
clearly you have no grasp of that ideology. The defensive
approach to traffic begins before the ride and is maintained
throughout, silly goose, it is not activated suddenly at the
moment of crisis.
Teaching evasive maneuvers does not even rise to the level
of giving lip service. The lip service I was referring to is
'Anticipating Motorist Mistakes' which is buried in the back
of the book as if it were some sort of afterthought.
Unfortunately for the denizens of Effective
Cycling, anticipating motorist mistakes is actually the
most critical task that a cyclist has. Dealing with those
moments is all-important--everything else in between is
just politics, pomp and circumstance, hurt feelings, and
other worthless shit that means absolutely nothing next
to the possibility of having your life altered suddenly and
irrevocably for the worse.
> > The key variable
> > is not rule-following or lack thereof, but the rider's
> > awareness of his/her surroundings regardless of
> > rule-following.
>
> Sorry, but you're deluding yourself. I'm sure your ninja-like skills
> allow you to judge the value of any and all traffic laws; but most
> cyclists are mere civilians, so to speak. Given the high percentage of
> people that overestimate their own judgement skills, and given the high
> percentage of cyclist fatalities that are doing things like riding
> facing traffic, riding at night without lights and/or riding drunk, I
> think rule following is key. Pretending otherwise is specious, and
> most of society realizes that.
It is generally recognized that about half of cyclist fatalities
could be eliminated with proper cyclist behavior ie rule-following
lights, sobriety, adulthood, etc. Do you have any answer for
the other half? You keep telling us how idiot child cyclists and
drunks can ride more safely. This isn't exactly front page news.
The issue of importance is how can experienced adult cyclists
neutralize drivers' mistakes.
> > Do you agree that the key variable is the
> > rider's own awareness?
>
> The first awareness needed, at least regarding bike-car interaction, is
> awareness of how to fit smoothly into the traffic flow. That happens
> mostly by following the rules of the road, and those rules are
> fundamental. Second in importance come the finer points such as proper
> lane position, communication with other road users, etc. Like
> obedience to basic traffic laws, those techniques greatly reduce the
> need for lightning reflexes and psychic tricks.
>
> The awareness of possible motorist mistakes and proper evasive
> maneuvers is good, but it's hardly as important as the first and second
> points I list above.
'...hardly as important...' Well, there you have it, Frank
feels it is much more important for a rider to be predictable
FOR drivers than to be 'predictive' OF them. Some (me for instance)
would see that as a dangerous abdication of personal
responsibility. What you have given us above is a vehement
repudiation of the defensive mindset--which followed
an equally vehement protest that vehicular cycling
ideology in fact embraces the defensive mindset (it
does not). Confusion!
Furthermore, you're bonkers. Most of the car-bike wrecks
suffered by experienced adult cyclists occur when
the cyclist is riding predictably according to the rules
of the road. These collisions occur because cyclists
are often overlooked by drivers, no matter
how or where they ride, just as drivers overlook
motorcyclists and other cars; these collisions also
involve moments of cyclist inattention, non-vigilance, and
surprise. With a certain level of awareness a cyclist
can predict driver mistakes and avoid these collisions.
Clearly, maintaining that level of awareness is of priy
importance, and everything else--from a safety
standpoint mind you--is secondary, including
rule-following. In fact--self-conscious rule-following
can have a narcotic effect on the cyclist's
external awareness, and the rule-following
cyclist (perhaps lolled into complacency with the
assurance that they are taking care of the most
important task) may have to work even harder to
maintain a safe level of awareness than someone
who is seen as a dangerous traffic anarchist.
This may not be as obvious to someone with
different background and experience.
> If we pretend one has to be a mind-reading, ninja-skilled zen master to
> ride a bike safely, we're telling people to never get out of their
> cars.
What is this 'mind-reading, ninja-skilled zen master' crap?
I'm just talking about simple vigilance in traffic. There's
nothing magical about it. It's either on or it's off.
A cyclist can ride (1) without awareness and not according to
the rules of the road, which is really bad obviously, (2) without
awareness and according to the rules of the road, (3) with
awareness and not according to the rules of the road, or
(4) with awareness and according to the rules of the road.
One thing I am dead certain of is that 4 is safer than 3 which
is safer than 2 which is safer than 1. For those who are
convinced that plugging into the system is more important
than maintaining simple vigilance, and emphasize visibility
over vision, it seems more likely that they drift into the
lowly 2 category, the realm of surprise and pain.
And anyway, why don't you quit worrying about what message
we may or may not send to people who may or may not
ever get out of their cars and start speaking truth to people
who are cool enough to have already made that choice.
Have some respect for your audience.
Robert
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 22:24:59
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 26, 8:54 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 11:17 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Nobody - or at least, no competent teacher - begins teaching
> > fine points of defensive driving to a student who doesn't know the
> > rules of the road. The rules come first - things like drive on the
> > right, stop for stop signs, stop for red lights, proceed only when
> > clear, etc. If you don't follow basic rules, you can't possibly defend
> > against the chaos you'd cause.
> It is implied in defensive driving ideology that any
> halfbaked idiot can follow the rules of the road--what is
> really important is constant vigilance toward other road users
> (aka the defensive mindset), whereas vehicular cycling
> seems to hold dearest the adherence to the basic
> traffic principles, while paying lip-service at best to
> defensive driving principles.
Again, your "seems to" statement above merely illustrates your own
misunderstanding. To say vehicular cycling "pays lip service at best
to defensive driving" is ludicrous.
The video shown in class has clips of motorists making right turns and
left turns, etc. into the paths of cyclists, and cyclists performing
the appropriate evasive maneuvers. How is that "lip service"?
Hell, our paper had photos of one of the courses I taught, showing a
student canted over in a 45 degree Jobst-like emergency turn during a
parking lot drill! How is that "lip service"?
The only way I know to make it more realistic would be to recruit a
volunteer motorist to try to run down the students during the on-road
exercises or during the road test. Maybe that would satisfy you?
Nonetheless, it would be unconscionably dumb.
> > > Those heavily invested in 'vehicular cycling' ideology
> > > seem to have trouble even admitting that the traffic system
> > > is prone to breakdowns. Dangerous.
>
> > I find it telling that the guy who argues strenuously that the rules of
> > the road don't matter, is the same guy who proclaims that cycling is
> > dangerous.
> I never argued that the rules of the road don't matter.
> What I said was that following the rules alone
> will not keep you safe.
Fine. As I've explained at least 14 times, that is thoroughly covered
in the relevant classes, in the book that first popularized the ideas,
and I believe in most pamphlets and websites that competently explain
vehicular cycling. You just keep missing it.
> The key variable
> is not rule-following or lack thereof, but the rider's
> awareness of his/her surroundings regardless of
> rule-following.
Sorry, but you're deluding yourself. I'm sure your ninja-like skills
allow you to judge the value of any and all traffic laws; but most
cyclists are mere civilians, so to speak. Given the high percentage of
people that overestimate their own judgement skills, and given the high
percentage of cyclist fatalities that are doing things like riding
facing traffic, riding at night without lights and/or riding drunk, I
think rule following is key. Pretending otherwise is specious, and
most of society realizes that.
> This seems to me a critical and
> fundamental principle of safe cycling--why does
> VC dogma not mention it?
Why does VC not put generalized "awareness" before rules of the road?
Because the nationally prominent, expert cyclists that developed
Vehicular Cycling principles disagree with you. They think that, for
example, a cyclist riding the proper direction will have so much less
need of ninja skills that it's best to get people on the right side of
the road first.
> Do you agree that the key variable is the
> rider's own awareness?
The first awareness needed, at least regarding bike-car interaction, is
awareness of how to fit smoothly into the traffic flow. That happens
mostly by following the rules of the road, and those rules are
fundamental. Second in importance come the finer points such as proper
lane position, communication with other road users, etc. Like
obedience to basic traffic laws, those techniques greatly reduce the
need for lightning reflexes and psychic tricks.
The awareness of possible motorist mistakes and proper evasive
maneuvers is good, but it's hardly as important as the first and second
points I list above.
If we pretend one has to be a mind-reading, ninja-skilled zen master to
ride a bike safely, we're telling people to never get out of their
cars.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 07:15:31
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
we're telling people to never get out of their
cars.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They can get out and walk. If they feel safer. Poor drivers are also poor
cyclists probably 10X worse.
They give good cyclists a bad name. That is also why I think I get treated
badly when I am not doing anything wrong. They just think you are another
stoned cyclist or punk. Too bad for them I guess cause they are not
thinking right either.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 21:45:27
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 26, 6:24 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <1169766269.903611.261...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> frkry...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > On Jan 25, 11:41 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
> >> > ...Because "being predictable" connotes
> >> > relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
> >> > really gotta look after ourselves.You said it all when you said it.
>
> >> > Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
> >> > it is about being "predictable."Sing it, Brother!!!
>
> >> New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
> >> predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
> >> ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
> >> and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
> >> the drivers keep them safe.
>
> > The implication you state is only in your own mind.
>
> > Beginning cyclists are admonished to be visible and predictable
> > because, without such instruction, so many of them are neither.
> > Without instruction, most of them don't seem to know that rules of the
> > road even exist for cyclists. Their behavior is random and dangerous
> > to themselves.When I learned to ride (a handful of decades ago) I was
> immediately taught the protocol of right-of-way. In fact,
> I figure Effective Cycling's 5 basic principles pretty much
> sublimate down to that.
>
> I guess following a protocol is a manner of being
> predictable.
>
> So why not specifically say: "observe (or at least
> recognize) right-of-way rules" instead of just a
> mamby-pambyishly glib: "be predictable?"
You need to understand that my statement "be predictable" is in the
context of responding to Robert. That's not the vocabulary emphasized
in class nor in the various books and websites that espouse vehicular
cycling; it's merely the way it was brought up in this particular
thread.
In teaching League cycling courses, I've taught mostly folks who have
drivers licenses. With them, the most efficient way to describe "rules
of the road" behavior is, I think, to say "If you wouldn't do it in a
car, you probably shouldn't do it on a bike." I also quote whoever
said "Same roads, same rights, same rules." I also quote Forester's
statement, "Cyclists fare best when they act, and are treated as,
drivers of vehicles."
But I also express that concept in other ways, especially when I've had
pre-driving kids in my classes. One advantage of a class over an
Internet posting is that you can explain (and demonstrate) concepts in
many ways.
You also need to understand that these classes do not rely on mere talk
& chalk. There's classroom discussion, video, demos using models, etc.
but there's parking lot work (that's where emergency turns are taught,
for example) and there are hours of road work among motor vehicles,
with lots of stops for discussion.
> Or one could optionally, list the 5 basic principles
> of Effective Cycling at them. But I'd still put them
> in context of right-of-way.
I suppose each teacher explains things slightly differently. That's
normal. But good teachers will still get the ideas across.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 18:02:44
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <1169853310.866331.82480@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
frkrygow@gmail.com writes in part:
> Furthermore, you ignore the fact that, when teaching cycling, there
> are many people who do NOT know the most basic rules.
That's scary, because chances are they drive cars
with the same ignorance.
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: 26 Jan 2007 17:54:08
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:17 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Talk about putting the ball
> > > > in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> > > > it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> > > > and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> > > > is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> > > > shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> > > > different things to different people.
> > > Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?
>
> > We do. It's called defensive driving ideology.
>
> Baloney. Nobody - or at least, no competent teacher - begins teaching
> fine points of defensive driving to a student who doesn't know the
> rules of the road. The rules come first - things like drive on the
> right, stop for stop signs, stop for red lights, proceed only when
> clear, etc. If you don't follow basic rules, you can't possibly defend
> against the chaos you'd cause.
It is implied in defensive driving ideology that any
halfbaked idiot can follow the rules of the road--what is
really important is constant vigilance toward other road users
(aka the defensive mindset), whereas vehicular cycling
seems to hold dearest the adherence to the basic
traffic principles, while paying lip-service at best to
defensive driving principles.
> >
> > Can you imagine if we taught people to drive, or ride
> > motorcycles, using your logic? "Just be visible and
> > predictable for all the other drivers out there, and
> > everything will work out swimmingly!! We'll teach
> > you how to turn the steering wheel sharply in
> > chapter 32, but you'll probably never need to!!"
> >
> > > "It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
> > > 'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."
>
> > What a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said anything about
> > ignoring traffic law being part of safe riding.
>
> I'm responding to your straw man. Dozens of times, you've
> characterized vehicular cycling as "JUST follow the rules and you'll do
> fine." But AFAIK, it's _never_ taught that way. The official League
> of American Bicyclists' curricula for its courses has _always_ included
> theory and practice on evasive maneuvers. It's always had students out
> in parking lots practicing panic stops, emergency turns etc. It's
> always included information on spotting potential driver mistakes.
> Dozens of times, I've explained that, but you seem incapable of either
> believing it or retaining it.
I know exactly what it includes. Defensive driving ideology has
been back-burnered in Effective Cycling and remains so in
the evolving education programs which sprang from it
(although there are certainly reasonable LCIs out there
who have augmented their programs to reflect reality).
> Furthermore, you ignore the fact that, when teaching cycling, there
> are many people who do NOT know the most basic rules. I can give many
> more examples than I already have - like the sporty young man on a new
> performance bike, snazzy cycling clothes, brand new helmet etc, on a
> club ride who made a left turn by swerving first to the left gutter.
> That sort of behavior MUST be corrected first, before we get into any
> emergency maneuvers, let alone any "zen of traffic" mysticism.
VC indoctrination is good for these people. It is unclear
what good it does for an experienced rider.
> > Those heavily invested in 'vehicular cycling' ideology
> > seem to have trouble even admitting that the traffic system
> > is prone to breakdowns. Dangerous.
>
> I find it telling that the guy who argues strenuously that the rules of
> the road don't matter...
I never argued that the rules of the road don't matter.
What I said was that following the rules alone
will not keep you safe. You can follow the rules
and still be riding unsafely. Conversely, it is
sometimes possible to ignore the rules in a
safe manner. (Keeping in mind that there are a
whole load of issues surrounding rule-breaking that
are separate from the safety issue.) The key variable
is not rule-following or lack thereof, but the rider's
awareness of his/her surroundings regardless of
rule-following. This seems to me a critical and
fundamental principle of safe cycling--why does
VC dogma not mention it?
Do you agree that the key variable is the
rider's own awareness? Do you agree that
being 'predictive' (to use Tom's word) of others
is more important than being predictable for
others?
Robert
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 15:46:34
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <45ba6303$0$27066$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes:
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
>> of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
>> them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
>
> The main pillars of vehicular cycling are not to be visible and
> predictable as you assert. Obviously the main pillar of vehicular
> cycling is to operate a bicycle as a vehicle, following vehicular rules
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In other words, observing the right of way protocol.
Why are people (especially cyclists) so loathe to
outrightly say: "right of way", and instead, dance
around such succint phrasing with foggy euphemisms
such as "rules of the road," "vehicular rules," &c?
Anyways, the "main pillars", or the 5 Principles of
Effective Cycling pretty much boil down to observing
and recognizing good ol' Right Of Way.
cheers,
Tom
> rather than pedestrian rules.
>
> Wayne
>
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 21:18:21
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <45ba6303$0$27066$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
>
>>r15757@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
>>>of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
>>>them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
>>
>>The main pillars of vehicular cycling are not to be visible and
>>predictable as you assert. Obviously the main pillar of vehicular
>>cycling is to operate a bicycle as a vehicle, following vehicular rules
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> In other words, observing the right of way protocol.
> Why are people (especially cyclists) so loathe to
> outrightly say: "right of way", and instead, dance
> around such succint phrasing with foggy euphemisms
> such as "rules of the road," "vehicular rules," &c?
>
Since I was specifically distinguishing between rules for vehicle
operators vs rules for pedestrians, I don't believe I was being foggy.
Vehicle operators use the road, drive with traffic, and have their own
set of right of way rules, whereas pedestrians use sidewalks (if
available), walk in either direction on same, walk facing traffic when
using the road, and have their own set of right of way rules with
respect to interaction with motor traffic.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 15:36:20
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <7Rruh.806565$1T2.534257@pd7urf2no >,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes:
> First thing's first: jettison idealized notions of the
> traffic system.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> I have a small problem with that. Everyone starts making their own rules
> and it slows me down. Me sticking to the rules that is.
Follow right-of-way rules and everything else
just naturally falls into place. Except when
other road users don't follow the rules. That's
when you've gotta be predictful instead of
predictable.
Right-of-way rules are not "idealized notions
of the traffic system" -- they're how it
/really/ works. Plain & simple.
Sometimes there are exceptions. That's what
signage is supposed to handle. No more, no less.
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: 26 Jan 2007 15:24:24
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <1169766269.903611.261080@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
frkrygow@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> On Jan 25, 11:41 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>
>> > ...Because "being predictable" connotes
>> > relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
>> > really gotta look after ourselves.You said it all when you said it.
>>
>> > Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
>> > it is about being "predictable."Sing it, Brother!!!
>>
>> New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
>> predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
>> ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
>> and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
>> the drivers keep them safe.
>
> The implication you state is only in your own mind.
