The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city...

[R15757]

Guy wrote:

>>When the exceptions start piling up
>>it's time to realize that your rule isn't
>>doing the trick, or at least needs to
>>be restated.
>
>Have you not realised yet that the major exception is you?

Yeah right Guy. Even you self-proclaimed
zealots don't follow the basic principles of
VC consistently, while you freak out on
anybody who dares criticize them.
It's like Jimmy Swaggert style hypocrisy
around here.

R

 

[R15757]

Frank K:

>Personally, I've heard of only one person who's complained about this
>issue.

Give me a break. Open your ears.

I asked:
>> How about some quotes on defensive
>> cycling from the early edition of the
>> book that you claimed to have in a
>> previous post. It shouldn't be
>> difficult to find them.

Frank replied:
>And after I search the 1988 edition, you'll tell me to search the 1984
>edition? Then the 1981? Then 1978? Then 1975?
>
>Forget it. It isn't worthwhile to me. I've done enough of your
>homework for you.

Don't have the book that you claimed to
have, eh? Either that or the quote is not
in there. Which is it?

R

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 25 Nov 2004 19:26:12 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote:

>>Have you not realised yet that the major exception is you?

>Yeah right Guy. Even you self-proclaimed
>zealots don't follow the basic principles of
>VC consistently, while you freak out on
>anybody who dares criticize them.
>It's like Jimmy Swaggert style hypocrisy
>around here.

What planet do you live on? I am no "VC zealot" - I take a very
pragmatic view. So does Franklin in the book you criticised.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet because these people don't use -
what? - the precise form of words you'd like? Get over it! The
skills they teach are good skills.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote:

>>>Why ride in the traffic? To be where they are looking.
>
>>Heh heh, nope.
>
>Heh heh, yep. Especially at intersections.

The fact that you think making yourself
visible to motorists is your most important
task in traffic, well, it blows my mind. It
blows my mind that so many other people
think the same way. You should know that
nobody who has a similar amount of experience
that I have thinks that way. They can't
afford to.

I urge you to take more responsibility for
yourself, instead of willfully placing it in the
eyes of strangers.

>I think you are confusing your experience as a messenger for the
>experience of ordinary folks. That would account for some of the
>observed facts, anyway.

How so? Remember that I have about 75,000
non-messenger miles in addition to the 160K+
I have accumulated as a working courier.
Are you saying that because I have passed a
certain point, my experience no longer counts?
At what point did that happen? 10,000 hours
or so?

>I ride every day in traffic, on a low-down recumbent. You think I
>don't know what I'm doing? Well screw you.

No need to get nasty. Why don't you
critique the substance of my argument as
I have done to yours. That you think
being visible to motorists is more important
than anything else is a striking indication that
you do not in fact know what you're doing.

>I have seen enough to understand that your viewpoint >is extreme.

Extremely different than yours is the only way
it is extreme.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote in part:

>You seem to have a bee in your bonnet because these people don't use -
>what? - the precise form of words you'd like?

No, it's a fundamental disagreement,
not a trivial one by any means.
Anybody who thinks being visible
to motorists is the most important
thing is wrong.

>Get over it! The
>skills they teach are good skills.

The skills they teach are good skills
for beginners who are afraid to ride in
the street, and that's who they were
designed for. For those of us who have
been riding the streets since we were
11 without supervision or books,
we realize that the skills
they teach are quite inadequate.

Who's the one with the bee in the bonnet?
Damn.

Robert

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 25 Nov 2004 20:07:07 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>>>Why ride in the traffic? To be where they are looking.

>The fact that you think making yourself
>visible to motorists is your most important
>task in traffic, well, it blows my mind.

I'm sure it does. I find that being seen makes quite a difference to
your chances of being wiped out.

>It
>blows my mind that so many other people
>think the same way. You should know that
>nobody who has a similar amount of experience
>that I have thinks that way. They can't
>afford to.

Really? Are you sure of that? Or are you just quibbling because you
are trying to undermine the whole EC idea as a way of justifying
things you do which are against the teachings of EC?

It seems to me that riding in the traffic lane for the reasons I
stated - to be where they are looking and to be treated properly as a
vehicle with a rightful place on the road - is a sound approach. I
know a lot of cycle messengers don't hold with old-fashioned notions
like traffic laws, keeping off the footway and so on, but nobody
pretends that they are any more typical of the average cyclist than a
taxi driver is typical of the average driver.

>I urge you to take more responsibility for
>yourself, instead of willfully placing it in the
>eyes of strangers.

Ah, so the reason I am placing myself in the traffic lane to be seen
and to be treated as traffic is because I am abrogating all
responsibility for my safety to others. The lights, the reflective
clothing, the flag, the mirror, the vigilance, the scanning for escape
routes - all this is because I am trusting those munificent cagers to
keep me safe. Whereas the cyclist who rides in the gutter assuming
that they will be seen anyway, despite being away from the drivers'
sight lines, are what? That is the default mode for untrained adult
cyclists. Me, I have taken much more responsibility for my own
safety. I take the lane when circumstances demand it, including on
the narrow bridges I negotiate daily, because I know that if I don't
manage the traffic behind, some of them will fail to understand how
much space I need and try to overtake.

This is what it teaches in Cyclecraft, which you denounced.

What, precisely, am I doing wrong, other than doing it for what you
perceive to be the wrong reason?

>>I think you are confusing your experience as a messenger for the
>>experience of ordinary folks. That would account for some of the
>>observed facts, anyway.

>How so? Remember that I have about 75,000
>non-messenger miles in addition to the 160K+
>I have accumulated as a working courier.
>Are you saying that because I have passed a
>certain point, my experience no longer counts?
>At what point did that happen? 10,000 hours
>or so?

The point at which it changes is the point at which you become a
messenger, plying for hire against the clock. Your motivations are
completely different from the average cyclist, and your behaviour will
reflect that. I have a lot of miles, too, but all as a regular
cyclist - touring or commuting.

Are you claiming that taxi drivers are the world's best drivers?

One thing I do know: the average working life of a motorcycle
messenger in London is stated to be two years, after which they either
can't hack it any more or get wiped out.

I have not read more than the abstract of the Harvard study which said
"Urban bicycle messengers [...] suffer a very high rate of
occupational injury", but it is an inherently plausible argument. A
bike messenger was killed in London recently when he stopped, leaning
against the left side of a left-turning heavy truck. Now I am all for
giving people the benefit of the doubt, but knowing the way messengers
ride, it seems most likely that he was using the truck as a prop to
avoid unclipping. I - and just about every other cyclist I know -
would *never* stop alongside a truck like that.

Bike messengers also regularly report being doored. Cyclists I know
*do not ride* in the door zone - it is right against EC.

I am to saying you do these things, but these are things we have all
seen messengers do. Just as taxi drivers are not the model for
everyday driving behaviour, messengers are not held up as the model
for everyday cyclists.

And even then, some of the things you say you do - like riding out in
the traffic lane - come straight from EC. You just don't seem to like
the reason Forester gives for doing it! I really don't get where you
are coming from here.

>>I ride every day in traffic, on a low-down recumbent. You think I
>>don't know what I'm doing? Well screw you.

>No need to get nasty. Why don't you
>critique the substance of my argument as
>I have done to yours.

But you haven't! All you've done is told me I'm doing the right thing
for the wrong reasons! I am more inclined to trust the man who taught
me the right thing in the first place, here.

>That you think
>being visible to motorists is more important
>than anything else is a striking indication that
>you do not in fact know what you're doing.

Do tell: how do you stay alive without being visible?

>Extremely different than yours is the only way
>it is extreme.

Also extremely different form Frank's, and that of a lot of other
people including the writer of at least one standard text on cycling.

And I *still* don't get why you think it is wrong to ride in the
traffic in order to be seen and treated as a vehicle, but right to do
it in order to "create space" - in free flowing traffic, most of the
road *is* space. Space is only an issue when some bozo goes past, and
the way I ride they have to see me and pass me properly, because I am
where they are looking! I think you are arguing about labels, for
reasons which I cannot fathom.

To hear you talk anyone would think I was advocating cowering in the
gutter with a reflective jacket on - nothing could be further from the
truth, and nothing could be less like my riding style. The fact
remains, there is a lot of mileage in making sure that I give drivers
the best possible chance of seeing me.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 25 Nov 2004 20:31:51 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>You seem to have a bee in your bonnet because these people don't use -
>>what? - the precise form of words you'd like?

