What red light?

[Aeek]

On 11 Dec 2006 03:27:23 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

>Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
>rushing the yellow and going through on the red.
>
>They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
>usually after stopping.

My big problem with jay riders is they're thinking like pedestrians.
Doesn't help us being seen as operating vehicles.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:19:02 +1100
Aeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2006 03:27:23 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
>>rushing the yellow and going through on the red.
>>
>>They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
>>usually after stopping.
>
> My big problem with jay riders is they're thinking like pedestrians.
> Doesn't help us being seen as operating vehicles.

I can sort of see both sides I think.

One is that bicycles need to be seen as vehicles that are as
legitimate as cars. So acting like legitimate vehicles is sensible.

The other is that bikes *aren't* cars. And using their non-car
properties is sensible.

The only answer I see to the latter is that it only works when there
are a few bicycles. If 10 bicycles were at the lights where one is
now, or 20 or 30, then would "run the red" and "ride on the footpath"
be viable?

Zebee

 

[Aeek]

On 12 Dec 2006 11:20:20 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

>I can sort of see both sides I think.
>
>One is that bicycles need to be seen as vehicles that are as
>legitimate as cars. So acting like legitimate vehicles is sensible.
>
>The other is that bikes *aren't* cars. And using their non-car
>properties is sensible.

Neither are motorcycles or heavy trucks. With the trucks its more
about their limitations, ie they don't have to turn right from the far
right because often they can't. Its more about recognising differences
within a common framework. That doesn't mean behaving exactly as cars,
something some drivers like to forget.

 

[beerwolf]

Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:19:02 +1100
> Aeek <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 11 Dec 2006 03:27:23 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
>>>rushing the yellow and going through on the red.
>>>
>>>They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
>>>usually after stopping.
>>
>> My big problem with jay riders is they're thinking like pedestrians.
>> Doesn't help us being seen as operating vehicles.
>
> I can sort of see both sides I think.
>
> One is that bicycles need to be seen as vehicles that are as
> legitimate as cars. So acting like legitimate vehicles is sensible.
>
> The other is that bikes *aren't* cars. And using their non-car
> properties is sensible.
>
> The only answer I see to the latter is that it only works when there
> are a few bicycles. If 10 bicycles were at the lights where one is
> now, or 20 or 30, then would "run the red" and "ride on the footpath"
> be viable?
>
> Zebee
>

This 'what if everybody did it' argument is a good one, though large
numbers of miscreants tend to be self-limiting. Many riders busting a
red light at once are going to get in each others way, thereby changing
a quick dash into a scrum. But yes, setting a good example is the main
reason I try to be a good boy now.

I wonder, if you jaywalk wheeling your bike, are you seen by
non-cyclists as a pedestrian, or are you still a smart4r5e cyclist. I
suspect it's the latter.

--
beerwolf
(To reply by email, remove numbers from my address)

 

[Resound]

> I wonder, if you jaywalk wheeling your bike, are you seen by
> non-cyclists as a pedestrian, or are you still a smart4r5e cyclist. I
> suspect it's the latter.
>
Almost certainly the latter. It allows the person mentally lambasting you to
cast you as someone who's primarily of a group that they don't belong to. It
makes the tribal shrieking and beating of chest much easier.

 

[EuanB]

EuanB wrote:
> BT Humble Wrote:
> > Euan wrote:
> > > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > > > Oh I agree. I took cfmstb's emphasis to say "look, they are worse".
> > >
> > > I'm surprised at you Zebee. Don't you know that according to recent
> > > studies subtleties such as emphasis are misinterpreted 50% of the
> > time?
> > > If you're addressing a point you think you've inferred you need to
> > > specifically state it for clarity.
> >
> > I'm surprised at you, Euan. Don't you know that a recent study found
> > that forfty percent of all statistics were made up on the spot?
> >
> Source: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html

Here's mine:

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F09.html

Lighten up, old chap. You'll live longer.


