Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Peter Cole

dgk wrote:

> But he's right. I'm a cyclist, and when I drive I turn into a gun
> toting nutcase. No, not quite. (no offense to gun toting non-nut cases
> by the way). However, I am impatient because I consider biking to be
> fun, while driving is pretty much a way to get somewhere. So yes, I
> hate being behind slow moving vehicles, which is why I don't "take the
> lane" while biking under most situations. I have too much
> consideration for folks driving. And I just don't move that fast.

One of the differences I notice when driving vs. biking on the same
mission, is the much greater variability in trip time when driving. When
I have a doc. appt. or something like that, where I have to be on time,
I find biking to make me a lot less tense because of the lack of worry
over variables (traffic, parking, etc.). I wonder how much driving
aggression comes just from people being, or fear of being, late for
something.

Frank Krygowski

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:...
>> Virtually all crashes are avoidable.
>
>
> So you have never lost balance and gone down while riding on the road,
> even as a child? Even Jobst Brandt has crashed while riding!

Note Peter's word "virtually." I don't think it's possible for a child
to learn to ride a bike without ever falling, just the same as a child
learning to walk.

> Or do you actually mean you have never had a COLLISION with another
> cyclist, a motor vehicle or a pedestrian while riding? That would be
> much more believable.

Regarding falls: In my mountain biking days, I fell occasionally
off-road. I was never hurt.

On-road, I've had only one fall (that one at only walking speed) since
1972. I skinned my knee. My only "COLLISION with another cyclist, a
motor vehicle or a pedestrian while riding" occurred when a driver
deliberately brushed me with his car. Even then, I didn't fall, and got
only a slight scratch.

I've been told my riding skills are excellent, but I doubt they are as
great as Jobst's or Armstrong's or a long-time pro bike messenger. But
what makes the difference isn't so much skill level, as staying within
that level.

I don't descend at 60 mph in a pack. I don't crash lights at 30 mph on
crowded Chicago streets. I do watch religiously for slippery surfaces,
motor vehicular mistakes, squirrely cyclists and the like.

I think if you're alert, reasonably careful, and follow the rules at
least as well as most motorists do, you don't need to worry about
crashes. And "reasonably careful" includes riding within your skill
level.

IOW, virtually all crashes are avoidable.

- Frank Krygowski

Brent P

In article <ckru93t2ef0l3rvrglsjj85k9p8o2dkdch@4ax.com>, dgk wrote:

> The lights in my burg (New York City) are timed for around 35mph,
> actually above the speed limit. I can't keep up with that, or even
> close. So for me to take a lane is very inconsiderate. I do not expect
> cars to have to switch lanes to avoid me. I'm not a car, I'm a bike.

98% of the time I take the lane, it's because I am
A) passing traffic or keeping up with traffic
B) being slowed down by the car in front of me.
C) Stopping for a red signal or stop sign.
D) at a dead stop waiting at traffic control device or in a traffic jam.

The other 2% is for bad pavement and other road hazards. It usually lasts
only a few seconds until I am past the hazard.

Peter Cole

Ed.Toronto@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 18, 12:38 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Not me. I don't go anywhere I don't have a sight line, legally or
>> otherwise.
>
> To quote you again:
>
>>>> I never bother to slow down, never mind stop, for right turns or "T"
>>>> intersections -- why go to the trouble?
>
> That sounds like a swoop right-hand turn through a stop sign or red
> light. I see swoopers like that often enough.

No, not me. My cardinal rule is to never require anyone to brake or
swerve to avoid hitting me, because sooner or later, they won't.

I adjust my speed to the available sight lines -- mine and theirs.

FWIW, people, on bikes or cars, can come to a complete stop then pull
into your path, either misjudging speed or distance or simply not seeing
you. That happens to me almost every ride.


>> They're not the same you know. Lot's of really bad (dangerous)
>> cyclists/drivers out there obeying the letter, if not the spirit, of the
>> law.
>
> It's a little difficult to imagine how dangerous someone can be while
> obeying the letter of the law. Of course, if they're bad and dangerous
> if they're obeying the law, how on earth will they ride/drive if they
> disobey the law? Not safer, that's for sure.

Not saying violating ROW rules is safer, just more convenient and, if
done correctly, no less safe.

>
>> Believe it or not, avoiding collisions with bikes is way easier than
>> with cars -- I thought that would be obvious, but you guys seem to be
>> doing a lot of crashing into bikes & kids -- maybe you ought to rethink
>> the way you cycle.
>
> I don't believe that avoiding collisions is easier when cycling than
> when driving. Most cyclists realize that they have much more incentive
> to avoid even a minor scrape because it will hurt a lot more than a
> minor scrape to a car's paint.

Bikes don't brake as fast, but they're much smaller and more agile.

>
> Just because you haven't been in a collision recently doesn't mean
> that you are riding safely. Fortunately, most of the time, when we do
> something silly it's not enough to cause an accident--often because
> other road users do their part to avoid the collision.

As I said, I'd *never* put faith in anyone other than myself to avoid a
collision. Maybe that's why I've never had one.

Arif Khokar

dgk wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:42:54 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
> wrote:

> I learned during Driver Education that doing what is expected is
> sometimes safer than doing what is legal. If everyone is doing 70 in a
> 55 zone, and I do 55, I'm the road hazard.

That's true, and that also means the speed limit is underposted.

> Same with biking. It may be legal to "take the lane", but I am not a
> sprinter and I can't go 20 or 30 mph unless I'm going downhill with
> the wind. So, getting in a lane of cars, and going my usual 12 mph (on
> the high end of my average) is simply not smart and not considerate.

When I first started riding again, I had the same problem where I had no
energy to sprint. The more I rode, the better I got. So, even though I
still get tired from sprinting, I recover relatively quickly.

Also, having smooth tread tires, adjusting the seat height such that
your leg is only slightly bent when the pedal is all the way down helps
with being able to maintain higher speeds.

> I run lights, but never without being very careful. I run stop signs,
> but not without being careful.

I could do that in a car, but that doesn't make it any safer. People
who have the green light aren't expecting cross-traffic. Also, you'll
get more respect from traffic if you actually follow the same rules they do.

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <ckru93t2ef0l3rvrglsjj85k9p8o2dkdch@4ax.com>, dgk wrote:
>
>> The lights in my burg (New York City) are timed for around 35mph,
>> actually above the speed limit. I can't keep up with that, or even
>> close. So for me to take a lane is very inconsiderate. I do not expect
>> cars to have to switch lanes to avoid me. I'm not a car, I'm a bike.
>
> 98% of the time I take the lane, it's because I am
> A) passing traffic or keeping up with traffic
> B) being slowed down by the car in front of me.
> C) Stopping for a red signal or stop sign.
> D) at a dead stop waiting at traffic control device or in a traffic jam.
>
> The other 2% is for bad pavement and other road hazards. It usually lasts
> only a few seconds until I am past the hazard.
>
>
>

I only take a lane when it's not wide enough to share. As the
differential speed goes up, my willingness to share goes down, whichever
way the differential goes. I usually won't take the lane for a pavement
hazard if there's any other way around it since that move isn't
anticipated/understood by drivers. The main reason I always wear a
mirror is to help make that kind of decision.

I very rarely encounter the situation where the motor traffic average
speed is exactly the same as mine over any reasonable distance, so I'm
usually either passing or being passed. I'll use whatever room I have to
pass or let passers share the lane if it's wide enough. If motor traffic
splits the lane at intersections (crowding the curb), I'll go left
around the line* or, rarely, even on the sidewalk to get around. Usually
this is when long lines at intersections mean auto traffic average speed
is slower than mine, so it all works out. If lines are long but
intersections are far apart, I'll still go forward, even though I know
it means some cars will have to pass me twice, it's a major convenience
for me and a minor inconvenience for them, I don't begrudge other
cyclists the favor when I'm driving, I think that would be petty even if
I wasn't a cyclist.

If lines are short and I arrive late into the cycle, I'll usually take
the lane to hold my spot, then start sharing when traffic starts moving,
often negotiating a merge back in to get through the bottleneck caused
by left turners. This seems to irritate drivers sometimes, but I think
it's the most efficient way to go.