>No, it's a fundamental disagreement,
>not a trivial one by any means.
>Anybody who thinks being visible
>to motorists is the most important
>thing is wrong.

You say. As far as I'm concerned, being visible to the single largest
source of danger on the roads is not so much wrong as Very Smart
Indeed.

>The skills they teach are good skills
>for beginners who are afraid to ride in
>the street, and that's who they were
>designed for.

I am not afraid to ride the streets and never have been.

>For those of us who have
>been riding the streets since we were
>11 without supervision or books,
>we realize that the skills
>they teach are quite inadequate.

So you say. So off you go and write a world-class book on cycling
technique for adults. If you sell one copy to Forester's ten I will
be happy to eat humble pie. I will even ask you for a signed copy
with a crowing inscription.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

>
>>Forget it. It isn't worthwhile to me. I've done enough of your
>>homework for you.
>
>
> Don't have the book that you claimed to
> have, eh? Either that or the quote is not
> in there. Which is it?

Neither. I've got several editions of the book, plus the video, plus
two versions of the instructor's manual, plus other supporting material
sitting within five feet of me right now.

I've proven my points, and I see no need to respond to the demands of a
hardhead who won't do his own reading.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

> Frank K replied:
>
>
>>>Interestingly, among experienced adults,
>>>running red lights is statistically less dangerous
>>>than going through intersections under the
>>>green. Anybody with reasonable intelligence
>>>could figure out why this is so.
>>
>>Hmmm. But IIRC, you got hit running a light. Silly newbie.
>
>
> You're losing it. I have never been hit while
> running a light, red or green.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, then. It's difficult to keep the anonymous
posters straight.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote:

>I find that being seen makes quite a difference to
>your chances of being wiped out.

Unfortunately, whether you are seen or not
is something that is ultimately out of your
control. It is better to spend your energy
on things which you can control.

>>it blows my mind that so many other people
>>think the same way. You should know that
>>nobody who has a similar amount of experience
>>that I have thinks that way. They can't
>>afford to.
>
>Really? Are you sure of that? Or are you just quibbling because you
>are trying to undermine the whole EC idea as a way of justifying
>things you do which are against the teachings of EC?

It doesn't bother me to ride "against the
teachings of EC." There are exceptions to
every rule, right?

>It seems to me that riding in the traffic lane for the reasons I
>stated - to be where they are looking and to be treated properly as a
>vehicle with a rightful place on the road - is a sound >approach....

It's a fool's game. Your state of mind is all
twisted up.

>>I urge you to take more responsibility for
>>yourself, instead of willfully placing it in the
>>eyes of strangers.
>
>Ah, so the reason I am placing myself in the traffic lane to be seen
>and to be treated as traffic is because I am abrogating all
>responsibility for my safety to others. The lights, the reflective
>clothing, the flag, the mirror, the vigilance, the scanning for escape
>routes - all this is because I am trusting those munificent cagers to
>keep me safe. ...

>What, precisely, am I doing wrong, other than doing it for what you
>perceive to be the wrong reason?

What I am saying is you don't seem to
appreciate the UNRELIABILITY of your
visibility-enhancing measures.

No matter what you wear, how you
ride, where you ride--there will still be
motorists who fail to notice you. This
reality is due to the cyclist's relative
size in the scheme of things, the cyclist's
tendency to blend in to the background,
the fact that the motorists are looking
for cars and not bikes, and the motorists'
general lack of awareness. So you
have to ride in the best spot to deal
with the inevitable intrusions when they
come, cars popping out of driveways and alleys
and sidestreets, into and out ofparking spaces,
not to mention left turners cranking
into you and not to mention pedestrians running
out and various other right-side hazards. Once
you realize what's important and focus on it,
you barely have time to think about positioning
to enhance visibility--although, as I said, it is
a by-product of good riding anyway--and you
definitely don't have time to think about all
that Napoleonic cyclist pride stuff you claim
to think about all the time.

>The point at which it changes is the point at which you become a
>messenger, plying for hire against the clock. Your motivations are
>completely different from the average cyclist, and your behaviour will
>reflect that. I have a lot of miles, too, but all as a regular
>cyclist - touring or commuting.

I commute to work and ride to the store
and go touring as well. Anyway, it doesn't
matter. Everything I said about the Limits
of Visibility applies no matter what type
of riding you do.