>
> Beginning cyclists are admonished to be visible and predictable
> because, without such instruction, so many of them are neither.
> Without instruction, most of them don't seem to know that rules of the
> road even exist for cyclists. Their behavior is random and dangerous
> to themselves.
When I learned to ride (a handful of decades ago) I was
immediately taught the protocol of right-of-way. In fact,
I figure Effective Cycling's 5 basic principles pretty much
sublimate down to that.
I guess following a protocol is a manner of being
predictable.
So why not specifically say: "observe (or at least
recognize) right-of-way rules" instead of just a
mamby-pambyishly glib: "be predictable?"
Or one could optionally, list the 5 basic principles
of Effective Cycling at them. But I'd still put them
in context of right-of-way.
And maybe add: "No matter what you do while riding,
you're an operator of a vehicle -- not a pedestrian,
until you dismount." Because unpredictability occurs
when someone alternately assumes the right-of-way
rules as a vehicle operator, or as a pedestrian, at the
drop of an hat. And /that/, I think, is the crux of
the biscuit -- that misapplication of right-of-way is
what people are thinking of when they complain of the
"unpredictability" of cyclists. But they evidently
don't think in terms of right-of-way themselves, since
they don't mention it. Maybe because they're also
ignorant of the concept of right-of-way. Maybe they're
the "red means stop, green means go, and that's all
you need to know" crowd.
> I've seen beginning cyclists who were intelligent people do things like
> zoom to the left gutter 100 feet before an intersection because they
> planned to turn left. I've seen them shoot out into a road in front of
> a barreling semi-truck, somehow thinking it would be OK. I've seen
> them ride down sidewalks at over 15 mph, including past a blind
> driveway intersections where a car was pulling out.
I'd sure hate to see how they drive. They obviously
have no understanding of right-of-way.
> The first task is to get them to obey ordinary, logical rules of the
> road - that is, to be predictable.
See what I mean? "Be predictable" is so general,
and can be taken a number of ways. But if you
were to inform them that vehicular right-of-way
rules apply to them, that narrows it down and makes
the point more succinctly.
A fringe benefit to thinking in terms of right-of-way
is that it drives home the point that interrelations
on the road are /social/. For example, your
gutter-hugger cyclist who suddenly decides to make a
left turn. If there was a car driver upcoming from
behind in the inside lane, the rider no doubt would
have surprised him. The misdeed performed by the rider
was violating the driver's right-of-way.
> Soon after that idea's implanted,
> you can work on other concepts, like reacting to driver behavior.
>
>> Talk about putting the ball
>> in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
>> it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
>> and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
>> is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
>> shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
>> different things to different people.
>
> Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?
>
> "It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
> 'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."
>
> First things first.
First thing before setting wheel to road is to
understand the protocol of right-of-way. Those
/are/ the ultimate Rules Of The Road. Not just
being <pfffft > somehow "predictable."
cheers, & Common Law is time-tested & true,
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: 26 Jan 2007 15:15:11
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 26, 11:17 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Talk about putting the ball
> > > in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> > > it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> > > and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> > > is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> > > shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> > > different things to different people.
> > Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?
> We do. It's called defensive driving ideology.
Baloney. Nobody - or at least, no competent teacher - begins teaching
fine points of defensive driving to a student who doesn't know the
rules of the road. The rules come first - things like drive on the
right, stop for stop signs, stop for red lights, proceed only when
clear, etc. If you don't follow basic rules, you can't possibly defend
against the chaos you'd cause.
>
> Can you imagine if we taught people to drive, or ride
> motorcycles, using your logic? "Just be visible and
> predictable for all the other drivers out there, and
> everything will work out swimmingly!! We'll teach
> you how to turn the steering wheel sharply in
> chapter 32, but you'll probably never need to!!"
>
> > "It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
> > 'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."
> What a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said anything about
> ignoring traffic law being part of safe riding.
I'm responding to your straw man. Dozens of times, you've
characterized vehicular cycling as "JUST follow the rules and you'll do
fine." But AFAIK, it's _never_ taught that way. The official League
of American Bicyclists' curricula for its courses has _always_ included
theory and practice on evasive maneuvers. It's always had students out
in parking lots practicing panic stops, emergency turns etc. It's
always included information on spotting potential driver mistakes.
Dozens of times, I've explained that, but you seem incapable of either
believing it or retaining it.
Furthermore, you ignore the fact that, when teaching cycling, there
are many people who do NOT know the most basic rules. I can give many
more examples than I already have - like the sporty young man on a new
performance bike, snazzy cycling clothes, brand new helmet etc, on a
club ride who made a left turn by swerving first to the left gutter.
That sort of behavior MUST be corrected first, before we get into any
emergency maneuvers, let alone any "zen of traffic" mysticism.
>
> One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
> of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
> them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
^^^
And, as always, the "all" in the preceding sentence is a figment of
your imagination.
> Any twelve year-old jack donkey can ride down the
> road as part of the traffic system. The question is, what
> happens when the system breaks down. Will you be
> surprised, or will you be ready. That's really all that
> matters. Everything else is distraction.
Have you never seen a cyclist ride down the wrong side of a road,
facing traffic? Have you never seen a cyclist ride at night without
lights? Do you REALLY think it's "a distraction" to fail to correct
those mistakes?
If so, you're quite hopeless.
> Those heavily invested in 'vehicular cycling' ideology
> seem to have trouble even admitting that the traffic system
> is prone to breakdowns. Dangerous.
I find it telling that the guy who argues strenuously that the rules of
the road don't matter, is the same guy who proclaims that cycling is
dangerous.
It's not hard to see the cause-and-effect relationship!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 08:17:42
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Talk about putting the ball
> > in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> > it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> > and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> > is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> > shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> > different things to different people.
> Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?
We do. It's called defensive driving ideology.
Can you imagine if we taught people to drive, or ride
motorcycles, using your logic? "Just be visible and
predictable for all the other drivers out there, and
everything will work out swimmingly!! We'll teach
you how to turn the steering wheel sharply in
chapter 32, but you'll probably never need to!!"
> "It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
> 'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."
What a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said anything about
ignoring traffic law being part of safe riding.
One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Any twelve year-old jack donkey can ride down the
road as part of the traffic system. The question is, what
happens when the system breaks down. Will you be
surprised, or will you be ready. That's really all that
matters. Everything else is distraction.
Those heavily invested in 'vehicular cycling' ideology
seem to have trouble even admitting that the traffic system
is prone to breakdowns. Dangerous.
First thing's first: jettison idealized notions of the
traffic system.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 07 Feb 2007 23:08:26
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
On Feb 6, 3:53 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> ... The techniques you advocate are likely to take the next 18 year
> old who reads them, and wrap him around a Chevrolet.
...and...
> The type of behavior that you advocate...
Please! Sir!
Careful readers will note that I am not 'advocating' for
(or against) any specific type of behavior, and I am
definitely not suggesting that cyclists should go out and
break laws. I am simply pointing out that upon which
our safety ultimately _depends_, and that upon which
it does not ultimately depend.
thanks for keeping it straight,
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 15:22:27
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
> One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
> of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
> them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
The main pillars of vehicular cycling are not to be visible and
predictable as you assert. Obviously the main pillar of vehicular
cycling is to operate a bicycle as a vehicle, following vehicular rules
rather than pedestrian rules.
Wayne
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jan 2007 18:34:43
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
First thing's first: jettison idealized notions of the
traffic system.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have a small problem with that. Everyone starts making their own rules
and it slows me down. Me sticking to the rules that is.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 15:04:29
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 25, 11:41 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
> > ...Because "being predictable" connotes
> > relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
> > really gotta look after ourselves.You said it all when you said it.
>
> > Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
> > it is about being "predictable."Sing it, Brother!!!
>
> New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
> predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
> ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
> and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
> the drivers keep them safe.
The implication you state is only in your own mind.
Beginning cyclists are admonished to be visible and predictable
because, without such instruction, so many of them are neither.
Without instruction, most of them don't seem to know that rules of the
road even exist for cyclists. Their behavior is random and dangerous
to themselves.
I've seen beginning cyclists who were intelligent people do things like
zoom to the left gutter 100 feet before an intersection because they
planned to turn left. I've seen them shoot out into a road in front of
a barreling semi-truck, somehow thinking it would be OK. I've seen
them ride down sidewalks at over 15 mph, including past a blind
driveway intersections where a car was pulling out.
The first task is to get them to obey ordinary, logical rules of the
road - that is, to be predictable. Soon after that idea's implanted,
you can work on other concepts, like reacting to driver behavior.
> Talk about putting the ball
> in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> different things to different people.
Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?
"It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."
First things first.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 13:33:24
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
nash wrote:
> Hello fellow environment guardians.