Northeast urban streets are probably much different than the Midwest's.
There are typically minimum width lanes and/or lots of lane splitting
and jockeying for position around intersections, it's usually
easier/safer to negotiate being passed mid-block, while passing is
usually easier/safer when cars are stopped. I don't like to sprint to
match the accelerations of stop & go unless I have to. I'd rather do
almost anything than delay cars in an intersection, that's a capital
offense around here.

In Boston, I'm pretty sure I can both minimize my travel time and my
impact on traffic by bending the rules a bit. I'm not sure what things
are like in the Midwestern cities, I might ride completely differently.
Roads around here (particularly urban) weren't laid out with cars in
mind so there's a fair amount of rule bending going on all the time.

*Out of courtesy/safety I'll only do this if I'm sure I can make it to
the head of the line before the light cycles, I'd rather not negotiate a
merge across a line(s) of moving/turning traffic.

Wayne Pein

Arif Khokar wrote:

> dgk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:42:54 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> I learned during Driver Education that doing what is expected is
>> sometimes safer than doing what is legal. If everyone is doing 70 in a
>> 55 zone, and I do 55, I'm the road hazard.
>
>
> That's true, and that also means the speed limit is underposted.
>
>> Same with biking. It may be legal to "take the lane", but I am not a
>> sprinter and I can't go 20 or 30 mph unless I'm going downhill with
>> the wind. So, getting in a lane of cars, and going my usual 12 mph (on
>> the high end of my average) is simply not smart and not considerate.
>


I can't agree with any of this.

Is it dangerous for a bus to come to a complete stop?

Wayne
Don't blame the slow road user.

Wayne Pein

dgk wrote:


>
> I really take issue with the whole "I'm equivalent to a car" biking
> attitude. I understand it, but I disagree. I'm not a car. I can't go
> as fast, I can't accelerate as fast, and I can't do as much damage
> when something goes wrong.
>
> I run lights, but never without being very careful. I run stop signs,
> but not without being careful. I'm not a car. I do not follow all the
> rules of cars unless I'm driving one. And then I go 70 if everyone
> else is doing so.

You should be thankful that you have the rights of a driver of a vehicle
rather than the rights of a pedestrian when cycling. Further, you should
stop disparaging slow vehicles. Lastly, just because "everyone else" is
breaking the law doesn't excuse it, or you following suit.

Wayne

Arif Khokar

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> dgk wrote:

>>> I learned during Driver Education that doing what is expected is
>>> sometimes safer than doing what is legal. If everyone is doing 70 in
>>> a 55 zone, and I do 55, I'm the road hazard.

>> That's true, and that also means the speed limit is underposted.

>>> Same with biking. It may be legal to "take the lane", but I am not a
>>> sprinter and I can't go 20 or 30 mph unless I'm going downhill with
>>> the wind. So, getting in a lane of cars, and going my usual 12 mph
>>> (on the high end of my average) is simply not smart and not considerate.

> I can't agree with any of this.

I'm not sure what you're responding to. If it's my comment about
underposted speed limits, then I stand by it. Numerous studies have
shown that vehicles going substantially slower than the speed of traffic
are at higher risk of being involved in a collision as compared to
vehicles going with or somewhat faster than the flow.

Now, those conclusions may not really apply on surface streets with
relatively low speed traffic, so riding a bicycle in 25 to 45 mph
traffic isn't really that risky, but I certainly wouldn't ride one in
the lane with 70 to 80 mph traffic on a limited access highway.

Peter Cole

Wayne Pein wrote:

> You should be thankful that you have the rights of a driver of a vehicle
> rather than the rights of a pedestrian when cycling.

Just curious, how do you think the rights of a cyclist surpass those of
a pedestrian?

Wayne Pein

Peter Cole wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> You should be thankful that you have the rights of a driver of a
>> vehicle rather than the rights of a pedestrian when cycling.
>
>
> Just curious, how do you think the rights of a cyclist surpass those of
> a pedestrian?

I never said they surpass those of a pedestrian. They are just very
different.

Bicycles are vehicles with operating characteristics that require the
laws governing the operation of vehicles.