>Are you claiming that taxi drivers are the world's best drivers?

It doesn't take much skill to sit in gridlock.
The world's best drivers are rally racers and
fire truck drivers.

>I have not read more than the abstract of the Harvard study which said
>"Urban bicycle messengers [...] suffer a very high rate of
>occupational injury", but it is an inherently plausible argument.

Ya think? Bike messengers get hit a lot because
they ride about 12000 miles per year in heavy
traffic. Most bike messengers who get injured
are rookies, or within their first year or two. If
you did a study of veteran couriers, you would find
their accident rate per mile or per hour to be far
less than that of the most experienced "club
cyclists." And this would only surprise you if you
were completely dense.

>A bike messenger was killed in London recently when he stopped, leaning
>against the left side of a left-turning heavy truck. Now I am all for
>giving people the benefit of the doubt, but knowing the way messengers
>ride, it seems most likely that he was using the truck as a prop to
>avoid unclipping. I - and just about every other cyclist I know -
>would *never* stop alongside a truck like that.

Unless, perhaps, you had somehow convinced
yourself that the truck was not going to turn.
Go over to .soc and check my comments to
Bill. It sounds to me like Seb may have had
a momentary lapse and mistook the crossing
street for a one-way where the truck could
not have turned. But who knows. The tiniest
loss of focus in traffic can get you killed.

>Bike messengers also regularly report being doored. Cyclists I know
>*do not ride* in the door zone - it is right against EC.

Messengers regularly report this eh?
Where's that, on the bike messenger door
reporting service?
I personally have never been doored. I dont ride
in any DZ unless I can absolutely help it. It is not
"against EC," it is against common sense.

>I am to saying you do these things, but these are things we have all
>seen messengers do. Just as taxi drivers are not the model for
>everyday driving behaviour, messengers are not held up as the model
>for everyday cyclists.

Well, it is true that messenger-style riding
is a wholly different ballgame. But the veteran
messengers are nonetheless the safest
riders out there. You can choose to learn
from them or not.

>And even then, some of the things you say you do - like riding out in
>the traffic lane - come straight from EC. You just don't seem to like
>the reason Forester gives for doing it!

Of course not, it's the wrong reason.

>I really don't get where you
>are coming from here.

Sigh. I am saying recognize
where you are ceding responsibility
and take it back.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote:

>>Anybody who thinks being visible
>>to motorists is the most important
>>thing is wrong.
>
>You say. As far as I'm concerned, being visible to the single largest
>source of danger on the roads is not so much wrong as Very Smart
>Indeed.

"Being seen" is out of your control. Don't
delude yourself into believing it's not.

>So you say. So off you go and write a world-class book on cycling
>technique for adults. If you sell one copy to Forester's ten I will
>be happy to eat humble pie. I will even ask you for a signed copy
>with a crowing inscription.

So popular consumption of an idea is proof
of its validity? I hope not.

Robert

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 26 Nov 2004 04:17:13 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote:

>>I find that being seen makes quite a difference to
>>your chances of being wiped out.

>Unfortunately, whether you are seen or not
> is something that is ultimately out of your
>control. It is better to spend your energy
>on things which you can control.

Oh, OK, then I'll stop using lights and wearing bright clothing,
because clearly this is something I can do nothing about. Or is it
the case that making it easier for the 99% of drivers who are looking,
to see you, might actually have some benefit after all?

>It doesn't bother me to ride "against the
>teachings of EC." There are exceptions to
>every rule, right?

Indeed there are. But the rule still applies in the vast majority of
cases.

>>It seems to me that riding in the traffic lane for the reasons I
>>stated - to be where they are looking and to be treated properly as a
>>vehicle with a rightful place on the road - is a sound >approach....

>It's a fool's game. Your state of mind is all
>twisted up.

So you say. It works for me, and some well-known people have made a
living out of writing about it, so it can't be all bad.

>>What, precisely, am I doing wrong, other than doing it for what you
>>perceive to be the wrong reason?

>What I am saying is you don't seem to
>appreciate the UNRELIABILITY of your
>visibility-enhancing measures.

And I said that where, precisely?

I work in MIS. Where I come from we have DR and business continuity
plans. You seem to be advocating using ONLY the DR plan, and
forgetting about the day-to-day systems work!