> This came to my attention when reading clean air tips at www.aircare.ca
>
> "Avoid rapid acceleration (putting the pedal to the metal) which can produce
> more than 40 times the emissions of normal driving."
>
> That means when ever a driver gets pissed off from seeing a cyclists and
> speeds up to get away from you like you are vermin he is polluting the air
> 40X more than if you were not there in front of him.
> I know it IS there fault but that puts my world out of wack cause I believed
> I was improving air quality and now it is a few degrees less so.
That is THEIR fault, not yours.
>
> Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the motor
> and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get everyone
> shutting off the motor then. haha
For years now I've been turning off my car at lights when I know I will
have to sit there for a long cycle.
Wayne
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 19:53:54
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
For years now I've been turning off my car at lights when I know I will
have to sit there for a long cycle.
Wayne
Do you know if it has harmed your engine any?
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 17:26:20
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
nash wrote:
> For years now I've been turning off my car at lights when I know I will
> have to sit there for a long cycle.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> Do you know if it has harmed your engine any?
>
>
No harm noticed.
Wayne
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 20:10:13
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
nash wrote:
> For years now I've been turning off my car at lights when I know I will
> have to sit there for a long cycle.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> Do you know if it has harmed your engine any?
>
>
It sounds like the starter would be the first to go. If there were a way
to pre-lube the oil pressure then there would be 0.0 bad side effects on
the engine. There was a company in San Jose, Ca. that made a kit like
that but I haven't checked to see if they are still in business.
I was wondering why there are no partial hybrids on the ket with just
enough battery to handle parking lot rush hour driving. When I worked in
Silicon Valley I drove the 140 miles on Monday morning then rented a
cheap motel room for the week. From there I could cycle to work and
watch all the cars parked in a solid jam up. Most of the gas and
pollution is caused by hours of stop and go (0-5MPH-0) repeating this
all the way to work 5 days a week.
If somebody could make (and sell) something like this (cagers are
stubborn) it would kill most of the pollution. A roof adorned with solar
panels to charge the battery pack might make it possible to commute all
week on battery power alone.
Thinking way outside the box,
Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 20:57:38
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
about the parking lot traffic.
Did you see the Global Dimming Documentary on Knowledge Network or anywhere.
Global Dimming is keeping us from being flooded by sea water. It reflects
sunlight and is caused by air pollution. Tested on a 3 day no flights in
N.America ban after 911. The difference was one C. just from not having
contrails from air planes. LA was the example. So banning air pollution is
the opposite of what we should be thinking about because Global Warming
would then be unleashed full force.
I might just have to move up country to get away from the Tsunami.
In twenty five years is when we can expect massive problem. Animals already
dieing, methane escaping from permafrost and burning at the surface.
Ethiopian starvation crisis was caused by air pollution. Could be dust,
emmissions etc. The water is held longer in the clouds by jagged particles
and thus it will not rain.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 08:39:01
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
You've made some silly posts before, but...
nash wrote:
> about the parking lot traffic.
>
> Did you see the Global Dimming Documentary on Knowledge Network or anywhere.
> Global Dimming is keeping us from being flooded by sea water. It reflects
> sunlight and is caused by air pollution. Tested on a 3 day no flights in
> N.America ban after 911. The difference was one C. just from not having
> contrails from air planes. LA was the example. So banning air pollution is
> the opposite of what we should be thinking about because Global Warming
> would then be unleashed full force.
LOL!!! Do you really believe that? The only reason we rely on
particulate matter* to contribute to our albedo is that we've lost so
much due to the receding ice caps.
From a human health standpoint, PM is the worst kind of air pollution.
Saying that we need it...oh forget it.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 18:25:18
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
"Paul Hobson" <gtg611a@mail.gatech.edu > wrote in message
news:eqf95n$j2a$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
> You've made some silly posts before, but...
>
> nash wrote:
>> about the parking lot traffic.
>>
>> Did you see the Global Dimming Documentary on Knowledge Network or
>> anywhere.
>> Global Dimming is keeping us from being flooded by sea water. It
>> reflects sunlight and is caused by air pollution. Tested on a 3 day no
>> flights in N.America ban after 911. The difference was one C. just from
>> not having contrails from air planes. LA was the example. So banning
>> air pollution is the opposite of what we should be thinking about because
>> Global Warming would then be unleashed full force.
>
> LOL!!! Do you really believe that? The only reason we rely on particulate
> matter* to contribute to our albedo is that we've lost so much due to the
> receding ice caps.
>
> From a human health standpoint, PM is the worst kind of air pollution.
> Saying that we need it...oh forget it.
I try to make people laugh. What I do not understand is all the arguments
going on here. You may have misunderstood. I do not think it is silly.
And as usual people always comment on what they know nothing about.
Troll is what you are trying to cause a fight according to your troll like
stature and negative attitude. I never said Global warming is good. We
have to look at the bigger picture because the doc will explain you do not
know what you are dealing with. Fixing one thing without full knowledge of
what is going on will bring disaster shortly. What is so silly? You are
kill filed. dead in the head. Obviously no one here knows anything about
it. Not one comment.
You take yourself too seriously maybe. spam spam spam I love spam.
Everything I told this group came true this year if you read or watch the
news. Plastic, cancer the whole gammit. Your bullying is over.
SN
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:27:19
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
nash wrote:
> You take yourself too seriously maybe. spam spam spam I love spam.
> Everything I told this group came true this year if you read or watch the
> news. Plastic, cancer the whole gammit. Your bullying is over.
1) Cry me a river.
2) It's clear you didn't understand my post
3) I'll try to make it simple for you
you wrote:
>>> Did you see the Global Dimming Documentary on Knowledge Network or
>>> anywhere.
>>> Global Dimming is keeping us from being flooded by sea water. It
>>> reflects sunlight and is caused by air pollution.
That reflection is called albedo. This instance of it that you mention
is due to particulate matter, casually called PM by civil/environmental
engineers and scientists, etc. The work of a former professor of mine
(Dr. Mike Bergin at GA Tech) analyzes it's true impact on global
climate. Its anthropogenic source is the combustion of fossil fuels.
Diesel and coal are particularly bad. Volcanoes contribute a amount as
well. As ice caps and snow cover have melted with increasing arctic
temperature, the Earth's albedo has decreased dramatically.
>>> Tested on a 3 day no
>>> flights in N.America ban after 911. The difference was one C. just from
>>> not having contrails from air planes. LA was the example.
Ok. So you're saying that a 3-day sample is definitive proof that the
lack of air traffic in L.A. caused a 1 deg. C increase in temperature.
Was it sea surface temperature? Air temperature at sea level? Either
way, I laugh at that conclusion as being anything more than a "partially
educated shot in the dark." Don't agree with me? Fine. But I've
enough graduate environmental data analysis courses under my belt to
feel pretty confident in my assessment with the given info.
>>> So banning
>>> air pollution is the opposite of what we should be thinking about because
>>> Global Warming would then be unleashed full force.
That statement speaks for itself.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 18:12:14
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
Saying that we need it...oh forget it.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are insane. Look at the show. I did not say that. Global warming
would be alot worse without it. Both are a problem. Knowledge is not a
problem. It is a fact.
go elsewhere with your kindergarten comments please
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:33:25
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
nash wrote:
> Saying that we need it...oh forget it.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> You are insane. Look at the show.
Wait. It's on TV so it's true? Tip: stop watching the idiot box.
> I did not say that. Global warming
> would be alot worse without it. Both are a problem. Knowledge is not a
> problem. It is a fact.
You realize that increase in albedo due to particulate matter is offset
by the other effects of global warming, right?
Less combusted fuels
-- > cooler air temp
-- > more ice caps
-- > greater albedo
-- > no need for PM
> go elsewhere with your kindergarten comments please
LOL. See my other post below.
\\paul
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 08:41:13
From:
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> ...Because "being predictable" connotes
> relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
> really gotta look after ourselves.
You said it all when you said it.
> Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
> it is about being "predictable."
Sing it, Brother!!!
New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
the drivers keep them safe. Talk about putting the ball
in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
different things to different people.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 14:53:51
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
On Feb 5, 4:07 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> CONTINUED...
>
> On Feb 2, 3:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > [R12345:]
> > > If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
> > > to occur under a green light than a red one.
> > I'll simply ask for documentation. Got data?
>
> Well, I have known so many messengers that
> I know with certainty that my own experience -- of
> burning several hundred thousand red lights
> without a single incident but getting hit while
> riding lawfully -- is the typical one.
Hmm. "Your own experience." Sounds like you've got no data.
> Running a red light puts your mind in a
> certain place.
:-) I'll leave that "place" to the imagination of the readers!
