Traffic question

in rec.bicycles.tech 'Greens said:

It's always to a large extent the motorist's fault.

While I will agree with you that there are aggressive drivers of MVs
out there, I have also witnessed cyclists behaving in such a manner;
therefore, based on my anecdotal experience, anyway, that statement
simply does not hold. I'd put it about 50-50.

Jones

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

Quoted message said:

in rec.bicycles.tech 'Greens said:

It's always to a large extent the motorist's fault.

While I will agree with you that there are aggressive drivers of MVs
out there, I have also witnessed cyclists behaving in such a manner;
therefore, based on my anecdotal experience, anyway, that statement
simply does not hold. I'd put it about 50-50.

Jones

Looks like you only read the last line of my post.

What I said was the USA needs to adopt the Dutch and German attitude that
it's largely the motorist's fault when peds and cyclists get hurt. It
doesn't matter that you think the cyclist is 50% at fault. Over there it's
legally up to the motorist to watch out for the little guys whereas over
here the law treats the little guys like they're blocking traffic and
shouldn't even be on the road.

in rec.bicycles.tech 'Greens said:

Looks like you only read the last line of my post.

Most of the time, people only read the first sentence or so.
Actually, I did read it; I thought the last line summed it up by
design.

Quoted message said:

What I said was the USA needs to adopt the Dutch and German attitude that
it's largely the motorist's fault when peds and cyclists get hurt. It
doesn't matter that you think the cyclist is 50% at fault. Over there it's
legally up to the motorist to watch out for the little guys whereas over
here the law treats the little guys like they're blocking traffic and
shouldn't even be on the road.

Now, I went back and read it again... and I don't think that's what
you said. Further, I don't think that's quite an accurate statement
of European law. Bicycles are better accepted by society at large,
though, and are seen as having equal rights to the road, which is as
it should be.

So, when a cyclist hits a ped, is it always the cyclist's fault? I
used to teach at UT, Austin, and that was a daily occurrence.

Jones

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

Quoted message said:

in rec.bicycles.tech 'Greens said:

Looks like you only read the last line of my post.

Most of the time, people only read the first sentence or so.
Actually, I did read it; I thought the last line summed it up by
design.

Quoted message said:

What I said was the USA needs to adopt the Dutch and German attitude that
it's largely the motorist's fault when peds and cyclists get hurt. It
doesn't matter that you think the cyclist is 50% at fault. Over there it's
legally up to the motorist to watch out for the little guys whereas over
here the law treats the little guys like they're blocking traffic and
shouldn't even be on the road.

Now, I went back and read it again... and I don't think that's what
you said. Further, I don't think that's quite an accurate statement
of European law. Bicycles are better accepted by society at large,
though, and are seen as having equal rights to the road, which is as
it should be.

So, when a cyclist hits a ped, is it always the cyclist's fault? I
used to teach at UT, Austin, and that was a daily occurrence.

Jones

I was talking about Dutch and German law.
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSMotorists.htm

"2.1 Affirm the Right of Citizens to Ride Bicycle in Traffic
Komanoff asserts that "American cyclists cannot be certain that their legal
right-of-way will be observed by drivers, enforced by the police, or upheld
by the courts. In [Komanoff's] view, the practical lack of this right is the
single greatest impediment to widespread cycling and cycling safety. ... The
first step to help cycling thrive is to affirm the right of citizens to ride
bicycles in traffic." "

"Fatality rate per trip, 3 times for cyclists than for motorists.

"Fewer than 1% of streets have bicycle lanes."

"New York police rarely enforce the cyclist's right of way."

Cyclists adopt unlawful tactics in search of self-preservation, not to break
the law."

"Dutch and German laws "require motorists to anticipate unsafe walking and
cycling." If a car-bike collision involves a child or a elderly person, "the
motorist is usually judged to be entirely at fault." "When a crash is caused
by an illegal move by a cyclist or a pedestrian, the motorist is almost
always judged to be partly at fault.""

in rec.bicycles.tech 'Greens said:

I was talking about Dutch and German law.
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSMotorists.htm

If you're going to quote Komanoff, then perhaps you should refer to
one of *his* writings. I think that most of your quotes come from a
1993 article titled: "The Bicycle Blueprint -- A Plan to Bring the
Bicycle into the Mainstream in New York City". It was heavily
excerpted and extended in the 2000 paper. I think that the 1993
article is your primary source.

The article you cite (Forester, ND) is actually highly critical of
Komanoff's ideas and conclusions. If you'll read the author's
conclusion, you'll see that he says: "It is difficult to place much
credibility in [Komanoff's] thought processes..."

Whether you do or you don't, Komanoff is certainly quotable and
controversial; he takes a strong position. Quoting Komanoff as an
authority on bicycle philosophy is a bit like quoting the NRA on the
gun rights debate. He's an important voice; however, many question
his objectivity. In fact, the Forester article (see your citation)
pretty well articulates these concerns. I tend to think that the
criticism is justified.

Jones

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

Quoted message said:

in rec.bicycles.tech 'Greens said:

I was talking about Dutch and German law.
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSMotorists.htm

If you're going to quote Komanoff, then perhaps you should refer to
one of *his* writings. I think that most of your quotes come from a
1993 article titled: "The Bicycle Blueprint -- A Plan to Bring the
Bicycle into the Mainstream in New York City". It was heavily
excerpted and extended in the 2000 paper. I think that the 1993
article is your primary source.

The article you cite (Forester, ND) is actually highly critical of
Komanoff's ideas and conclusions. If you'll read the author's
conclusion, you'll see that he says: "It is difficult to place much
credibility in [Komanoff's] thought processes..."

Whether you do or you don't, Komanoff is certainly quotable and
controversial; he takes a strong position. Quoting Komanoff as an
authority on bicycle philosophy is a bit like quoting the NRA on the
gun rights debate. He's an important voice; however, many question
his objectivity. In fact, the Forester article (see your citation)
pretty well articulates these concerns. I tend to think that the
criticism is justified.

Jones

I was aware of the fact that the article I linked to was highly critical of
Komanoff. There are always people that are highly critical of someone who
has something to say. I thought Komanoff was right. I thought he had better
credentials and was more professional. Komanoff's site was more
professional. (I did go to it) I'm not afraid to let other people see the
other side of the argument unlike Frank who thinks it's important to
suppress info that suggests cycling is anthing less than safe, uh, not worth
worrying about, errr, lots less deaths than motoring or ah, comparing quite
favorably to base jumping as long as you spend as much time falling out of
the sky as you do riding a bike.

In other words I don't hold you down and shove my stats down your throat
like Frank does. I don't think lying is necessary or admirable.