>No matter what you wear, how you
>ride, where you ride--there will still be
>motorists who fail to notice you.

Correct. And the number of these motorists increases dramatically if
you fail to use good road position. The Danish cycleway studies show
this very graphically: cyclists are at massively more risk if they
approach junctions from outside the usual motorised traffic stream.

>So you
>have to ride in the best spot to deal
>with the inevitable intrusions when they
>come, cars popping out of driveways and alleys
>and sidestreets, into and out ofparking spaces,

So you say. And guess what? The place you advocate riding is
*exactly the same* as the place I advocate riding. And guess what?
The act of riding there *in and of itself* reduces the incidence of
the problems you describe.

There is also a fundamental inconsistency in what you say: if riding
in the traffic to enhance visibility is doomed to fail because drivers
are clueless, how, precisely, do you intend to "make space" when your
vehicle weighs less than a tenth of what theirs does, and in some
cases they wouldn't even feel the bump if they rolled over you? Your
approach is also *entirely dependent* on the actions of others. Road
safety always is!

>I commute to work and ride to the store
>and go touring as well. Anyway, it doesn't
>matter. Everything I said about the Limits
>of Visibility applies no matter what type
>of riding you do.

So you say. How exactly do you "make space" without being seen,
again?

>>I have not read more than the abstract of the Harvard study which said
>>"Urban bicycle messengers [...] suffer a very high rate of
>>occupational injury", but it is an inherently plausible argument.

>Ya think? Bike messengers get hit a lot because
>they ride about 12000 miles per year in heavy
>traffic.

The pitcher that goes oftenest to the well. But that said, do you not
think that some of the manoeuvres your fellow messengers undertake are
perhaps just the *teensiest* bit rash? Like leaning on the left side
of a left-turning truck at the lights?

>>A bike messenger was killed in London recently when he stopped, leaning
>>against the left side of a left-turning heavy truck. [...]
>>I - and just about every other cyclist I know -
>>would *never* stop alongside a truck like that.

>Unless, perhaps, you had somehow convinced
>yourself that the truck was not going to turn.

No, not even then. I have driven trucks. They are big,
unmanoeuvrable, have limited vision, and need to swing round corners.
Bikes and trucks mix poorly at junctions, the best places to be are in
front of them or behind them, never alongside.

>>Bike messengers also regularly report being doored. Cyclists I know
>>*do not ride* in the door zone - it is right against EC.

>Messengers regularly report this eh?
>Where's that, on the bike messenger door
>reporting service?

On the London bike messengers' website, for a start.

>Well, it is true that messenger-style riding
>is a wholly different ballgame. But the veteran
>messengers are nonetheless the safest
>riders out there. You can choose to learn
>from them or not.

So all I need to do is start hopping the kerb and weaving in and out
of stationary traffic? Thanks, but no thanks. Apart from anything
else not everybody has a bike messenger's handling skills. I am a
very experienced cyclist and I still can't do a track stand.
Especially on the recumbent.

>>And even then, some of the things you say you do - like riding out in
>>the traffic lane - come straight from EC. You just don't seem to like
>>the reason Forester gives for doing it!

>Of course not, it's the wrong reason.

So you keep saying. But you have not advanced any evidence for this
other than personal prejudice. You don't seem to dispute the advice,
just the reason. I will trust the source of the advice as to the
reason, I think.

>>I really don't get where you
>>are coming from here.

>Sigh. I am saying recognize
>where you are ceding responsibility
>and take it back.

But I'm not ceding responsibility. I am taking it. Specifically I am
acknowledging that they are not looking and deliberately putting
myself where I will be seen, and where I can manage their behaviour.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 26 Nov 2004 04:21:01 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote:

>>As far as I'm concerned, being visible to the single largest
>>source of danger on the roads is not so much wrong as Very Smart
>>Indeed.

>"Being seen" is out of your control. Don't
>delude yourself into believing it's not.

I am at a loss to understand the point you are trying to make here.
Should I be cowering in the gutter wearing dark clothing and without
lights or not?

>>So you say. So off you go and write a world-class book on cycling
>>technique for adults. If you sell one copy to Forester's ten I will
>>be happy to eat humble pie. I will even ask you for a signed copy
>>with a crowing inscription.