BTH

I refer you to my previous post. Obviously you have trouble understanding the material

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:08:48 +1100
Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I wonder, if you jaywalk wheeling your bike, are you seen by
>> non-cyclists as a pedestrian, or are you still a smart4r5e cyclist. I
>> suspect it's the latter.
>>
> Almost certainly the latter. It allows the person mentally lambasting you to
> cast you as someone who's primarily of a group that they don't belong to. It
> makes the tribal shrieking and beating of chest much easier.
>

Which cyclists never indulge in.....


Zebee

 

[Bleve]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:19:02 +1100
> Aeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 11 Dec 2006 03:27:23 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
> >>rushing the yellow and going through on the red.
> >>
> >>They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
> >>usually after stopping.
> >
> > My big problem with jay riders is they're thinking like pedestrians.
> > Doesn't help us being seen as operating vehicles.
>
> I can sort of see both sides I think.
>
> One is that bicycles need to be seen as vehicles that are as
> legitimate as cars. So acting like legitimate vehicles is sensible.
>
> The other is that bikes *aren't* cars. And using their non-car
> properties is sensible.
>
> The only answer I see to the latter is that it only works when there
> are a few bicycles. If 10 bicycles were at the lights where one is
> now, or 20 or 30, then would "run the red" and "ride on the footpath"
> be viable?

According to John Forester, bike-bike crashes are common and just as
dangerous to riders as bike-car crashes in many cases. This is one of
the (of many) reasons for why bike paths are such dangerous places.
I'd have to agree from my anecdotal experience.

Get a copy of 'Effective Cycling' if you want to see my source, AFAIK
it's not online

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 12 Dec 2006 15:19:33 -0800
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> According to John Forester, bike-bike crashes are common and just as
> dangerous to riders as bike-car crashes in many cases. This is one of
> the (of many) reasons for why bike paths are such dangerous places.
> I'd have to agree from my anecdotal experience.

I'll believe it. I used to go to the big motorcycle races at Phillip
Island and you really had to have eyes in your **** and several off
them when riding there.

So many riders who were used to slow cars
that were easy to avoid and really couldn't move quickly and whose
drivers were in the main doing the right thing. So those riders
would dart about the place and do silly things not looking for or
expecting another bike. When two of them did it at the same time,
bang!

Even if you were being law abiding and careful yourself, the twits
might bang into you because they were so intent on getting where they
were going they took foolish chances.

I think cyclists on bike paths are mostly tuned to the idea that (like
motorcycles on the road) they are the fastest thing there. And that
there wil be lots of room for them.

Zebee

 

[EuanB]

According to John Forester, bike-bike crashes are common and just as
dangerous to riders as bike-car crashes in many cases. This is one of
the (of many) reasons for why bike paths are such dangerous places.
I'd have to agree from my anecdotal experience.

Get a copy of 'Effective Cycling' if you want to see my source, AFAIK
it's not online

There are a few references here: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Examples:

Haveriundersökningar av vägtrafikolyckor 'motorfordon-oskyddad trafikant'

Ahlcrona et al. Sweden, 1994.
Referenced from Safety of vulnerable road users.

Small sample investigation of crashes to vulnerable road users at Skåne. Two-thirds of collisions occurred at pedestrian and cycle track crossings. In two-thirds of the cycle crashes, the cyclist was riding on a two-way cycle path counter to traffic flow or appeared somewhere he was not supposed to be.


The risks of cycling

Pasenen, Helsinki City Planning Department
Full paper available on-line

In Helsinki, using a road-side cycle path is nearly 2.5 times likely to result in injury than cycling on the carriageway with traffic. At junctions the relative risk rises to more than 3 times. In those countries and cities which are just beginning to build cycling facilities, two-way cycle paths in particular should be avoided in an urban street network.

In Helsinki and Lund (Sweden), cycling leads to more pedestrian injuries per kilometre reported to the police than motor traffic.

 

[BT Humble]

EuanB wrote:
> BT Humble Wrote:
> > EuanB wrote:
> > > BT Humble Wrote:
> > > > Euan wrote:
> > > > > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > > > > > Oh I agree. I took cfmstb's emphasis to say "look, they are
> > worse".
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm surprised at you Zebee. Don't you know that according to
> > recent
> > > > > studies subtleties such as emphasis are misinterpreted 50% of the
> > > > time?
> > > > > If you're addressing a point you think you've inferred you need
> > to
> > > > > specifically state it for clarity.
> > > >
> > > > I'm surprised at you, Euan. Don't you know that a recent study
> > found
> > > > that forfty percent of all statistics were made up on the spot?
> > > >
> > > Source: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html
> >
> > Here's mine:
> >
> > http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F09.html
> >
> > Lighten up, old chap. You'll live longer.
>
> I refer you to my previous post. Obviously you have trouble
> understanding the material

I do have a reputation to uphold.


BTH

 

[Donga]

I accidentally ran a red light today (don't ask - very complicated -
yes, I was negligent). In the middle of an intersection I had a mexican
stand-off with a guy doing an illegal U-turn. We both had the good
grace to smile at each other.

Donga

 

[Resound]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:08:48 +1100
> Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder, if you jaywalk wheeling your bike, are you seen by
>>> non-cyclists as a pedestrian, or are you still a smart4r5e cyclist. I
>>> suspect it's the latter.
>>>
>> Almost certainly the latter. It allows the person mentally lambasting you
>> to
>> cast you as someone who's primarily of a group that they don't belong to.
>> It
>> makes the tribal shrieking and beating of chest much easier.
>>
>
> Which cyclists never indulge in.....
>
Of course they do. That's one of the primary reasons this ng exists. It's
mindless agressive tribal shrieking (which some cyclists, including a few
people in here also indulge in) that pisses me off. The wider community
still seems to view cyclists as being a alien group though. I do wonder how
many more cyclists there will need to be on the road before that changes.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:15:59 +1100
Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Of course they do. That's one of the primary reasons this ng exists. It's
> mindless agressive tribal shrieking (which some cyclists, including a few
> people in here also indulge in) that pisses me off. The wider community
> still seems to view cyclists as being a alien group though. I do wonder how
> many more cyclists there will need to be on the road before that changes.

Not so much absolute numbers as being friends and family members.

If someone in your family or someone you consider a friend rides a
bike then you are more likely to think of cyclists as not alien,

Zebee

 

[Richard Sherratt]

On 12 Dec 2006 15:19:33 -0800, "Bleve" <[email protected]>
wrote:

<snip>

>According to John Forester, bike-bike crashes are common and just as
>dangerous to riders as bike-car crashes in many cases. This is one of
>the (of many) reasons for why bike paths are such dangerous places.
>I'd have to agree from my anecdotal experience.

Only time I've ever been carted off to emergency in the back of an
ambulance was after an incident on a bike path. Three ambulances
attended the scene. Mica paramedic was needed. I was the only one
injured, so they were all there for me.

I was only on the bike path because the parallel road (Alexandra Ave)
was chockers and I thought I'd be safer on the bike path. Silly me. I
should have ridden on the road as per normal.

I try to avoid bike paths these days.

--
Regards.
Richard.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:57:34 GMT
Richard Sherratt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I was only on the bike path because the parallel road (Alexandra Ave)
> was chockers and I thought I'd be safer on the bike path. Silly me. I
> should have ridden on the road as per normal.
>
> I try to avoid bike paths these days.

I suspect there are paths and paths.

And good days and bad days!

The path down from Pyrmont Bridge to Sussex is OK in commuter time as
the peds and cyclists are mostly aware and careful. And peds keep to
the left on the path, although not on the bridge.

But outside those hours and look out! Both peds and cyclists are not
as predictable, especially peds who tend to walk on the right or dead
in the middle and move unpredictably. Have to go a lot slower then.

The Cooks River path doesn't attract fast riders, which is good
because there's time to avoid trouble, and bad because the riders it
does attract are blind, unskilled, or both. I only commute for a
couple of hundred yards on it so no problem, but you have to be very
careful on a weekend! Lots of small kids and uncertain adults.

Zebee