Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-18-07, 09:51 PM   #26
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Posts: 1,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
...Are you capable of not exaggerating my position when restating it? If you could, it would go a long way towards us being able to have a rational discourse.

Your statement is akin to accusing MADD of have a working theory "that all accidents are preventable if all drivers are sober", or Planned Parenthood of having a working theory "that all pregnancies are preventable with rubbers". It's disingenuous strawman creation. Never have I claimed that all accidents are preventable by the cyclist. So that most certainly is not the major disagreement that we have. In fact, we don't disagree about that at all, since we both recognize that some crashes like (Name deleted, HH, no names mentioned in this thread please, due to the previously mentioned concern for family members finding the analysis thread via Google-T.S) death, or the woman pulling the kid trailer) are certainly not preventable by the cyclist.
HH,

What your stated position is and how you act or react to incidents/accidents are apparently two different things. I was talking about my experiences with you on the accidents that we had discussed. By the way, your statement that this is "akin to accusing MADD of making a working theory..." is not the same, as you have demonstrated in the accidents we have discussed here that the driver is not at fault, at least initially, in a cycling accident.

When I say "the system," I'm talking about the legal and structural system, not on how you perceive your individual behavior as affecting the drivers around you. I'm talking about changing laws so that when someone dies, the fine is not less than $200 and the person walks away (as can be currently the case in Oregon). You have shown, to my knowledge, no interest in this, and indeed have written blogs stating that we should continue to concentrate on cyclist behavior. I think you may have written another one recently, although I don't know that for a fact; that person just sounds like you.

John

PS--Please leave names off in this thread.

Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 06-19-07 at 06:27 AM.
John C. Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-07, 11:04 PM   #27
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
HH has a double standard on following the forum rules; he only thinks it's important for everyone else to follow the rules, but not him.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-07, 10:22 AM   #28
Tom Stormcrowe
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
Thread Starter
 
Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Posts: 16,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
For the record, the only name I mentioned was a well-known (in the cycling community) public name (first name Ken, initials K. K.) of someone with his own website, and I said nothing about him or his collision except to say that it is a rare example of the type of collision where there really was nothing the cyclist could have done to avoid it. Thinking that his family stumbling onto that comment, as opposed to the countless others all over the internet that say the same thing, would be some kind of significant event is absurd.

That the "no names" rule in the OP would or should apply to a brief mention of KK's collision, and enforcing it accordingly, is a classic example of tossing reason aside for the sake of following rules literally.
Other than equal application of the intent of the standards of the thread, HH. No names means NO NAMES.....period. Whether they are already published before means nothing in the context of this thread. For this concept to work, this must be practiced in all posts here. That way, there is no precedent for other ways of slipping in a name. Please respect the guidelines set forth in the initial posting, and I'm also sure everyone else will as well. Thank you for your cooperation in this.
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
Tom Stormcrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-07, 01:04 PM   #29
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe
Other than equal application of the intent of the standards of the thread, HH. No names means NO NAMES.....period. Whether they are already published before means nothing in the context of this thread. For this concept to work, this must be practiced in all posts here. That way, there is no precedent for other ways of slipping in a name. Please respect the guidelines set forth in the initial posting, and I'm also sure everyone else will as well. Thank you for your cooperation in this.
Tom, with all due respect the OP clearly states: "Please don't include name of cyclists involved, ..." Involved in what? The title of this thread is "Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents". The only reasonable interpretion of "cyclists involved" is "cyclists involved in the 'Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents' that are analyzed in this thread". It does not say, or mean, "NO NAMES.... period". If that's what you want it to mean (and why would you?), then say that in the OP.

The reason for the "don't include names of cyclists involved" rule is laudable: to protect the emotions of the family members of those victims whose crashes are speculated and analyzed here. I did not include the names of any cyclists involved in any of the crashes analyzed in this thread. Unless you start reinterpreting the rules to mean something else, like "NO NAMES.....period", no rules were violated here, not in spirit, not literally, not in any way, and I resent the implication to the contrary. But it's par for the course around here. I just expect better from you.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-07, 01:53 PM   #30
Tom Stormcrowe
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
Thread Starter
 
Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Posts: 16,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
HH, the thread is a work in progress, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread. I edited the original post to more clearly reflect the intent.

