drivers speeding away - Page 3

01-25-2007, 11:57 AM

about the parking lot traffic.

Did you see the Global Dimming Documentary on Knowledge Network or anywhere.
Global Dimming is keeping us from being flooded by sea water. It reflects
sunlight and is caused by air pollution. Tested on a 3 day no flights in
N.America ban after 911. The difference was one C. just from not having
contrails from air planes. LA was the example. So banning air pollution is
the opposite of what we should be thinking about because Global Warming
would then be unleashed full force.
I might just have to move up country to get away from the Tsunami.
In twenty five years is when we can expect massive problem. Animals already
dieing, methane escaping from permafrost and burning at the surface.
Ethiopian starvation crisis was caused by air pollution. Could be dust,
emmissions etc. The water is held longer in the clouds by jagged particles
and thus it will not rain.

01-25-2007, 01:26 PM

nash wrote:

> For years now I've been turning off my car at lights when I know I will
> have to sit there for a long cycle.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> Do you know if it has harmed your engine any?
>
>
No harm noticed.

Wayne

01-25-2007, 02:04 PM

On Jan 25, 11:41 am, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
> > ...Because "being predictable" connotes
> > relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
> > really gotta look after ourselves.You said it all when you said it.
>
> > Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
> > it is about being "predictable."Sing it, Brother!!!
>
> New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
> predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
> ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
> and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
> the drivers keep them safe.

The implication you state is only in your own mind.

Beginning cyclists are admonished to be visible and predictable
because, without such instruction, so many of them are neither.
Without instruction, most of them don't seem to know that rules of the
road even exist for cyclists. Their behavior is random and dangerous
to themselves.

I've seen beginning cyclists who were intelligent people do things like
zoom to the left gutter 100 feet before an intersection because they
planned to turn left. I've seen them shoot out into a road in front of
a barreling semi-truck, somehow thinking it would be OK. I've seen
them ride down sidewalks at over 15 mph, including past a blind
driveway intersections where a car was pulling out.

The first task is to get them to obey ordinary, logical rules of the
road - that is, to be predictable. Soon after that idea's implanted,
you can work on other concepts, like reacting to driver behavior.

> Talk about putting the ball
> in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> different things to different people.

Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?

"It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."

First things first.

- Frank Krygowski

01-26-2007, 07:17 AM

On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

> > Talk about putting the ball
> > in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> > it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> > and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> > is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> > shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> > different things to different people.

> Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?

We do. It's called defensive driving ideology.

Can you imagine if we taught people to drive, or ride
motorcycles, using your logic? "Just be visible and
predictable for all the other drivers out there, and
everything will work out swimmingly!! We'll teach
you how to turn the steering wheel sharply in
chapter 32, but you'll probably never need to!!"

> "It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
> 'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."

What a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said anything about
ignoring traffic law being part of safe riding.

One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.

Any twelve year-old jack donkey can ride down the
road as part of the traffic system. The question is, what
happens when the system breaks down. Will you be
surprised, or will you be ready. That's really all that
matters. Everything else is distraction.

Those heavily invested in 'vehicular cycling' ideology
seem to have trouble even admitting that the traffic system
is prone to breakdowns. Dangerous.

First thing's first: jettison idealized notions of the
traffic system.

Robert

01-26-2007, 09:34 AM

First thing's first: jettison idealized notions of the
traffic system.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I have a small problem with that. Everyone starts making their own rules
and it slows me down. Me sticking to the rules that is.

01-26-2007, 11:22 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

> One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
> of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
> them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.

The main pillars of vehicular cycling are not to be visible and
predictable as you assert. Obviously the main pillar of vehicular
cycling is to operate a bicycle as a vehicle, following vehicular rules
rather than pedestrian rules.

Wayne

01-26-2007, 02:15 PM

On Jan 26, 11:17 am, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
> > > Talk about putting the ball
> > > in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> > > it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> > > and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> > > is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> > > shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> > > different things to different people.
> > Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?

> We do. It's called defensive driving ideology.

Baloney. Nobody - or at least, no competent teacher - begins teaching
fine points of defensive driving to a student who doesn't know the
rules of the road. The rules come first - things like drive on the
right, stop for stop signs, stop for red lights, proceed only when
clear, etc. If you don't follow basic rules, you can't possibly defend
against the chaos you'd cause.

>
> Can you imagine if we taught people to drive, or ride
> motorcycles, using your logic? "Just be visible and
> predictable for all the other drivers out there, and
> everything will work out swimmingly!! We'll teach
> you how to turn the steering wheel sharply in
> chapter 32, but you'll probably never need to!!"
>
> > "It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
> > 'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."