> There is no pretense that
> this or that vehicle will slow or stop or
> yield in any way. You KNOW you have to
> remain absolutely vigilant. Under a green,
> however, it is far easier to make happy
> assumptions, drift off.
One of the major weaknesses of your argument is this: While none of
us would dare doubt your ninja-like awareness and reflexes, your
amazing ability to become one with the stream of traffic, and your
ability to rise above any need for obeying traffic laws... ;-)
... The techniques you advocate are likely to take the next 18 year
old who reads them, and wrap him around a Chevrolet.
Of _course_ he's going to "know" he's good enough to pull off any move
he wants to. That's what being 18 is all about. And he may even have
excellent reflexes, excellent speed and excellent vision.
But the odds are all he's really got is an excellent testosterone
level, and the stupid feeling of invulerability that comes with it.
The type of behavior that you advocate is decried not only recognized
bicycling experts; it's also decried by motorcycling experts and
driving experts.
> > Is crossing an intersection with the green light better or worse than
> > that for crossing under the red light?
>
> > You seem to be saying it makes no difference;
>
> I'm saying it depends.
Wonderful. Leave it to the instantaneous judgement of an 18 year old
kid in a hurry? Yeah, that should work.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2007 14:40:25
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
On Feb 5, 1:55 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
> > > > > awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
> > > > > (2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
> > > > > road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
> > > > > of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
> > > > > rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
> > > > > safer than 2 which is safer than 1.
>
> > > Now do you think 3 safer than 2 or is 2 safer than 3?
>
> > I do think riding according to the rules of the road is safer than
> > violating them, even if the violater is more aware."
> You think 2 is safer than 3. Which is horribly incorrect.
Got data? Because it seems the rest of the world - except, perhaps,
for a few gonzo messengers - disagrees.
> (1) Without awareness and not according to the rules of the
> road: rider blows a red light or stop sign without even
> realizing it; ... et cetera...
And thankfully, nobody is advocating that riding style.
> (2) Without awareness and according to the rules of
> the road: rider passing legally through green light fails
> to account for possibility of left-turner not seeing him;
[etc.]
And again, nobody is advocating that riding style.
Which is, of course, one of the roots of our disagreement. You
falsely claim Vehicular Cycling (or Effective Cycling) teaches that
style. But it most certainly does not, and I've given many examples
as proof.
> > But I do think riding according to the rules of the road is safer than
> > violating them, even if the violater is more aware.
>
> Over several decades, bike messengers have proven this
> assertion of yours wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Well, then, there must be reams of data that indicate this without a
shadow of a doubt, right?
Where is that data?
Unfortunately, until now you're apparently the only person who has
found that data. The rest of the bicycling community seems to
disagree.
Oh, except for folks like Wrong Way Bill, who says "Yeah, I ride
facing traffic so I can see 'em coming." So I guess that's two of
you.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 18:24:57
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
<r15757@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1169743273.622561.7790@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>> ...Because "being predictable" connotes
>> relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
>> really gotta look after ourselves.
>
> You said it all when you said it.
>
>> Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
>> it is about being "predictable."
>
> Sing it, Brother!!!
>
> New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
> predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
> ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
> and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
> the drivers keep them safe. Talk about putting the ball
> in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> different things to different people.
>
> Robert
Just as being totally unpredictable like young irresponsible people you also
cause havoc. Cars do not go jumping off sidewalks into traffic without
warning. They do not use signals very much and cause me to slow down but I
always signal and get in the right lane and they think that is
irresponsible. Again, for the record, I did not say cyclists should be
predictable. I said cars are in tight traffic since they are like in a pace
line-up or something until you get to an intersection and then you can see
alot of them getting ready to turn without even using their signals. They
do not pay me the same courtesy though if I am looking for an opening. Some
might but they cannot always see what I see.
On 140th going north I turn left at 96th. Even though the light is red
drivers will give me a honk when I am changing lanes. I know where they are
but they honk anyway and then they have to stop after 100 ft. They do not
use vision. Otherwise they would have known the light was about to turn red
or is red but they are obnoxious all the same. Just makes me think they
need to ride a bike every second year, no driving to keep them up to snuff.
lol
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 22:30:59
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <7UXth.783245$1T2.191664@pd7urf2no >,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes:
> No
> matter what you are wrong.
That pretty much sums-up driver/cyclist relations.
That's how it's always been.
Maybe trying to change it is futile, and what we
have to do is learn to live & deal with it, and be
practical instead of idealistic.
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: 24 Jan 2007 20:52:07
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
In article <G6Wth.784809$5R2.781320@pd7urf3no >,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes:
>
> "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:wBVth.814391$QZ1.321234@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "nash" wrote: (clip) I believed I was improving air quality and now it
>> is a few degrees less so. (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> So if, God forbid, you were to be the victim of a hit-run, you would share
>> in the guilt?
> No I am just MADD One step forward two steps back per usual.
> Good thing you mentioned that
> Why is it always with less drivers on the road they act more dangerous.
Why is it cyclists are admonished to "act predictably", while
drivers are admonished through the media to "drive responsibly"?
Anyways it seems to me that being "predictable" ain't worth a
pinch of raccoon droppings if the people (car drivers) we'd try
to be predictable to, /can't/ (or won't) predict. Especially
when they're so unpredictable, themselves.
Toeing the social line and "being predictable" and being
Mr. Compliant is no better, and much worse a survival
tactic than just being heads-up and aware of what's
going on all around, and dealing with stuff as it
presents itself. Because "being predictable" connotes
relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
really gotta look after ourselves.
Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
it is about being "predictable."
Besides, among /all/ types of road users, there's no
such thing as "predictable."
Another thing I wonder about -- when you're riding
up to a stop line on a minor street, a driver ahead
of you insists on you queuing in an orderly and
"predictable" fashion behind them -- but when you
on your bike is in front, the driver coming up from
behind insists on sidling up beside you, sharing
the stop line, and blocking your sight line to
the left?
cheers, & be predictful,
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: 25 Jan 2007 13:29:51
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
Tom Keats wrote:
>
> Another thing I wonder about -- when you're riding
> up to a stop line on a minor street, a driver ahead
> of you insists on you queuing in an orderly and
> "predictable" fashion behind them -- but when you
> on your bike is in front, the driver coming up from
> behind insists on sidling up beside you, sharing
> the stop line, and blocking your sight line to
> the left?
>
>
The do it because they CAN because the bicyclist has allowed it by being
to the right. The further you ride to the ride the greater the
invitation to use your lane, whether you are moving or stopped.
Wayne
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 06:13:23
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
Actually, I said the cars are predictable. More to the right they will turn
right and probably without signalling until the last few feet for example.
Therefore, predictable.
When they are on a crowded street they are less likely to try and change
lanes. Just little stuff like that that you learn from being with them. So
when they are hitting a red light I go left of them and get in front of
someone before they need to turn right.
So besides the main thing you got it right. Your predictableness. Not
saying you are wrong just that you are not right. :)
I do not ever rely on a prediction but being fast to get out of the way
helps. I also drive with the intention that no driver will ever feel the
need to honk. I just hate that. Even though I am 100X faster than they
think. I just do not like people looking and thinking Oh another
irresponsible cyclist. People in Montreal drive fast because they are good
not crappy.
No sense of timing, they do not know we follow the same rules they do. Even
the pedestrians look at you like you are not allowed to be there. I could
join them but I might get a black eye.
>>Another thing I wonder about -- when you're riding
up to a stop line on a minor street, a driver ahead
of you insists on you queuing in an orderly and
"predictable" fashion behind them -- but when you
on your bike is in front, the driver coming up
from<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
There is a street called Whalley Ring Rd where it Ts into Fraser Hwy.
One lane turning right two lanes for left, so I am where I am suppose to be
cause I am turning left which is inside that lane to the curb side.
Everytime someone comes up that lane to also turn left they would give me a
rough time about being in their lane. Well, next time I try other side of
the line and the right turn lane gets filled behind me and they give me a
bad time. The language, so anyway. So I move my bike, because I get
harrassed so much, depending on who comes in behind me after I've already
stopped and put my foot down. After a few times I stopped being nice. No
matter what you are wrong. So I do not even go that way now. Just by pass
the light and get ahead of them on the bike path and cross the street. More
than one way to skin a cat. Sorry Felix.
there were many things that brought out the worst in me on that left
turn lane, mostly wise asses passing me when they had no lane left or
purposefully stopping in front and to the right because they saw I road
fast.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 03:37:00
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
"nash" wrote: (clip) I believed I was improving air quality and now it is
a few degrees less so. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So if, God forbid, you were to be the victim of a hit-run, you would share
in the guilt?