Please interpret it to mean no names means no names. This is to provide both anonymity for the cyclist and/or family as well as avoid any specifically citable speculation that could muddy up any legal issues for the aforesaid families. Fair enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Tom, with all due respect the OP clearly states: "Please don't include name of cyclists involved, ..." Involved in what? The title of this thread is "Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents". The only reasonable interpretion of "cyclists involved" is "cyclists involved in the 'Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents' that are analyzed in this thread". It does not say, or mean, "NO NAMES.... period". If that's what you want it to mean (and why would you?), then say that in the OP.

The reason for the "don't include names of cyclists involved" rule is laudable: to protect the emotions of the family members of those victims whose crashes are speculated and analyzed here. I did not include the names of any cyclists involved in any of the crashes analyzed in this thread. Unless you start reinterpreting the rules to mean something else, like "NO NAMES.....period", no rules were violated here, not in spirit, not literally, not in any way, and I resent the implication to the contrary. But it's par for the course around here. I just expect better from you.
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
Tom Stormcrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-07, 03:00 PM   #31
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe
HH, the thread is a work in progress, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread. I edited the original post to more clearly reflect the intent.

Please interpret it to mean no names means no names. This is to provide both anonymity for the cyclist and/or family as well as avoid any specifically citable speculation that could muddy up any legal issues for the aforesaid families. Fair enough?
Now it is.

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to clear this up. I will happily oblige.

Last edited by Helmet Head; 06-19-07 at 05:26 PM.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-07, 02:44 PM   #32
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,633
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotbike
This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bicycledeath062107.asp

Associated Press

APPLETON, Wis. - A retired college professor died when his bicycle crashed on a trail Wednesday, authorities said.

Name Deleted, 75, who taught French at Lawrence University for 32 years before retiring in 1996, was pronounced dead at St. Elizabeth Hospital about an hour after the accident.

Ruth Wulgaert, Outagamie County coroner, said subject (Name deleted) died of blunt force head trauma after he stopped his bicycle suddenly and crashed.

She said subject was riding down a hill when he approached a man walking a dog on the right side of the path.

"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what," Wulgaert said.

Subject wore a helmet but landed on the left side of his face, she said.
Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

A co-worker did that "quick stop and over the bars trick" about a year ago coming down a steep hill... broke her collerbone and shattered her cheek. Not a dog in sight.

Moderator note: Deleted name references to comply with the new thread-Tom Stormcrowe

Last edited by Tom Stormcrowe; 06-23-07 at 11:55 AM.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-07, 11:16 AM   #33
hotbike
Senior Member
 
hotbike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Long Island, New York
Bikes: a lowrider BMX, a mountain bike, a faired recumbent, and a loaded touring bike
Posts: 2,851
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)
.
The man was 75 years old, I think he probably had enough experience cycling to know how to use the brakes.
The front brake, if applied to hard, can flip any cyclist "arse over teakettle".
hotbike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-07, 11:49 AM   #34
dobber
Perineal Pressurized
 
dobber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In Ebritated
Bikes:
Posts: 6,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotbike
This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:
Not to be argumentative, but nowhere in the story does it state the dog was the cause of the accident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Article
"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what,"
Pretty broad. Maybe he was going to fast? Hit a bump at the most inopportune time and lost control? Had the other gentleman been walking with his son, would your statement have been "kids walked on bike trails"

Then again, the article stated "trails".
__________________
This is Africa, 1943. War spits out its violence overhead and the sandy graveyard swallows it up. Her name is King Nine, B-25, medium bomber, Twelfth Air Force. On a hot, still morning she took off from Tunisia to bomb the southern tip of Italy. An errant piece of flak tore a hole in a wing tank and, like a wounded bird, this is where she landed, not to return on this day, or any other day.
dobber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-07, 12:10 PM   #35
HoustonB
Βanned.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Posts: 620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotbike
This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bicycledeath062107.asp

Associated Press

APPLETON, Wis. - A retired college professor died when his bicycle crashed on a trail Wednesday, authorities said.

Name Deleted, 75, who taught French at Lawrence University for 32 years before retiring in 1996, was pronounced dead at St. Elizabeth Hospital about an hour after the accident.

Ruth Wulgaert, Outagamie County coroner, said subject (Name deleted) died of blunt force head trauma after he stopped his bicycle suddenly and crashed.

She said Reed was riding down a hill when he approached a man walking a dog on the right side of the path.

"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what," Wulgaert said.

Subject wore a helmet but landed on the left side of his face, she said.[/QOTE]Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

A co-worker did that "quick stop and over the bars trick" about a year ago coming down a steep hill... broke her collerbone and shattered her cheek. Not a dog in sight.

Moderator note: Deleted name references to comply with the new thread-Tom Stormcrowe
You missed an instance of the involved person's name - I've highlighted it in bold for you. Also Tom has clarified the original guide lines for this type of thread and the restriction on names is no longer the involved person's name - it is ANY names period. It is safe to assume this also means place names so your post should really have read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotbike
This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bicycledeath062107.asp

Associated Press

Censored, Censored. - A retired college professor died when his bicycle crashed on a trail Wednesday, authorities said.

Censored, 75, who taught French at Censored University for 32 years before retiring in 1996, was pronounced dead at St. Censored Hospital about an hour after the accident.

Censored, Censored County coroner, said Censored died of blunt force head trauma after he stopped his bicycle suddenly and crashed.

She said Censored was riding down a hill when he approached a man walking a dog on the right side of the path.

"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what," Censored said.

Censored wore a helmet but landed on the left side of his face, she said.
Now all we have to address is the issue of Google links and the fact that if Google has a link to this thread or this thread has links to the outside world, then (oops) all this censorship is for naught.
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
HoustonB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-07, 12:19 PM   #36
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)
Are you so sure of the education program that you promote that you have no doubt that every person exposed to such eduction practices it all times under all conditions and reacts in the "approved" manner regardless of the circumstances?

Selling your favorite eduction shtick as the all purpose solution at every ghoulish opportunity without any facts gets mighty tiresome; HH is giving it a rest; why don't you too?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-07, 01:16 PM   #37
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,633
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Are you so sure of the education program that you promote that you have no doubt that every person exposed to such eduction practices it all times under all conditions and reacts in the "approved" manner regardless of the circumstances?

Selling your favorite eduction shtick as the all purpose solution at every ghoulish opportunity without any facts gets mighty tiresome; HH is giving it a rest; why don't you too?
Hey, I am not an educator, I don't make any money educating and I have no connection to any education agencies or anything else... I only push it as I saw how some real newbies improved. And BTW I have no plans to become an educator.

I took the classes and frankly I learned very little myself... I could have easily taught the classes. But I did see how the classes improved others... so in all honesty, I really can recommend them.

As for the braking bit... there is a good chance the professor may have learned how to best stop his bike while practicing high speed stops under supervision. Then again he might have gone over the handlebars in class... and not learned a thing.

But the bottom line is I saw improvement in others; they benefited, so I know the classes have value.

The school of hard knocks will teach the same lessons... it is up to the student to determine which they wish to pursue.

As an aside... I have noticed that brakes on newer bikes are far far better than on older bikes... that improvement alone may have been enough for the result... the prof may have learned this on his own simply by practicing a few panic stops.

Experience will teach that too. Unfortunately no lessons helped in time for this situation.

JMHO... I think HH thinks a lot more of the classes than I do... for any long expericed rider/commuter, I doubt the classes will offer anything.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-07, 01:19 PM   #38
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,633
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotbike
The man was 75 years old, I think he probably had enough experience cycling to know how to use the brakes.
The front brake, if applied to hard, can flip any cyclist "arse over teakettle".
I rather doubt that... that he had the experience that is. Otherwise he would have known not to mash down on the front brakes without shifting his weight.

I suspect he did have experience on bikes, and perhaps bought a newer one... with far better brakes than he ever had, and he did not subsequently really put it to a hard braking test.

All pure speculation on my part, mind you.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-07, 10:48 AM   #39
ghettocruiser
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: dropmachine.com
Bikes:
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think I have to go with ILTB here. It's one thing to know your equipment inside out and know all your braking and balance points. It's another to suggest that this knowledge will prevent you from ever dumping the bike over forwards.

I've practiced stoppies and endos for years, and had a spectacular and largely unintentional 25mph-to-zero nose-wheelie on my road bike the other month when a box truck made a quick lane change. But given the right combination of inopportune circumstances, there's a pretty good chance I could still go over the bars.

Less likely perhaps, at best.
ghettocruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-07, 08:22 PM   #40
MichaelJay
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Athens, OH
Bikes: Panasonic 2000 (old 12 spd)
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I cannot say that I know the area, but among the rules the motorist passing must obey are the requirement to pass safely, signal to the people being passed prior to passing, not to pass within 100 feet of an intersection (including bicycles), and that speed must be reasonable for conditions (that include road surface, weather, and traffic (including bicycles). It is also illegal to pass someone who is about to turn left if they are signalling.

A person who is under suspension has probably been driving badly, most likely for a long period of time. While there are some administrative reasons for suspension such as dropping out of high school for a juvenile, most reasons are serious violations and multiple violations. To me with my experience investigating and reconstructing traffic crashes, a person under suspension is usually exhibiting a pattern of bad driving.

All this is not to say that the bicyclists may not have made some errors. I would have to see the scene, take measurements, see the reports and vehicles to get a better idea. We as cyclists always have to remember that nearly everything out there can kill us and ride accordingly. One of my partners once investigated a head on bicycle to bicycle crash on a little bitty road in which BOTH cyclists were killed (believed to be playing chicken).

In 30 years I never handled a fatal bike crash. My friends had a few, and there was no real pattern. I've cycled all over the eastern USA, and I have had several close calls, including a semi that touched my pack as I labored up a hill in Florida tipping me off the road. (Semis have come closer to me than any other type of vehicle, and I try to stay off the roads they use heavily in my older age. Two acquaintences were killed after riding Ohio to Washington and were within 300 miles of returning home when struck from behind by a semi in Indiana.)

I've learned to enjoy bike paths too, but when I approach anyone walking a dog, anyone walking with their back to me, and especially any children, I slow and expect them to dart in front of me. (One did it today.) Between bad drivers and drivers who hate us being "in (their) way", there is a lot to be said about bike paths. Yesterday I was 18 inches off the (wide) road and moving right along in extremely light traffic when a passenger hit me with a bottle of Gator Ade from a car that overtook me. I wasn't in his way. I didn't slow him down. I was wearing safety green. To him I just represented a target, and fortunately the bottle was plastic and not glass. Dodging a few dogs on the bike path doesn't seem so bad any more. A shame about the older guy going over his handlebars. At least it wasn't clogged arteries.
MichaelJay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-07, 09:21 PM   #41
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe
This thread is to discuss Cyclist fatalities/injury incidents and possible solutions to the issues.

Guidelines
  1. No names. This is to protect the families from emotional trauma and avoid complicating any legal cases. No names means NO NAMES, period in this thread.
  2. Location/date/time/known conditions
  3. If a post is speculation, it MUST be identified as such
  4. Respect and decorum at all times: Think rules of order. No insults or barbs.
  5. Follow general Bike Forum Guidelines and policies
  6. If an impasse is reached, agree to disagree and possibly revisit the issue later after all parties have had time to think.
  7. If you do revisit an issue, link back or quote the specific post in this thread to avoid confusion

Follow these guidelines and this can be developed into a resource for the forums and cycling in general.
Good idea, but I'll break you're rules. ("No names.")

The only really serious "accident" I had on my bike was when a pedestrian intentionally knocked me off my bike. Sent me to ER. The morphine did it's job.

I'll never put myself in that position again.

Motorists have never hurt me. Ever.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-07, 05:52 PM   #42
Tom Stormcrowe
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
Thread Starter
 
Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Posts: 16,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
Good idea, but I'll break you're rules. ("No names.")

The only really serious "accident" I had on my bike was when a pedestrian intentionally knocked me off my bike. Sent me to ER. The morphine did it's job.

I'll never put myself in that position again.

Motorists have never hurt me. Ever.
I'll rule it an exception if you want to name your OWN name! No worries!
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
Tom Stormcrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-07, 09:27 AM   #43
nova
hill hater
 
nova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: norton ohio 5.5 miles from center road tow path trail head
Bikes: cannondale t400 1987 model and a raleigh gran prix from 1973
Posts: 2,127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

A co-worker did that "quick stop and over the bars trick" about a year ago coming down a steep hill... broke her collerbone and shattered her cheek. Not a dog in sight.

Moderator note: Deleted name references to comply with the new thread-Tom Stormcrowe
Or the dog walker had a 30 foot leash ran out across the trail like a trip line. I hit about 6 of those leashes over the years. Choked one dog close to death and all but that one broke when it got in my breaks and wheel and fork area.

Park rules here limit leashes to no longer than 6 foot with 3 and 4 foot suggested. Go above 6 foot and your leash will get taken by rangers and you get a nice escort out of the park.
nova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-10, 11:02 AM   #44
ianbrettcooper
Senior Member
 
ianbrettcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
So you are suggesting that on a 55MPH road, we should remain right in the motorists' path for complete safety.
There is no such thing as 'complete safety' on a road. But for optimal safety, of course it's safer to be in the motorist's path, where he can best see you. Your unspoken assumption here seems to be that being out of the path of a fast motorist is safest. It might seem safe, but as with many cycling issues, what seems safe is misleading.
ianbrettcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-10, 11:07 AM   #45
gcottay
Senior Member
 
gcottay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Green Valley AZ
Bikes: Trice Q; Volae Century; TT 3.4
Posts: 3,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper View Post
There is no such thing as 'complete safety' on a road. But for optimal safety, of course it's safer to be in the motorist's path, where he can best see you. Your unspoken assumption here seems to be that being out of the path of a fast motorist is safest. It might seem safe, but as with many cycling issues, what seems safe is misleading.
So, where would you ride on a high speed road with bad sight lines and a nice wide smooth clean shoulder? For me, there's not the hint of a question. I'm on the shoulder riding fully aware that my far right position poses extra risk at all intersections.
gcottay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-10, 11:21 AM   #46
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper View Post
There is no such thing as 'complete safety' on a road. But for optimal safety, of course it's safer to be in the motorist's path, where he can best see you. Your unspoken assumption here seems to be that being out of the path of a fast motorist is safest. It might seem safe, but as with many cycling issues, what seems safe is misleading.
Over-generalizations don't contribute to safety. The simple laws of physics dictate that being in the direct path of an object that is 4 times your size, 20 times your weight, traveling at twice (or more) your speed, is less safe than being out of its direct path. Yes, there are situational variables that may make one more or less safe than the other.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-10, 09:15 PM   #47
ianbrettcooper
Senior Member
 
ianbrettcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom View Post
Over-generalizations don't contribute to safety. The simple laws of physics dictate that being in the direct path of an object that is 4 times your size, 20 times your weight, traveling at twice (or more) your speed, is less safe than being out of its direct path. Yes, there are situational variables that may make one more or less safe than the other.
And in this case, a huge situational variable is in play: the unwillingness of the driver of the big heavy object to crash into you.
ianbrettcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-10, 09:17 PM   #48
ianbrettcooper
Senior Member
 
ianbrettcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcottay View Post
So, where would you ride on a high speed road with bad sight lines and a nice wide smooth clean shoulder? For me, there's not the hint of a question. I'm on the shoulder riding fully aware that my far right position poses extra risk at all intersections.
Making up fictitious roads with impossibly poor visibility hardly makes a convincing argument. Only a complete moron or psychopath would build such a road, and I certainly wouldn't ride on it - even on the shoulder, unless I had a death wish.
ianbrettcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-12, 05:18 AM   #49
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper View Post
And in this case, a huge situational variable is in play: the unwillingness of the driver of the big heavy object to crash into you.
People make mistakes. Like texting, picking up things they dropped, seeing-without-noticing, or falling asleep. That's generally why and how the really bad accidents happen. And in most of these cases, it's a really good idea NOT being in the lane.

Take the shoulder, if it's of any use at all.


Edit: And there's one more reason for not taking the lane on high speed, heavy traffic roads: People tend to tailgate, and if one driver sees you a little late, and swerves to avoid hitting you, the one behind him may not be able to react in time.

Last edited by hagen2456; 12-03-12 at 05:26 AM.
hagen2456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-12, 06:19 AM   #50
ianbrettcooper
Senior Member
 
ianbrettcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
People make mistakes. Like texting, picking up things they dropped, seeing-without-noticing, or falling asleep. That's generally why and how the really bad accidents happen. And in most of these cases, it's a really good idea NOT being in the lane.
Rubbish. Yes, people make mistakes. But they don't make deadly mistakes very often, and they're more likely to make a mistake if they don't see us, and when we're out of the lane, we're less visible. I've been cycling in the road for 40 years and I've yet to be knocked off my bike while cycling in the road. Such is the usual experience of integrated cyclists. There's a reason gutter and bike lane cyclists have so many close calls and injuries, and it has everything to do with their failure to cycle visibly.

Quote:
Take the shoulder, if it's of any use at all.
What 'shoulder'? One would think, from your response, that shoulders were ubiquitous. They are not. Besides, the shoulder is not a safe place to cycle. Studies show that using it results in a minimum two-fold increase in turning collisions. If you want to be injured, by all means use the shoulder. I prefer to stick to the main travel lane, where I'm safer.

And in what way are you qualified to offer such advice to other cyclists? Are you a cycling instructor? Have you even taken a cycling safety course? Have you even done an in-depth review of cycling collision studies? Or are you just talking out of your arse? These are rhetorical questions by the way: your stated geographical location, your attitude and your opinion already tell me that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

By the way, I have taken a cycling instructor course, and I've taken many cycling safety courses. I've also studied all the research I can find relating to cycling safety. The vast majority of the research shows that your opinions and your advice are wrong and dangerous.

For example, here are two studies from Denmark that show that removing cyclists from the roadway is not quite as safe as 'bicycle advocates' seem to think:

2007 Jensen: Bicycle Tracks and Lanes, a Before - After Study (Copenhagen, Denmark)
http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/fil...nd%20lanes.pdf
"The safety effects of bicycle tracks in urban areas are an increase of about 10 percent in both crashes and injuries. The safety effects of bicycle lanes in urban areas are an increase of 5 percent in crashes and 15 percent in injuries. Bicyclists’ safety has worsened on roads where bicycle facilities have been implemented."

2008 Agerholm: Traffic Safety on Bicycle Paths (Western Denmark)
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/age...ycle_paths.pdf
"So the main results are that bicycle paths impair traffic safety and this is mainly due to more accidents at intersections."

And here's the reason:

1987 Grüne Radler review: Police Bicycle Crash Study (Berlin, Germany)
http://john-s-allen.com/research/berlin_1987/index.html
"...with increasing experience, it became ever clearer that the sidepaths are dangerous - more dangerous than riding in the roadway. There is a simple reason for this: the design and location of the sidepaths conflict with the most important principle of traffic safety, the slogan 'Visibility is safety'."

And the latest research says this:

2011 Reid: Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety (UK)
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Camp...safety_rpt.pdf
"...evidence suggests that the points at which segregated networks intersect with highways offer heightened risk, potentially of sufficient magnitude to offset the safety benefits of removing cyclists from contact with vehicles in other locations."

Cyclists who avoid the road or who ride in the gutter are at far greater collision risk than those who choose to ride well into the roadway. 90% of published peer reviewed studies confirm this. You can say what you like, but it's not going to change the fact that what you're advocating has been proven time after time to be less safe than what I'm advocating.

Quote:
And there's one more reason for not taking the lane on high speed, heavy traffic roads: People tend to tailgate, and if one driver sees you a little late, and swerves to avoid hitting you, the one behind him may not be able to react in time.
All the more reason to take the lane. Cyclists who take the lane are visible from much farther away. Cyclists who ride in the gutter are in far greater danger from tailgating motorists.

Last edited by ianbrettcooper; 12-03-12 at 06:45 AM.
ianbrettcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:09 AM.