>So popular consumption of an idea is proof
>of its validity? I hope not.

You keep telling me about the widespread support for your view and
against EC; I am inviting you to capitalise on it and offering to eat
humble pie should this be as successful as you clearly think it must
be. What more can I say?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote:

>>Unfortunately, whether you are seen or not
>> is something that is ultimately out of your
>>control. It is better to spend your energy
>>on things which you can control.
>
>Oh, OK, then I'll stop using lights and wearing bright clothing,
>because clearly this is something I can do nothing about. Or is it
>the case that making it easier for the 99% of drivers >who are looking,
>to see you, might actually have some benefit after all?

Such measures are quite helpful, of course.
They are very helpful right up until the point
where you believe they are actually doing some
good, after which point you are better off
without them.

>...Your
>approach is also *entirely dependent* on the actions of others. Road
>safety always is!

Hell no it is not "entirely dependent" on others.
It is only dependent on others when absolutely
necessary, which is rare.

>>Ya think? Bike messengers get hit a lot because
>>they ride about 12000 miles per year in heavy
>>traffic.
>
>The pitcher that goes oftenest to the well. But that said, do you not
>think that some of the manoeuvres your fellow messengers undertake are
>perhaps just the *teensiest* bit rash? Like leaning on the left side
>of a left-turning truck at the lights?

Don't you think some of the actions of your
fellow commuters are just the teeniest bit
rash? Like assuming you are seen just because
you have good road position and an orange vest?

I wish you wouldn't trumpet this poor guy's
untimely death to try and make your
tortured point.

>No, not even then. I have driven trucks. They are big,
>unmanoeuvrable, have limited vision, and need to swing round corners.
>Bikes and trucks mix poorly at junctions, the best places to be are in
>front of them or behind them, never alongside.

I agree completely. I hope that you are not
saying that if you were out in traffic all
day you would be incapable of making such
a mistake at one of the several hundred
intersections that you would have to
negotiate.

>>Well, it is true that messenger-style riding
>>is a wholly different ballgame. But the veteran
>>messengers are nonetheless the safest
>>riders out there. You can choose to learn
>>from them or not.
>
>So all I need to do is start hopping the kerb and weaving in and out
>of stationary traffic? Thanks, but no thanks. Apart from anything
>else not everybody has a bike messenger's handling skills. I am a
>very experienced cyclist and I still can't do a track stand.
>Especially on the recumbent.

Like I said, messenger riding against the clock
is a different ballgame. Commuters shouldnt
attempt to ride like a working messenger any
more than a working messenger should attempt
to ride like a commuter.

But--follow a ten-year messenger home from
work or to the store some day and you will likely
see the safest possible syle of riding in traffic.

It's not about skill-level. It's about state of mind.
The kind of state-of-mind that comes
only with painful experience, and apparently
cannot be imparted on usenet.

>But I'm not ceding responsibility. I am taking it. Specifically I am
>acknowledging that they are not looking and deliberately putting
>myself where I will be seen, ...

This is bizarre. If "they are not looking" as you
say, then why would you even bother with
"putting [yourself] where [you] will be seen?"
You had better move one step beyond and
start preparing for what happens when you
are NOT seen, which is inevitable no matter
what.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote:

>>"Being seen" is out of your control. Don't
>>delude yourself into believing it's not.
>
>I am at a loss to understand the point you are trying to make here.
>Should I be cowering in the gutter wearing dark clothing and without
>lights or not?

Of course not, silly. Wear the vest, use the flag,
the flashing lights, reflective strips. Go for it.
If you think these measures will save you, however,
you are almost certainly better off without them.
If you think riding in the street is the magic
bullet of visibility, you are better off riding on
the footpath.

>>So popular consumption of an idea is proof
>>of its validity? I hope not.
>
>You keep telling me about the widespread support for your view and
>against EC; I am inviting you to capitalise on it and offering to eat
>humble pie should this be as successful as you clearly think it must
>be. What more can I say?

As I indicated in my initial contribution to this
thread, such a book has already been written.
It is called the Art of Urban Cycling, and it has
been very well received. One LCI called it "the
best book ever to come out about how to ride
in traffic."

www.urbancycling.com/essays/methodindex.html

Velonews called it a "near masterpiece." But I
still fail to see how the existence of a book
or sales of a book has anything to do with
the validity of an idea.

