| Guest | Re: drivers speeding away
On Jan 27, 2:43 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The video shown in class has clips of motorists making right turns and
> > left turns, etc. into the paths of cyclists, and cyclists performing
> > the appropriate evasive maneuvers. How is that "lip service"?
>
> > Hell, our paper had photos of one of the courses I taught, showing a
> > student canted over in a 45 degree Jobst-like emergency turn during a
> > parking lot drill! How is that "lip service"?
>
> > The only way I know to make it more realistic would be to recruit a
> > volunteer motorist to try to run down the students during the on-road
> > exercises or during the road test. Maybe that would satisfy you?
> > Nonetheless, it would be unconscionably dumb.
> If you think the 'rock dodge' and 'insta-turn' represent
> substantial endorsement of defensive driving ideology, then
> clearly you have no grasp of that ideology. The defensive
> approach to traffic begins before the ride and is maintained
> throughout, silly goose, it is not activated suddenly at the
> moment of crisis.
And again, your complaints are based on your mistaken assumption of
how these classes are taught. And your complaints are driven by your
need to instill fear in cyclists.
>
> Teaching evasive maneuvers does not even rise to the level
> of giving lip service. The lip service I was referring to is
> 'Anticipating Motorist Mistakes' which is buried in the back
> of the book as if it were some sort of afterthought.
??
Sorry, but I think you're off base again. If by "the book" you mean
John Forester's _Effective Cycling_, I find "Motorists' Overtaking
Errors" way, way before the back of the book. Ditto the emergency
evasive maneuvers you now think seem to think are useless. Similarly,
in the standard classes that cover this material, such concepts are
covered in the video shown the first day.
I think your real objection is that there's no attempt to instill
fear. Take it as a compliment - the Vehicular Cycling world has
decided to leave that up to you. ;-)
> Unfortunately for the denizens of Effective
> Cycling, anticipating motorist mistakes is actually the
> most critical task that a cyclist has. Dealing with those
> moments is all-important--everything else in between is
> just politics, pomp and circumstance, hurt feelings, and
> other worthless **** that means absolutely nothing next
> to the possibility of having your life altered suddenly and
> irrevocably for the worse.
Amazing! So riding on the proper side of the road is "just
politics"? Using lights at night is mere "pomp"? Stopping for
traffic lights and stop signs is just "circumstance"? Proper lane
position is "worthless ****"?
Apparently nothing matters to you but scaring people with the remote
possibility that a crash might alter their lives "suddenly and
irrevocably." Indeed, even telling them how to best avoid that
doesn't matter as much as scaring them!
Astonishing.
>
> > > The key variable
> > > is not rule-following or lack thereof, but the rider's
> > > awareness of his/her surroundings regardless of
> > > rule-following.
>
> > Sorry, but you're deluding yourself. I'm sure your ninja-like skills
> > allow you to judge the value of any and all traffic laws; but most
> > cyclists are mere civilians, so to speak. Given the high percentage of
> > people that overestimate their own judgement skills, and given the high
> > percentage of cyclist fatalities that are doing things like riding
> > facing traffic, riding at night without lights and/or riding drunk, I
> > think rule following is key. Pretending otherwise is specious, and
> > most of society realizes that.
> It is generally recognized that about half of cyclist fatalities
> could be eliminated with proper cyclist behavior ie rule-following
> lights, sobriety, adulthood, etc.
Yes, and yet you imply that training to reduce that half of the
problem is "worthless ****."
> Do you have any answer for
> the other half? You keep telling us how idiot child cyclists and
> drunks can ride more safely. This isn't exactly front page news.
> The issue of importance is how can experienced adult cyclists
> neutralize drivers' mistakes.
And you keep refusing to believe the fact that neutralizing drivers'
mistakes is part of vehicular cycling education.
> > The first awareness needed, at least regarding bike-car interaction, is
> > awareness of how to fit smoothly into the traffic flow. That happens
> > mostly by following the rules of the road, and those rules are
> > fundamental. Second in importance come the finer points such as proper
> > lane position, communication with other road users, etc. Like
> > obedience to basic traffic laws, those techniques greatly reduce the
> > need for lightning reflexes and psychic tricks.
>
> > The awareness of possible motorist mistakes and proper evasive
> > maneuvers is good, but it's hardly as important as the first and second
> > points I list above.'...hardly as important...'
> Well, there you have it, Frank
> feels it is much more important for a rider to be predictable
> FOR drivers than to be 'predictive' OF them. Some (me for instance)
> would see that as a dangerous abdication of personal
> responsibility.
AFAIK, you're the only person making that claim. And you're foolishly
wrong yet again.
To teach cycling, one MUST start by making sure people ride their
bikes correctly - for example, on the proper side of the road, with
decent lane position. If you don't, how do you teach cyclists to "be
predictive" of driver behavior? Do you put out one set of rules for
those who ride up the left gutter? Another set for those cowering in
the right gutter? A separate set for those who ride in the door
zone? Yet another for those who ride at night with no lights?
The sane way is to get cyclists riding predictably - that is,
according to best practice. Once everyone understands where they
should be on the road, THEN you can say "Now this is what you do if a
motorist approaches a stop sign to your right..."
> What you have given us above is a vehement
> repudiation of the defensive mindset...
Bull****.
> Furthermore, you're bonkers. Most of the car-bike wrecks
> suffered by experienced adult cyclists occur when
> the cyclist is riding predictably according to the rules
> of the road.
That's fearmongering. Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
pretty much according to the rules of the road. If they do happen to
experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
riding.
But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as
explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
"experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
fearmongering.
> These collisions occur because cyclists
> are often overlooked by drivers, no matter
> how or where they ride, just as drivers overlook
> motorcyclists and other cars;
"Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked. Less
often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
overlooked. Not often enough to cause any large number of fatalities
or serious injuries. Why the fearmongering?
> Clearly, maintaining that level of awareness is of primary
> importance, and everything else--from a safety
> standpoint mind you--is secondary, including
> rule-following.
Ah. "Ride whereever you like on the road, Johnny. Just remember, as
you ride facing traffic and blow through red lights, please maintain
awareness."
Such pap.
Again: On these newsgroups, I've been saying that one should follow
the rules of the road, and I've presented much evidence that proper
cycling is plenty safe.
You long been claiming that cycling is dangerous. And we see you now
believe following the rules of the road is not particularly important.
The cause and effect is certainly easy to understand!
- Frank Krygowski
|