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 04:12:22
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:wBVth.814391$QZ1.321234@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "nash" wrote: (clip) I believed I was improving air quality and now it
> is a few degrees less so. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> So if, God forbid, you were to be the victim of a hit-run, you would share
> in the guilt?
No I am just MADD One step forward two steps back per usual.
Good thing you mentioned that
Why is it always with less drivers on the road they act more dangerous.
Less witnesses to the crime. Seems like that to me. I can depend on other
drivers witnessing this hit and run in heavy traffic so it is less likely to
happen. Except for that fellow earlier in 2006 here. ( Hope your wrist is
better.) They drive more predictably since they are in a paced line-up and
hopefully quite alert.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:10:37
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> I think Dennerlein's injury standard would be better: missing at
> least one day of work.
A lost-work injury for a messenger is not the
same as a lost-work injury for a non-messenger.
Anything that keeps a courier off the bike, keeps
them from walking the requisite several miles
per day, OR keeps them from hauling the
requisite weight on their shoulder or back
would result in missed work. What kind
of cycling injury would keep a desk pilot
from going to work and sitting there?
Let's say I own a courier company and two
of my employess -- one a messenger, the other
a dispatcher -- are involved in cycling accidents
over the weekend. Both end up with busted
clavicles. The messenger, as bad as he may
want and need to come to work, is going to be
out for several weeks. If the dispatcher doesn't
come to work on Monday, he's fired.
I think what you mean by your injury standard
is missing at least one day of riding, not work.
Sounds like a decent standard to me.
> Tell me again: How do you call that "dangerous"?
I didn't.You, on the other hand, called it
'quite high' -- after calling the same basic rate 'extremely
safe.' Which is it?
To anyone who may be playing along at home, note
that the accident rates that Frank and I have been
knocking around are among the lowest accident rates that
have ever been recorded -- even though one of them
seemed to be, at first glance, 'quite high.' They are rates
for groups of riders that contain many highly
experienced veterans. Surveys of less
experienced riders have shown much higher accident
and injury rates than these. The overall accident rate for the
entire cycling population is much higher than the
rates in the Moritz survey, Kifer survey, or the
Dennerstein messenger survey.
Is it 'dangerous?' Who knows. Call it 'dangerous' if
doing so helps you stay awake in traffic.
Beware of hobbyist 'experts' whose ideas don't jibe
with those who do it for a living.
Robert
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 13:07:00
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
CONTINUED...
On Feb 2, 3:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> Also, Dennerlein did not give any injury/mile information that I can
> see. The per-mile data was one of the valuable points of Moritz's
> paper.
Full-time messengers ride about 5 times as many
miles annually as the respondents in the Moritz
survey.
It is impressive that the rates for these two
populations are in the same ballpark, considering
the substantial portion of godawful rookies among
the messengers, and their requirement to
work in all types of weather, and on road surfaces
that recreational riders wouldn't (and shouldn't)
dream of riding.
If we forced all the LAB members to spread their
riding evenly throughout the year like the messengers,
instead of concentrating it in dry happy weather,
we can only surmise that their accident rate would
spike dramatically. Riding on ice is probably the most
challenging and dangerous thing an everyday
cyclist can do.
> > If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
> > to occur under a green light than a red one.
> I'll simply ask for documentation. Got data?
Well, I have known so many messengers that
I know with certainty that my own experience -- of
burning several hundred thousand red lights
without a single incident but getting hit while
riding lawfully -- is the typical one.
Running a red light puts your mind in a
certain place. There is no pretense that
this or that vehicle will slow or stop or
yield in any way. You KNOW you have to
remain absolutely vigilant. Under a green,
however, it is far easier to make happy
assumptions, drift off.
The trick is to bring the same type of awareness
you would use while running a red light to
running a green light intersection, where any
number of motorist mistakes can do you in if
you're not ready for them.
> I'm sure you don't, of course. Such data would be very difficult to
> gather. But it does bring us to the crux of the question, I think.
> Is crossing an intersection with the green light better or worse than
> that for crossing under the red light?
>
> You seem to be saying it makes no difference;
I'm saying it depends.
>that you're no more
> likely to get hit while violating a red light than while accepting a
> green light, particularly if you're "aware." To me, that seems pretty
> ludicrous.
What I said was exactly what I said:
Veteran messengers are far more likely to get hit
under green lights than red ones. It's not
'ludicrous,' it's the truth.
> Well, a given messenger can hardly run lights all day, every day and
> _also_ obey laws all day every day!
Messengers probably spend the majority of their
time riding in a manner that is technically legal.
They do both all day every day. Your bike is on
a hook in the garage.
> I will admit, messengers will learn an awful lot in a short time.
> However, I'll note thathttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
> mentions being "doored" as a common cause of injury. To me, that
> sounds like evidence of some holes in their knowledge! Vehicular
> Cycling is pretty clear about avoiding door zones.
One thing rookie messengers need to learn is that there
are door zones on both sides of vehicles in stop and go
traffic.
> In sumy, a bike messenger might have some valid points to
> contribute, but he'd probably have some weird ideas as well. I'd go
> with the opinions of a more disciplined team of experts.
I'd go with whoever has vastly more experience.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Robert
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2007 10:55:15
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
On Feb 2, 3:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
> > > > awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
> > > > (2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
> > > > road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
> > > > of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
> > > > rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
> > > > safer than 2 which is safer than 1.
>
> > Now do you think 3 safer than 2 or is 2 safer than 3?
>
> You mean, have I stopped beating my wife? ;-) Nice try.
You don't seem to have a problem answering this
question below when you write "But I do think riding
according to the rules of the road is safer than
violating them, even if the violater is more aware."
You think 2 is safer than 3. Which is horribly incorrect.
> As Wayne Pein said, "you assume that your 4 categories above are
> absolutes, while it is obvious that both awareness and rule following
> are actually on continuums. Does ANYBODY fit in any of these
> categories? For example, how does one ride without awareness and not
> according to the rules of the road? Is he deaf and blind and moving
> randomly?"
>
> Wayne's was a good question...
(1) Without awareness and not according to the rules of the
road: rider blows a red light or stop sign without even
realizing it; rider glances down at drivetrain and drifts
into oncoming traffic; riding illegally on sidewalk, hits
pedestrian coming around corner; rider decides to blow
red light, but fails to notice car coming through
intersection; et cetera...
(2) Without awareness and according to the rules of
the road: rider passing legally through green light fails
to account for possibility of left-turner not seeing him;
Riding lawfully but glances away, fails to notice massive
pothole; Riding through intersection under green light,
fails to notice light-runner coming from way down the
block; Rider glances back during moment that requires eyes
forward, slams into wayward pedestrian who steps into
the street; rider passing line of cars legally on the right
fails to notice gap in line of cars, gets tagged by
vehicle hitting the gap; et cetera...
Awareness: either you are riding with the requisite
level of awareness for the situation at hand, or you're
not. Riders may be able to get by on luck for a time,
but not for very long.
> But I do think riding according to the rules of the road is safer than
> violating them, even if the violater is more aware.
Over several decades, bike messengers have proven this
assertion of yours wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> Consider, some of
> the most common causes of car-bike crashes are "rideouts" directly
> into the path of a car
Where's the awareness in that? Obviously if you
ride out into the path of a car that could be avoided,
you are not displaying the minimum level of awareness
regardless of whether you follow traffic laws or not.
And obviously if you ride out in front of a speeding
vehicle, it ultimately matters little if you are following
traffic law when you do it -- you're still going to
die.
> Keep in mind, the definition of "serious crash" in the Moritz paper
> did not match the definition of "accident" in Dennerlein's paper...
> Don't treat the
> standards as equivalent.
Okay, but clearly the rate for the entire messenger population
of Boston and that found for a 48-year-old LAB member with
14.5 years cycling experience are in the same ballpark. Which
can only mean that the veteran messengers of Boston are far
safer cyclists than the average LAB member.
Keep in mind that a messenger's mile and a mile for the
average LAB member are wholly different. Moritz'
survey tallied mainly recreational mileage. Messengers
are almost exclusively downtown. And the recreational
riders of Moritz' survey do most of their riding in fancy,
cycling friendly weather. No such luck for the Boston
messengers. It would be interesting to see how many
of those lost work injuries are due to falls on ice, for
instance.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Robert
> > If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
> > to occur under a green light than a red one. That's
> > a key bit of knowledge I picked up over the years;
> > you will now choose to ignore it, I imagine.
>
> I'll simply ask for documentation. Got data?
>
> I'm sure you don't, of course. Such data would be very difficult to
> gather. But it does bring us to the crux of the question, I think.
> Is crossing an intersection with the green light better or worse than
> that for crossing under the red light?
>
> You seem to be saying it makes no difference; that you're no more
> likely to get hit while violating a red light than while accepting a
> green light, particularly if you're "aware." To me, that seems pretty
> ludicrous.
>
> > If you want to know how to run lights, ask the person
> > who does it all day long every day. That would be a messenger.
>
> > If you want to 'move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
> > risk of injury, while obeying laws' ask the person who does that all
> > day long every day. That would also be a messenger.
>
> Well, a given messenger can hardly run lights all day, every day and
> _also_ obey laws all day every day!
>
> I will admit, messengers will learn an awful lot in a short time.
> However, I'll note thathttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
> mentions being "doored" as a common cause of injury. To me, that
> sounds like evidence of some holes in their knowledge! Vehicular
> Cycling is pretty clear about avoiding door zones.
>
> In sumy, a bike messenger might have some valid points to
> contribute, but he'd probably have some weird ideas as well. I'd go
> with the opinions of a more disciplined team of experts.
>
> Hmm. I think I just sumized the entire discussion!
>
> > > <sigh> Unfortunately, in Moritz's survey of bike commuters, ...
>
> > It wasn't a survey of bike commuters, it was a study
> > of LAB members.
>
> You're right. My mistake.
>
> > > he defined $50 damage to equipment as "serious." So if you're walking
> > > your bike, drop it and bend an STI shifter, that gets reported as a
> > > "serious crash." IMO, it was a flaw in the survey methodology.
>
> > It seems you have to draw the line somewhere.
> > This is a vast improvement over the Kaplan survey
> > where respondents were left to draw their own line.
> > Where would you draw it?
>
> Regarding personal injury, I'd say common levels of road rash should
> not qualify - and judging by Moritz's data, that must have been most
> of the injuries he uncovered. (That's also corroborated by other
> papers I've seen on cyclist injuries treated in ERs.)
>
> Likewise, I don't think $50 equipment damage should be called
> "serious." That could be caused by slicing an expensive tire on a big
> piece of glass, tearing a cycling jacket by snagging a tree limb, or
> bending almost any shifter or derailleur on the ket.
>
> I think Dennerlein's injury standard would be better: missing at
> least one day of work. And I think it should take $150 equipment
> damage exclusive of clothing to call things "serious."
>
>
>
> > >"Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than
> > > those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a
> > > problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have
> > > any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture
> > > wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be
> > > 40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between
> > > those kinds of injuries. " [Kifer]
>
> > Kifer's survey of touring cyclists jibes very well with the
> > Moritz survey of LAB members (who averaged over 14
> > years cycling experience). In both surveys we find
> > that about 1/3 of respondents had experienced at
> > least some sort of minor cycling injury in the previous
> > year;
>
> No! In Moritz's survey, roughly 1/3 talked about "some sort of
> accident" not "some sort of minor cycling injury." That "accident"
> could be a fall off the bike with zero damage, and most of them
> doubtlessly were.
>
> > and about 10% had experienced some more
> > substantial injury in the previous year, while averaging
> > just a few thousand miles per year. Remember,
> > this is among populations who do most of their
> > riding for recreation, and much of the reported mileage
> > would be on lonely roads.
>
> > Tell me again: how do these surveys help prove that
> > cycling is 'extremely safe?'
>
> On average, one crash involving a mere $50 damage, or one cleaning up
> of road rash at an ER in 11 years, or in about 32,000 miles.
>
> Tell me again: How do you call that "dangerous"?
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 14:58:44
From:
Subject: Re: logic speeding away
|
On Feb 2, 1:22 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
> > > > through the eyes of a bike messenger.
>
> > > You can continue to believe that, if it makes you feel better.
>
> > I'm just looking for some plausible explanation for your attitude that
> > rules of the road are not important ("worthless shit," I think you
> > said)...
>
> You are definitely not going to win any awards
> for reading comprehension.
Why? When said "everything else in between is just politics, pomp and
circumstance, hurt feelings, and other worthless shit" what were you
referring to, if not rules of the road, lights at night, proper lane
postion, evasive maneuvers and the other things I was talking about in
_addition_ to "awareness"?
> For a third
> time:
>
> > > I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
> > > awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
> > > (2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
> > > road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
> > > of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
> > > rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
> > > safer than 2 which is safer than 1.
>
> Now do you think 3 safer than 2 or is 2 safer than 3?
You mean, have I stopped beating my wife? ;-) Nice try.
As Wayne Pein said, "you assume that your 4 categories above are
absolutes, while it is obvious that both awareness and rule following
are actually on continuums. Does ANYBODY fit in any of these
categories? For example, how does one ride without awareness and not
according to the rules of the road? Is he deaf and blind and moving
randomly?"
Wayne's was a good question. It's impossible to ride a bike without
_some_ level of awareness. So how much "awareness" does one need to
qualify by your standard? How would "awareness" even be measured?
But I do think riding according to the rules of the road is safer than
violating them, even if the violater is more aware. Consider, some of
the most common causes of car-bike crashes are "rideouts" directly
into the path of a car, and riding the wrong direction on the road.
The most common justification I've heard for the latter is "I can see
the cars coming." IOW, "I'm more aware." They still crash.
Again: The rules of the road work rekably well. It makes sense to
obey them before - and while - attempting to increase "awareness."
> > > And second, messengers spend a substantial portion of
> > > their time riding in a completely lawful, conservative fashion
> > > anyway.
>
> > Yet their injury rates are quite high. See
> >http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
>
> 'Their injury rates are quite high,' Frank says. That's
> really interesting that you should say that, because
> that rate (injury/mile) for the messengers of Boston,
> according to this survey and reasonable assumptions
> about how many miles a Boston messenger would
> ride in a year, seems about the same or
> better than the rate found for experienced LAB
> members in the Moritz study. That's the rate
> you consistently cite as evidence that cycling is
> incredibly safe.
>
> For a full-time messenger, getting into an injury-causing
> wreck every 30,000 miles or so (the rate in the Moritz study
> which you consistently cite) means getting hurt about
> .5 times per year, which is near the rate in the Harvard
> study.
Keep in mind, the definition of "serious crash" in the Moritz paper
did not match the definition of "accident" in Dennerlein's paper. By
Moritz's standard, bending a $50 derailleur or visiting an ER to scrub
out road rash was "serious." By Dennerlein's standard, the injury
needed to be serious enough to miss a day of work. IOW, Dennerlein
seems to be talking about more serious injuries. Don't treat the
standards as equivalent.
Also, Dennerlein did not give any injury/mile information that I can
see. The per-mile data was one of the valuable points of Moritz's
paper.
> If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
> to occur under a green light than a red one. That's
> a key bit of knowledge I picked up over the years;
> you will now choose to ignore it, I imagine.
I'll simply ask for documentation. Got data?
I'm sure you don't, of course. Such data would be very difficult to
gather. But it does bring us to the crux of the question, I think.
Is crossing an intersection with the green light better or worse than
that for crossing under the red light?
You seem to be saying it makes no difference; that you're no more
likely to get hit while violating a red light than while accepting a
green light, particularly if you're "aware." To me, that seems pretty
ludicrous.
> If you want to know how to run lights, ask the person
> who does it all day long every day. That would be a messenger.
>
> If you want to 'move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
> risk of injury, while obeying laws' ask the person who does that all
> day long every day. That would also be a messenger.
Well, a given messenger can hardly run lights all day, every day and
_also_ obey laws all day every day!
I will admit, messengers will learn an awful lot in a short time.
However, I'll note that http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
mentions being "doored" as a common cause of injury. To me, that
sounds like evidence of some holes in their knowledge! Vehicular
Cycling is pretty clear about avoiding door zones.
In sumy, a bike messenger might have some valid points to
contribute, but he'd probably have some weird ideas as well. I'd go
with the opinions of a more disciplined team of experts.
Hmm. I think I just sumized the entire discussion!
> > <sigh> Unfortunately, in Moritz's survey of bike commuters, ...
>
> It wasn't a survey of bike commuters, it was a study
> of LAB members.
You're right. My mistake.
> > he defined $50 damage to equipment as "serious." So if you're walking
> > your bike, drop it and bend an STI shifter, that gets reported as a
> > "serious crash." IMO, it was a flaw in the survey methodology.
>
> It seems you have to draw the line somewhere.
> This is a vast improvement over the Kaplan survey
> where respondents were left to draw their own line.
> Where would you draw it?
Regarding personal injury, I'd say common levels of road rash should
not qualify - and judging by Moritz's data, that must have been most
of the injuries he uncovered. (That's also corroborated by other
papers I've seen on cyclist injuries treated in ERs.)
Likewise, I don't think $50 equipment damage should be called
"serious." That could be caused by slicing an expensive tire on a big
piece of glass, tearing a cycling jacket by snagging a tree limb, or
bending almost any shifter or derailleur on the ket.
I think Dennerlein's injury standard would be better: missing at
least one day of work. And I think it should take $150 equipment
damage exclusive of clothing to call things "serious."
>
> >"Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than
> > those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a
> > problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have
> > any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture
> > wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be
> > 40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between
> > those kinds of injuries. " [Kifer]
>
> Kifer's survey of touring cyclists jibes very well with the
> Moritz survey of LAB members (who averaged over 14
> years cycling experience). In both surveys we find
> that about 1/3 of respondents had experienced at
> least some sort of minor cycling injury in the previous
> year;
No! In Moritz's survey, roughly 1/3 talked about "some sort of
accident" not "some sort of minor cycling injury." That "accident"
could be a fall off the bike with zero damage, and most of them
doubtlessly were.
> and about 10% had experienced some more
> substantial injury in the previous year, while averaging
> just a few thousand miles per year. Remember,
> this is among populations who do most of their
> riding for recreation, and much of the reported mileage
> would be on lonely roads.
>
> Tell me again: how do these surveys help prove that
> cycling is 'extremely safe?'
On average, one crash involving a mere $50 damage, or one cleaning up
of road rash at an ER in 11 years, or in about 32,000 miles.
Tell me again: How do you call that "dangerous"?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:39:51
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:24:44 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
may have said:
>Hello fellow environment guardians.
>This came to my attention when reading clean air tips at www.aircare.ca
>
>"Avoid rapid acceleration (putting the pedal to the metal) which can produce
>more than 40 times the emissions of normal driving."
>
>That means when ever a driver gets pissed off from seeing a cyclists and
>speeds up to get away from you like you are vermin he is polluting the air
>40X more than if you were not there in front of him.
>I know it IS there fault but that puts my world out of wack cause I believed
>I was improving air quality and now it is a few degrees less so.
Blame the traffic planners who insist on using one roadway for all
purposes. Expect the regulations to put even Segways out into traffic
in places where that is not already the case; IME the planners all
drive cars, and seldom have a clue about the implications of the
policies they institute.
> Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the motor
>and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get everyone
>shutting off the motor then. haha
This assertion is true only for modern, fuel-injected vehicles with
efficient fuel delivery systems. For the older carbureted engines, it
was more like two or three minutes.
VW tried a stop/start engine with one of their Diesels[1], and Cushman
successfully does it with their gas-engine golf carts and personnel
carriers, but most gasoline-powered autos would have problems with
such a system. Also, the inevitable small delay in taking off from
the intersection would slow the progress of traffic too much in many
situaions, resulting in a significant increase in emissions as drivers
accelerated harder to try to beat the next light change.
[1] The 1980's-era VW Rabbit was nominally available with a Diesel
coupled to an automatic transmission; that model had a fairly massive
flywheel (ordinarily not used with an automatic) which was
electrically clutched to provide restart energy so that the engine
could come to a full stop when the vehicle was halted. It sort of
worked, but consumers intensely disliked the immediate cessation of
air conditioning effectiveness when the vehicle stopped, so it was
seldom sold outside of cold-climate kets.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 12:34:37
From: Marz
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, John Everett
<jevere...@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:24:44 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the motor
> >and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get everyone
> >shutting off the motor then. hahaI think this practice is getting popular in Japan. I recall seeing a
> feature on TV (some news program perhaps) where people were standing
> at intersection holding signs encouraging drivers to shut off their
> engines (I can't read Japanese) while waiting at the light.
>
> jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)
I thought a couple of car manufactures had already made cars that do
this automatically, shut off the engine after 20 seconds and restart
once you put your foot on the accelerator. I think Audi made one.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:12:41
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On 24 Jan 2007 12:34:37 -0800, "z" <zjennings@gmail.com > wrote:
>I thought a couple of car manufactures had already made cars that do
>this automatically, shut off the engine after 20 seconds and restart
>once you put your foot on the accelerator. I think Audi made one.
My Prius does it, but the hybrids aren't exactly examples of ordinary
gas driven cars.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 14:17:30
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:12:41 -0500, Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2007 12:34:37 -0800, "z" <zjennings@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I thought a couple of car manufactures had already made cars that do
>>this automatically, shut off the engine after 20 seconds and restart
>>once you put your foot on the accelerator. I think Audi made one.
> My Prius does it, but the hybrids aren't exactly examples of ordinary
> gas driven cars.
With over half a million Priuses sold, they're becoming ordinary.
Matt O.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 20:22:19
From: John Everett
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:24:44 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:
> Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the motor
>and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get everyone
>shutting off the motor then. haha
I think this practice is getting popular in Japan. I recall seeing a
feature on TV (some news program perhaps) where people were standing
at intersection holding signs encouraging drivers to shut off their
engines (I can't read Japanese) while waiting at the light.
jeverett3<AT >sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 11:14:59
From: landotter
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Jan 24, 12:58 pm, Kristian M Zoerhoff <kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On 2007-01-24, nash <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Avoid rapid acceleration (putting the pedal to the metal) which can produce
> > more than 40 times the emissions of normal driving."
>
> > That means when ever a driver gets pissed off from seeing a cyclists and
> > speeds up to get away from you like you are vermin he is polluting the air
> > 40X more than if you were not there in front of him.
> > I know it IS there fault but that puts my world out of wack cause I believed
> > I was improving air quality and now it is a few degrees less so.Assholes will just find another excuse to be assholes if you >>aren't there.
Making a difference? Har har. Best reason to ride is because you like
to. If it eases traffic or pollution, so be it, but it's likely just a
drop in the bucket. Ride for the same reason the Dutch do--it's silly
to use a car for most trips. Ride because bikes are neat and elegant
and make you look cool. Don't ride to be a self righteous hippie (not
saying that you are :-P), let the benefits happen due to coincidence.
"Damn, my butt got smaller! Oh, that's right, I've been riding that
bicycle thing..."
> Quit worrying about it and ride.
>
> > Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the motor
> > and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get everyone
> > shutting off the motor then. hahaI do that at tain tracks if I can't see the end of the train, or if it's
> crawling through the crossing.
I always shut off the car if I'm waiting for somebody, at a RR
crossing, etc. It's the law in much of Scandinavia AFAIK. Around here
though, people leave their cars running when they shop at the
convenience store on the corner, as if shutting them off is some sort
of burden. Saw a guy's car stolen due to this. Amusingly enough, he was
plastered. I told him it was just the caring neighborhood youth trying
to keep him out of a DUI...
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:49:45
From: nash
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the motor
>> > and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get
>> > everyone
Intersections are normally 30 seconds per change green to red and red to
green.
Any idling more than that is uneccessary. It really unnerves me.
My Dad was a mechanic and he said the ignition would wear out. Came from
the same old wives tale that turning the TV on and off wears it out or uses
more power than watching it for hours. And the PC come to think of it.
Both TV and PC monitor probably use about 5 light bulbs of energy to run. I
wonder what it is with LCD and HDTV, everything being energy star compliant
these days.
SN
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:51:22
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:49:45 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:
>My Dad was a mechanic and he said the ignition would wear out. Came from
>the same old wives tale that turning the TV on and off wears it out or uses
>more power than watching it for hours. And the PC come to think of it.
>Both TV and PC monitor probably use about 5 light bulbs of energy to run. I
>wonder what it is with LCD and HDTV, everything being energy star compliant
>these days.
Ignitions before the 1990s or so did wear out. Anyone that learned to
tap the starter to jog the brushes to a better position because they
were worn knows this. No old wives tale about it - restoring old cars
leaves you with lots of experience with the procedure. Still have the
jimmy bar I used leaning against the garage wall. The Saabs and Volvos
are long gone...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2007 18:58:30
From: Kristian M Zoerhoff
Subject: Re: drivers speeding away
|
On 2007-01-24, nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
>
> "Avoid rapid acceleration (putting the pedal to the metal) which can produce
> more than 40 times the emissions of normal driving."
>
> That means when ever a driver gets pissed off from seeing a cyclists and
> speeds up to get away from you like you are vermin he is polluting the air
> 40X more than if you were not there in front of him.
> I know it IS there fault but that puts my world out of wack cause I believed
> I was improving air quality and now it is a few degrees less so.
Assholes will just find another excuse to be assholes if you aren't there.
Quit worrying about it and ride.
> Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the motor
> and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get everyone
> shutting off the motor then. haha
I do that at tain tracks if I can't see the end of the train, or if it's
crawling through the crossing.
--
__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com
(_)/ (_)
|
|