Robert

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 26 Nov 2004 20:08:22 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>>Unfortunately, whether you are seen or not
>>> is something that is ultimately out of your
>>>control. It is better to spend your energy
>>>on things which you can control.

>>Oh, OK, then I'll stop using lights and wearing bright clothing,
>>because clearly this is something I can do nothing about. Or is it
>>the case that making it easier for the 99% of drivers >who are looking,
>>to see you, might actually have some benefit after all?

>Such measures are quite helpful, of course.
>They are very helpful right up until the point
>where you believe they are actually doing some
>good, after which point you are better off
>without them.

Ah, right, so now it's OK to be seen, but you need to make space from
the ones who don't see you. This you do how? Using your Zone of
Repulsion, or do you have deflector shields?

>>...Your
>>approach is also *entirely dependent* on the actions of others. Road
>>safety always is!

>Hell no it is not "entirely dependent" on others.
>It is only dependent on others when absolutely
>necessary, which is rare.

Ah, so you do what? Force them all off the roads? Ride on the
sidewalk where they can't get you?

>>do you not
>>think that some of the manoeuvres your fellow messengers undertake are
>>perhaps just the *teensiest* bit rash? Like leaning on the left side
>>of a left-turning truck at the lights?

>Don't you think some of the actions of your
>fellow commuters are just the teeniest bit
>rash? Like assuming you are seen just because
>you have good road position and an orange vest?

Who assumes anything? All I'm doing is making sure that I maximise my
chances of being seen, and reminding the cagers that I am a proper
vehicle.

>I wish you wouldn't trumpet this poor guy's
>untimely death to try and make your
>tortured point.

I'm sure you do. Truth is: I have never *ever* leaned on *any*
vehicle in a traffic line, and *most especially* a truck. I have seen
a number of couriers doing this. Making progress is the be-all and
end-all for at least some of these guys; for me, staying alive is more
important.

>>No, not even then. I have driven trucks. They are big,
>>unmanoeuvrable, have limited vision, and need to swing round corners.
>>Bikes and trucks mix poorly at junctions, the best places to be are in
>>front of them or behind them, never alongside.

>I agree completely. I hope that you are not
>saying that if you were out in traffic all
>day you would be incapable of making such
>a mistake at one of the several hundred
>intersections that you would have to
>negotiate.

I haven't yet, and I don't see it happening in the future. To be
stationary alongside a large vehicle at lights is to court disaster.
Genuinely. It is the single most common source of cyclist fatalities
in London, and probably elsewhere as well.

>Like I said, messenger riding against the clock
>is a different ballgame. Commuters shouldnt
>attempt to ride like a working messenger any
>more than a working messenger should attempt
>to ride like a commuter.

Right. So why are you spending so much time telling me that my
motives for riding in what you appear to believe is the correct style
are, because they differ from your motives, wrong?

>But--follow a ten-year messenger home from
>work or to the store some day and you will likely
>see the safest possible syle of riding in traffic.

And racers have a great safety record outside races. But they crash a
heck of a lot when they do race, and they have amazing bike handling
skills and phenomenal acceleration.

>It's not about skill-level. It's about state of mind.
>The kind of state-of-mind that comes
>only with painful experience, and apparently
>cannot be imparted on usenet.

So you say. I have been knocked off a couple of times, I learned a
bit from that. One thing I have learned is to ride where the cagers
are looking, it works well.

>>But I'm not ceding responsibility. I am taking it. Specifically I am
>>acknowledging that they are not looking and deliberately putting
>>myself where I will be seen, ...

>This is bizarre. If "they are not looking" as you
>say, then why would you even bother with
>"putting [yourself] where [you] will be seen?"

The windscreen of a car is like a TV set for a cager. Anything
happening outside the rectangle is not happening. Door pillars are
getting thicker, blind spots larger - and all the evidence shows that
approaching an intersection, say, on the sidewalk is massively more
hazardous than doing it in the roadway because you are not where the
cagers' perceived threats are coming from. Place yourself where they
are looking and you have made major progress in ensuring your own
safety.

>You had better move one step beyond and
>start preparing for what happens when you
>are NOT seen, which is inevitable no matter
>what.

And what preparation is required, precisely? I must say I am
fascinated by the idea that there is some bike skill that can make a
car give you space without the driver having seen you.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 26 Nov 2004 20:22:02 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Wear the vest, use the flag,
>the flashing lights, reflective strips. Go for it.
>If you think these measures will save you, however,
>you are almost certainly better off without them.
>If you think riding in the street is the magic
>bullet of visibility, you are better off riding on
>the footpath.

You are so hung up on this that I doubt if I will ever understand
where you are coming from. What is it about the idea of wanting to be
seen which offends you so much? It seems to me that being where the
drivers are looking is extremely wise.

You seem to be every bit as much of a zealot as those you accuse of
being EC zealots. I am a Cyclecraft zealot: I recommend it zealously
to every new adult cyclist I meet, because it is a great book which
teaches sound riding practice. Since I read it I have avoided one
head-on by bailing out (keeping an eye open for escape routes as you
see danger developing), and avoided being flattened by correctly
predicting the path of a car and arranging to broadside it instead of
have it plough into the side of me (the driver failed to yield).
These are not the actions of someone who is leaving his safety to
others.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

R15757 wrote:

> Interestingly, among experienced adults, running red lights is statistically less dangerous than going through intersections under the
green.

True.

>Anybody with reasonable intelligence could figure out why this is so.

There's the problem.

Unfortunately, not many people are willing to state the facts about
what's really safe and what's really dangerous. They brainwash people,
starting with elementary school.

My wife gets mad at me when I explain to my kids that much of what they
teach them about bicycle and pedestrian safety at school is untrue.
I.e., the most dangerous place to cross a street is in a crosswalk on a
corner, while the safest is in the middle of the block where there is no
crosswalk, and as you stated, "Anybody with reasonable intelligence
could figure out why this is so."

When I walk the kids to school every day, and they see first hand how
dangerous it is to cross at the corner. Unfortunately, the police that
show up periodically, are more interested in harassing the few people
walking than they are in going after the jackass parents chatting on
their cell phones as they drive the SUV or minivan with their kids two
blocks to school, oblivious to the pedestrians.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

> Guy wrote:
>
>>Oh, OK, then I'll stop using lights and wearing bright clothing,
>>because clearly this is something I can do nothing about. Or is it
>>the case that making it easier for the 99% of drivers >who are looking,
>>to see you, might actually have some benefit after all?
>
>
> Such measures are quite helpful, of course.
> They are very helpful right up until the point
> where you believe they are actually doing some
> good, after which point you are better off
> without them.

That's a classic! "Lights are great, unless you believe they
help; then you're better off riding without lights!"


>
> ...follow a ten-year messenger home from
> work or to the store some day and you will likely
> see the safest possible syle of riding in traffic.
>
> It's not about skill-level. It's about state of mind.
> The kind of state-of-mind that comes
> only with painful experience, and apparently
> cannot be imparted on usenet.

It sounds like you're implying that a person can't ride safely unless
they spend some time crashing into cars.

What a sad, negative idea!

And of course, it's very inconsistent logically. By that standard, a
person who never crashes can't be safe!

Hmmm. Is it possible that only gluttons can be thin, only murderers can
be law abiding, and only bike messengers can be logical? ;-)


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote:

>>If you think riding in the street is the magic
>>bullet of visibility, you are better off riding on
>>the footpath.
>
>You are so hung up on this that I doubt if I will ever understand
>where you are coming from.

I don't know how else I can restate the
same thing.

>What is it about the idea of wanting to be
>seen which offends you so much? It seems to me that being where the
>drivers are looking is extremely wise.

What is unwise is your apparent belief that
doing so is in any way a reliable way to be
seen. It is not. Sorry.

>and avoided being flattened by correctly
>predicting the path of a car and arranging to broadside it instead of
>have it plough into the side of me (the driver failed to >yield).
>These are not the actions of someone who is leaving his safety to
>others.

Oh boy. Hate to say it Guy, but ramming
broadside into a car is exactly the action
of someone who is leaving his safety to others.
Too much anyway. There is no way you would be
surprised enough to ram into a car that pulls
in front of you if you had been riding with
the right type of awareness. That's pure
rookie stuff.

Cars will pull out in front of you all the
time, no matter where you're riding or
what you're wearing. Are you going to
bash into all of them and call it a
success?

Robert