Wayne

Wayne Pein

Arif Khokar wrote:


>
> I'm not sure what you're responding to. If it's my comment about
> underposted speed limits, then I stand by it. Numerous studies have
> shown that vehicles going substantially slower than the speed of traffic
> are at higher risk of being involved in a collision as compared to
> vehicles going with or somewhat faster than the flow.
>
> Now, those conclusions may not really apply on surface streets with
> relatively low speed traffic, so riding a bicycle in 25 to 45 mph
> traffic isn't really that risky, but I certainly wouldn't ride one in
> the lane with 70 to 80 mph traffic on a limited access highway.

The conclusions don't apply to normal surface streets, but many people,
including authorities, often misapply them thusly. Further,
"substantially" means just that. Also, they are often used in the
context of bicycling, so the misattribution is doubled because the
conclusions apply to limited access highways where bicycles do not
operate and they apply to motor vehicles, which bicycles are not.
Finally, some people put the blame on the slower vehicle even if the
slower vehicle is doing the speed limit.

Wayne

Nate Nagel

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:15:45 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>The poor dears must actually believe the TV car commercials - the ones
>>>>that show that buying the "new 2007 Belchmobile" will magically remove
>>>>all other cars from the road. (How _do_ the ad producers keep all other
>>>>cars out of their shots?) When they harness themselves to another
>>>>$30,000 debt and find themselves still stuck in traffic, they feel angry.
>>>
>>>Funny thing is, last weekend my neighbor & I were comparing gross
>>>vehicle weights & hp of our repective vehicles (we're both kind of motor
>>>heads). Turns out his "hot rod" 70's 'Vette isn't that much different
>>>than my '95 minivan (AKA brain fart) -- and mine is sluggish by current
>>>standards. We're cranking out faster & faster cars while the logistics
>>>(congestion & economics) are pushing back hard -- there's a real logical
>>>disconnect. Well, it wasn't so long ago that many/most thought DWI/DUI
>>>was no big deal either.
>>
>>I'm personally in favour of graduated licensing and possibly graduated
>>taxation, both based on engine displacement[1]. Short of myself getting
>>appointed President for life, I don't see that happening in the US.
>>
>>[1] Other countries have implemented exactly these measures.
>
>
> Graduated licensing starting with proof you've ridden a bicycle for
> two years without mishap or a moving violation. Then you can get a
> license for a moped. Another year without problems and you're
> eligible for up to 499 cc motorcycles for a year, or until you're 19.
> After that let the motorcycle license be issued or you can opt for
> two years driving a car. It must be a car that requires learning real
> driving skills. Something with all the comforts and technology of a
> 1950's English sports car or early beetle.

Heh. I actually agree with this. I learned to drive on a Renault
Encore and an International Harvester Scout II. I feel that I am a MUCH
better driver for the experience of driving those vehicles - the Renault
was an underpowered piece of crap, and the IH while excellent off road
certainly required full attention on the road. The experience of having
ridden a bike long before I got my license also gave me some passing
familiarity with the rules of the road before I ever got behind the
wheel of a car.

People who learn to drive on good cars tend to rely on the car to keep
them out of trouble much more than people who learned to drive on
barely-legal shite. At least in my case it has also made me very
particular about what cars I will buy for my own use, much to the
detriment of my wallet

nate

(wow, I actually read a ZK post and agreed with it. Who are those four
dudes, why horses, and what are they doing in my front yard?)

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> At the very least, he should study Zoot and
>>> learn to cuss with style. ;-)
>>
>>
>> I do not think that word means what you think it means. He comes
>> across on a good day as an angry, unpleasant person and on a bad day
>> as borderline mentally ill.
>
>
> Zoot on motor vehicles can come across like M*k* V*nd*m*n on mountain
> bicycles.
>

indeed. Since I'm reading this thread from RAD that is the only side of
his character to which I've been exposed, and while I enjoy riding I am
also quite obviously a car nut. Perhaps I should start reading RBM.

Well, actually, what I should do right now is change into some shorts
and go for a ride, since it's only 80 degrees out this afternoon. I
might actually do that; I need some books to read and I have some checks
that need to be cashed.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel