Pedal Power

B. Lafferty said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6287085.stm

Riding naked. That's a good way to get drivers who think cycling is a
nuisance to take bikers seriously.

Joseph

B. Lafferty said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6287085.stm

An Australian: "I've had a fair few problems with traffic. You can
guarantee every time you go for a cycle there's going to be a close
call of some sort"

Well, it's really the same over here.

--
E. Dronkert

Ewoud Dronkert said:

B. Lafferty said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6287085.stm

An Australian: "I've had a fair few problems with traffic. You can
guarantee every time you go for a cycle there's going to be a close
call of some sort"

Well, it's really the same over here.

--
E. Dronkert

One man's narrow margin is another man's close call. Just now I was
driving home and the car started drifting out in an off camber turn.
There was a big truck coming the other way. I didn't slide that much,
and the truck passed with probably the same clearance it would have had
there been no ice on the road. Was this a close call? I don't think so,
as I was within my margin, albeit a narrow one. Same thing when cars
pass too close when I am riding. It's irritating, dangerous, and
unnecessary, but not a close call (usually).

I think new cyclists often mistake proximity for close call.

Joseph

Quoted message said:

I think new cyclists often mistake proximity for close call.

Could be. My 'close calls' are almost always cars not giving right of
way at intersections or not looking from driveways. It's because I'm
so lightning-fast they think they still have time.

--
E. Dronkert

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6287085.stm

Riding naked. That's a good way to get drivers who think cycling is a
nuisance to take bikers seriously.

It brings a new visual to the term "down tube".

Phil H

Quoted message said:

One man's narrow margin is another man's close call. Just now I was
driving home and the car started drifting out in an off camber turn.
There was a big truck coming the other way. I didn't slide that much,
and the truck passed with probably the same clearance it would have had
there been no ice on the road. Was this a close call? I don't think so,
as I was within my margin, albeit a narrow one. Same thing when cars
pass too close when I am riding. It's irritating, dangerous, and
unnecessary, but not a close call (usually).

I think new cyclists often mistake proximity for close call.

"Those who test limits will eventually find them." -- Ben Franklin,
1759

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

"Those who test limits will eventually find them." -- Ben Franklin,
1759

Was he thinking about unprotected sex when he said that ?

I am just curious, but do you yield to pedestrians at crosswalks? If
you don't then it will be the pedestrians who will
experience the "close calls" due to a cyclist not giving right of way.

Anyway, I've seen reports from Holland where some towns have abandoned
right of way at intersections and
let cars, cyclists, and pedestrians settle it among themselves. They
claim that this has reduced the number
of accidents.

-ilan

On Jan 23, 1:32 pm, Ewoud Dronkert <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think new cyclists often mistake proximity for close call.Could be. My 'close calls' are almost always cars not giving right of

way at intersections or not looking from driveways. It's because I'm
so lightning-fast they think they still have time.

--
E. Dronkert

ilan said:

Anyway, I've seen reports from Holland where some towns have abandoned
right of way at intersections and
let cars, cyclists, and pedestrians settle it among themselves. They
claim that this has reduced the number
of accidents.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

In article
<[email hidden]>,

ilan said:

I am just curious, but do you yield to pedestrians at crosswalks? If
you don't then it will be the pedestrians who will
experience the "close calls" due to a cyclist not giving right of way.

Anyway, I've seen reports from Holland where some towns have abandoned
right of way at intersections and
let cars, cyclists, and pedestrians settle it among themselves. They
claim that this has reduced the number
of accidents.

There are no accidents, only winners and losers.

Quoted message said:

On Jan 23, 1:32 pm, Ewoud Dronkert <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think new cyclists often mistake proximity for close call.Could be. My 'close calls' are almost always cars not giving right of

way at intersections or not looking from driveways. It's because I'm
so lightning-fast they think they still have time.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Quoted message said:

I think new cyclists often mistake proximity for close call.

Could be. My 'close calls' are almost always cars not giving right of
way at intersections or not looking from driveways. It's because I'm
so lightning-fast they think they still have time.

I believe that most people in cars here in the US see a bicycle as only going one
speed: slow. So they'll pull out in front of you, assuming that they have plenty of
time. On the other hand, it could be that they just don't give a damn. Even if a
cyclist hits them, they will suffer no physical damage (uh, that's in general).

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:24:48 -0800, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Quoted message said:

I think new cyclists often mistake proximity for close call.

Could be. My 'close calls' are almost always cars not giving right of
way at intersections or not looking from driveways. It's because I'm
so lightning-fast they think they still have time.

I believe that most people in cars here in the US see a bicycle as only going one
speed: slow. So they'll pull out in front of you, assuming that they have plenty of
time. On the other hand, it could be that they just don't give a damn. Even if a
cyclist hits them, they will suffer no physical damage (uh, that's in general).

Yep, they usually get the speed wrong. It seems to me that they make fewer
mistakes the faster I go. Like over 20mph is fast enough that their mental
calculator can actually predict where I'll be. Much under that and they check
off the "slow" box and pay attention to something else.

Ron

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I believe that most people in cars here in the US see a bicycle as only
going one
speed: slow. So they'll pull out in front of you, assuming that they have
plenty of
time. On the other hand, it could be that they just don't give a damn.
Even if a
cyclist hits them, they will suffer no physical damage (uh, that's in
general).

I feel that part of the reason they don't give a damn is bike riders'
general disdain for courteous road manners, be it running stop lights and
stop signs to lane splitters and hopping on sidewalks when convenient. Plus
bike riders' lack of directional predictability.

Carl Sundquist said:

I feel that part of the reason they don't give a damn is bike riders'
general disdain for courteous road manners, be it running stop lights
and stop signs to lane splitters and hopping on sidewalks when
convenient. Plus bike riders' lack of directional predictability.

I used to think this, until I lived in France. If anything, both cyclists
and drivers lack predictability (or, as I've tried to explain to American
visitors, the lane that a car occupies just before an intersection gives you
no information about which way the driver will turn) but cars typically give
much more passing room to cyclists than in the US.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I believe that most people in cars here in the US see a bicycle as only
going one speed: slow. So they'll pull out in front of you, assuming that they
have plenty of time. On the other hand, it could be that they just don't give
a damn. Even if a cyclist hits them, they will suffer no physical damage (uh,
that's in general).

I feel that part of the reason they don't give a damn is bike riders'
general disdain for courteous road manners, be it running stop lights and
stop signs to lane splitters and hopping on sidewalks when convenient. Plus
bike riders' lack of directional predictability.

I wouldn't argue with any of that.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

Carl Sundquist said:

I feel that part of the reason they don't give a damn is bike riders'
general disdain for courteous road manners, be it running stop lights
and stop signs to lane splitters and hopping on sidewalks when
convenient. Plus bike riders' lack of directional predictability.

I used to think this, until I lived in France. If anything, both cyclists
and drivers lack predictability (or, as I've tried to explain to American
visitors, the lane that a car occupies just before an intersection gives you
no information about which way the driver will turn) but cars typically give
much more passing room to cyclists than in the US.

When I was in Barcelona, I thought that cars gave motorcycles and scooters a lot
of room and respect, but cyclists got pretty short shrift. It looked like you took a
pretty big risk riding in town there.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

ilan said:

I am just curious, but do you yield to pedestrians at crosswalks? If
you don't then it will be the pedestrians who will
experience the "close calls" due to a cyclist not giving right of way.

The answer for me is "generally, yes." However, I am quite willing to
enter the crosswalk as long as I'll be a metre or so behind them.

I generally give at least a metre of clearance to any pedestrian even in
my most psychotic moments. I don't really register a car as being
anything like a close call unless they fall under that 1m distance when
overtaking (and really, it has to be a lot less than 1m before I get
annoyed), or at rather greater distances if they are on a crossing or
intersecting path.

I daresay a metre of separation from a bike moving at reasonable speeds
(I'd never buzz a ped at close range; that would be purely obnoxious) is
going to be a different experience for a ped than a car overtaking a
bike with less than a metre of difference. The relative mass issues
alone!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, I've seen reports from Holland where some towns have abandoned
right of way at intersections and
let cars, cyclists, and pedestrians settle it among themselves. They
claim that this has reduced the number
of accidents.

There are no accidents, only winners and losers.

Heh. The Dutch experiment is both more and less complicated than that.
What has been done away with is stuff like lane markings, road signs
(stop, yield, roundabout ahead, No Left Turn, etc.), and traffic lights.
In their place is a road design that uses subtler cues to present
information: roads are narrowed, or cobble-textured where vehicles must
slow to avoid an approaching hazard, roundabouts are in heavy use, and
other elements of the design

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

I generally give at least a metre of clearance to any pedestrian even in
my most psychotic moments. I don't really register a car as being
anything like a close call unless they fall under that 1m distance when
overtaking (and really, it has to be a lot less than 1m before I get
annoyed), or at rather greater distances if they are on a crossing or
intersecting path.

What you write implies that you have your own standard of safety that
you apply
independently of what other users might believe, e.g., pedestrians who
might
be of the opinion that one meter is too close, or what the law
prescribes, assuming that where you
live, a vehicle cannot enter a crosswalk if there are pedestrians in
it, or about to
enter it.

As for the Dutch experiment, it might work in small communities there,
but here in Paris
it is a complete failure since many vehicles, and bicycles in
particular, pay absolutely
no attention to signals, and there are many pedestrians killed by
vehicles every year.

-ilan

In article <[email hidden]>,

ilan said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

I generally give at least a metre of clearance to any pedestrian even in
my most psychotic moments. I don't really register a car as being
anything like a close call unless they fall under that 1m distance when
overtaking (and really, it has to be a lot less than 1m before I get
annoyed), or at rather greater distances if they are on a crossing or
intersecting path.

What you write implies that you have your own standard of safety that
you apply
independently of what other users might believe, e.g., pedestrians who
might
be of the opinion that one meter is too close, or what the law
prescribes, assuming that where you
live, a vehicle cannot enter a crosswalk if there are pedestrians in
it, or about to
enter it.

If I thought I was even flustering the pedestrians, I would change my
ways. I assure you I yield to them vigorously (usually with more care
than the cars) and I breach the rules of the road under the model that
to do so is to take full responsibility for my safety and the safety of
others. In other words, I only do it if it is innocuous (doesn't thwart
anyone's right of way, for example) and risk-free.

Quoted message said:

As for the Dutch experiment, it might work in small communities there,
but here in Paris
it is a complete failure since many vehicles, and bicycles in
particular, pay absolutely
no attention to signals, and there are many pedestrians killed by
vehicles every year.

The point of the Dutch experiment is that there are no signals. It
essentially drives speeds down by making the hazards psychologically
manifest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/04/ntraffic0
4.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2006/10/14/m
flights114.xml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p01s03-woeu.html

&c.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos