I'm pretty sure that when you take the driving exam in NY you lose points for not checking blind spots. Plus, it's in the driver's manual that they give to people who plan on getting their license.

Are you serious? When you're driving, and want to switch lanes, what do you do? I personally check my rear view for a split second, then my side mirror then a quick head check for blind spot.

EVERYONE who drives should do this. I see morons on the road who just check their side mirrors and cut over, not realizing that there's another car right next to them, in their blind spots. That's how accidents happen.

I'm just curious, other drivers out there, do you check your blind spots?

I said I wouldn't usually check when moving from one part of a lane to another part of the same lane, not when switching lanes entirely. And actually, it might have been more dangerous for the motorist to take his eyes off the road in front of him (even for a second or two) just to check a blind spot in a lane he was already occupying.

I concede that this would be the motorist's fault if he had just passed the cyclist. But a cyclist that is trying to squeeze by a slower moving car in the same lane as that slower moving car is riding dangerously.

The more I read about this, the more I think that, at best for the cyclist, this is a case of an accident almost caused by two stupid, oblivious, pigheaded people. Neither the motorist nor the cyclist has the right to be indignant. They should have both apologized and moved on, being embarrassed by what their own stupidity could have caused.

There's always mutual negligence. The only question is: Who is more responsible?

I have my mirrors set to eliminate my blind spots, when a car driving next to me leaves my rear view mirror it appears in my side mirror, when it passes my side mirror I can see it without really turning my head. Unless I'm in my wife's car where for some reason she has her mirrors set that she can see the same car in her rear view mirror and side mirror. Thinking about it I'm not positive whether I could see a bicycle passing from behind me for the entire length of the pass.

:thumb: spot on...

They both look bad--the Senator, for his boorish response(if true), and the biker, for his rambling letter. If the cyclist had a valid point, it could have been made concisely, skillfully, with less emotion for greater impact. I don't want either of these guys representing me, as a Senator or a cycling advocate.

It's pretty clear he was on the driver's left, cruising along just behind the senator's head, on the left side of a one-way street. Highly dangerous and likely illegal. The senator wasn't "changing lanes", he was driving close to the cars parked on his left, squeezing the cyclist who was riding near his left rear passenger door.

Agree. The letter was unintelligible.

I get a sense that this isn't the first time these two have had a few words with each other. It's just now, that it's being carried out on the streets. So instead of them both apologizing, they should get a motel room.

Well this goes to show that even here in BF an analysis can be made that is not positive for the cyclist. Good show. An honest evaluation if I ever saw one.

Now regarding the driver... if those were his words, he needs a serious head check.

As for the cyclist, he needs to learn how to take a lane.

As for the whole issue... sadly it does point to the problem of cycling in America... the road hog / vehicle obsessed motorist, and the timid cyclist "trying to stay out of the way" due to societal pressure to not take a lane.

All this is evidence of a much larger problem... something that does have to be worked out. Cyclists have to be seen as part of the over all transportation picture, not as some second class leech borrowing limited space on motorists' roads. This is not going to happen until cycling is acknowledged at the highest levels as a legitimate form of transit. The Transportation Secretary for instance cannot berate "park riding cyclists" for the lack of funds for maintaining infrastructure that all vehicles need.

And it is high time that Cycling Paths become the domain of the Department of Transportation vice The Parks Department.

New York State law:

Section 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle lanes and bicycle paths.
(a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle shall be driven either on a usable bicycle lane or, if a usable bicycle lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right- hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn

Ahhhhhh, I'm sorry. I mis-read what you wrote. I thought you said switching lanes. To be honest, I'm 50/50 on this when I drive. I live in Brooklyn, it's mostly residential and traffic isn't nearly as bad as Manhattan. When I want to pull over (double park) on a multiple lane, one way street, I normally just check my rear view to make sure I don't stop short and make the guy behind me have to go around me (most people wouldn't even do that, they'll just stop right in front of you and get out of their car and run into a store!).

But in the city, I would normally do a head check if I want to pull closer to the left of my own lane (to take an empty parking spot for example) because I've had close calls with cyclists, moped riders, razor scooter riders, electrical moped riders, etc.)....especially when I'm driving under 20mph when all these things can be right next to me.

I tried doing that, but it's just so hard to get used to!!! I know it's ********, but I like to see a very very tiny portion of the side of my car in the side mirrors. Your way is the "elite" way of doing it, but I just can't get used to it. I don't know if anyone else does this for blind spots...older folks may not want to twist their heads back in a swift motion. You can easily look at your side mirrors, and then LEAN FORWARD a foot or two and you'll see your blind spot that way. But that takes longer than a head check.

I have my car's mirrors set up so that I have no blind spots -- that is, there is no gap in coverage that's so big that a CAR can hide without being seen either through a mirror or by direct line-of-sight. BUT... that doesn't mean that a cyclist can't ride "in formation" next to my rear fender and still be seen.

Given a busy street with limited options for maneuvering, I'm more concerned with what I'm about to hit in front of me, and basically hoping that I'm not going to get hit from behind as well. The immediate priority, really, is dangers to the front.

+1, + spot on, etc. :thumb: I posted a comment saying much the same on his blog entry, but in a lighter tone ("I hope that lessons were learned by both sides").

Well, I googled Senator Klein and found that on 9/19/2008, he had agreed to meet with Colin Beavan, No Impact Man:

http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/...en-letter.html

When I took Driver's Ed, I learned the acronym SMOG for changing lanes...Signal, Mirror, Over-the-shoulder, Go. Not many people S, M, or O...but they always GO! (One of my pet peeves!)

It's not "elite", it really is best. You don't need to see the rear/side of your car at all times -- as I've heard in a course, "If the rear of your car is no longer following you, then you've got much bigger problems to worry about." ;) Turning your head too far can make you swerve (just like cyclists often do when we turn to look back); leaning forward and turning to look is even worse since you're tugging on the steering wheel, which is the primary control device for the car.

When you need to look along the side of your car via the side mirror, tilt your head towards the window.

Go here:
http://www.police.york.on.ca/erase/Video.htm

Watch the two videos for mirrors. Heck, watch them all, and spread the link -- this stuff is better than anything I remember from my own driver's testing.

I wouldn't call this cyclist timid -- more like self-absorbed and completely unaware of the limitations of drivers, then belligerently combative when his own misjudgment nearly gets himself hurt.

To me, they're both more indicative of an even bigger societal problem I'd scientifically describe as, "It's not my fault."

Nice website! I actually learned most of what's in the videos from a 2 day Skip Barber racing class that I took. I do understand the logic of the mirror set up. But I don't know why....I just don't feel comfortable using it. Also, my vehicles are used by others. They set the mirrors the "normal" way. It'll just be too much of a pain. Maybe one day... But for now, my headchecks work fine for me.

Whenever I drive someone else's car, I change the mirrors as shown in the vids. When they protest, I go, "But I don't need to see the end of the car." :lol:

Just do it. I think it would be easy to get used to while on the freeway with moderate to light traffic -- potential hazards are a lot less frequent than in the city.

I set my mirrors up for no blind spot too. You don't need to see the side of the car. It's just what you're used to. Most people have been taught the wrong way to do it and have been doing it that way their whole lives. In a passenger car, there's no need for a blind spot, but most people set their mirrors wrong.

He sits in the MB's blind spot and just waits for something to happen. I think he was trying to setup Jeff Klein.

I will say that on some cars I have trouble setting my mirrors the way I do. Most of them seem to have plenty of room to see the car that I am driving but to set them to view my blind spot is always at the very edge of their range of motion.

I called him timid as he wasn't taking the lane... sort of a line in the sand thing... many otherwise assertive cyclists draw the line taking a lane, when in fact it is often the safest thing to do.

As for the rest, I tend to agree.

In NY, I'd be scared to take the lane with my car!

New York City law:

—34 RCNY 4-12(p)(3) Bicyclists may ride on either side of one-way roadways that are at least 40 feet wide.

One way avenues in Manhattan are at least 40 feet wide, so it is legal to ride on either side of the road. In fact, NYC DOT often stripes bike lanes on the left side of one way roads.

Thanks

As for the rest, I tend to completely disagree. To consider one whose 'one of many' goals in life is to change the 'auto-centric' mentality of those in power to the benefit of all as 'self-absorbed' is rather short-sighted. To refer to him as being a co-respondent in this exchange is inaccurate. No disrespect intended. The cyclist acted in self-preservation and the driver reacted w/belligerence and a criminal act. Swearing and a threat implication of either physical retalliation or using the power of his office to 'punish' the cyclist is 1 of 3 things. It's either a terroristic threat, an ethics violation or both. The former is a form of assault. The latter clearly a violation of his 'oath of office'. This guy needs to be censured by his own legislative body for his actions. The fact that the cyclist checked the license plate and 're-confronted' the driver demonstrates pluck and courage. Not to mention clarity of thought and self-control.

While I DO agree his letter could've been more to the point he's an advocate not a writer. The fact that he's getting a 'sitdown' enabling him to 'speak to power' in a productive way can in no way be construed as 'self-absorbed'. When the Senator calmly replied, "Jeff Klein' to the cyclist's query as to his name he KNEW he was had. He KNEW his political career was in jeopardy and he'd better 'make nice' AND make it stick. The cyclist brought low a potential monster w/o so much as clenching his fist. Except maybe when he pounded on the window. One was full of himself and the other was full of concern FOR himself. The driver was negligent and the cyclist was not. There was nothing equal about the situation. Except NOW the Senator has to deal face to face w/t consequenses of his 'arrogance of position' action. And if he becomes a 'cycling' advocate ala Richard Daley in Chicago the streets of Manhatten will be the safer for it. As stated in my previous post Senator Klein cursed the right cyclist not the wrong one. Because noimpactman is right on every conceivable level.

He was "self-absorbed" by riding in the blind spot of a car, expecting the driver -- state senator or not -- to easily see him, then complaining when he didn't.

So, no, he was not "right on every conceivable level". If he hadn't been cruising in a car's blind spot in the first place, there wouldn't even have been an incident for him to write about.

If he was so "full of concern FOR himself", he would not have put himself in such a precarious position.

This is just sad. All this could've been prevented had the senator adjusted his side mirrors the right way :D

All this could've been prevented if NoImpactMan had just been walking instead of using a machine fabricated from metal ores dug from the ground (probably with explosives :p) and plastics & lubricants made from petroleum (also dug from the ground). :thumb::lol:

noimpactman is not right on every level... the clearest indicator of that is the issue of ROW in a lane... Who "owned" that lane? In any situation I know of the vehicle coming up from behind has to give way to traffic in front.... noimpactman did not keep that in mind when he tried to share the lane and move up from behind. His better course of action would have been to take the lane. The cyclist was negligent in his course of action too.

Now as to the verbal abuse aspect... the Senator needs his head handed to him... In spite of the small "error" on the cyclist's part, the Senator greatly over-reacted... indicating that the paint on his car has more value than a human life. And that attitude just sucks.