> What a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said anything about
> ignoring traffic law being part of safe riding.

I'm responding to your straw man. Dozens of times, you've
characterized vehicular cycling as "JUST follow the rules and you'll do
fine." But AFAIK, it's _never_ taught that way. The official League
of American Bicyclists' curricula for its courses has _always_ included
theory and practice on evasive maneuvers. It's always had students out
in parking lots practicing panic stops, emergency turns etc. It's
always included information on spotting potential driver mistakes.
Dozens of times, I've explained that, but you seem incapable of either
believing it or retaining it.

Furthermore, you ignore the fact that, when teaching cycling, there
are many people who do NOT know the most basic rules. I can give many
more examples than I already have - like the sporty young man on a new
performance bike, snazzy cycling clothes, brand new helmet etc, on a
club ride who made a left turn by swerving first to the left gutter.
That sort of behavior MUST be corrected first, before we get into any
emergency maneuvers, let alone any "zen of traffic" mysticism.

>
> One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
> of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
> them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
^^^

And, as always, the "all" in the preceding sentence is a figment of
your imagination.

> Any twelve year-old jack donkey can ride down the
> road as part of the traffic system. The question is, what
> happens when the system breaks down. Will you be
> surprised, or will you be ready. That's really all that
> matters. Everything else is distraction.

Have you never seen a cyclist ride down the wrong side of a road,
facing traffic? Have you never seen a cyclist ride at night without
lights? Do you REALLY think it's "a distraction" to fail to correct
those mistakes?

If so, you're quite hopeless.

> Those heavily invested in 'vehicular cycling' ideology
> seem to have trouble even admitting that the traffic system
> is prone to breakdowns. Dangerous.

I find it telling that the guy who argues strenuously that the rules of
the road don't matter, is the same guy who proclaims that cycling is
dangerous.

It's not hard to see the cause-and-effect relationship!

- Frank Krygowski

01-26-2007, 02:24 PM

In article <1169766269.903611.261080@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] writes:
>
>
> On Jan 25, 11:41 am, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>
>> > ...Because "being predictable" connotes
>> > relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
>> > really gotta look after ourselves.You said it all when you said it.
>>
>> > Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
>> > it is about being "predictable."Sing it, Brother!!!
>>
>> New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
>> predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
>> ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
>> and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
>> the drivers keep them safe.
>
> The implication you state is only in your own mind.
>
> Beginning cyclists are admonished to be visible and predictable
> because, without such instruction, so many of them are neither.
> Without instruction, most of them don't seem to know that rules of the
> road even exist for cyclists. Their behavior is random and dangerous
> to themselves.

When I learned to ride (a handful of decades ago) I was
immediately taught the protocol of right-of-way. In fact,
I figure Effective Cycling's 5 basic principles pretty much
sublimate down to that.

I guess following a protocol is a manner of being
predictable.

So why not specifically say: "observe (or at least
recognize) right-of-way rules" instead of just a
mamby-pambyishly glib: "be predictable?"

Or one could optionally, list the 5 basic principles
of Effective Cycling at them. But I'd still put them
in context of right-of-way.

And maybe add: "No matter what you do while riding,
you're an operator of a vehicle -- not a pedestrian,
until you dismount." Because unpredictability occurs
when someone alternately assumes the right-of-way
rules as a vehicle operator, or as a pedestrian, at the
drop of an hat. And /that/, I think, is the crux of
the biscuit -- that misapplication of right-of-way is
what people are thinking of when they complain of the
"unpredictability" of cyclists. But they evidently
don't think in terms of right-of-way themselves, since
they don't mention it. Maybe because they're also
ignorant of the concept of right-of-way. Maybe they're
the "red means stop, green means go, and that's all
you need to know" crowd.

> I've seen beginning cyclists who were intelligent people do things like
> zoom to the left gutter 100 feet before an intersection because they
> planned to turn left. I've seen them shoot out into a road in front of
> a barreling semi-truck, somehow thinking it would be OK. I've seen
> them ride down sidewalks at over 15 mph, including past a blind
> driveway intersections where a car was pulling out.

I'd sure hate to see how they drive. They obviously
have no understanding of right-of-way.

> The first task is to get them to obey ordinary, logical rules of the
> road - that is, to be predictable.

See what I mean? "Be predictable" is so general,
and can be taken a number of ways. But if you
were to inform them that vehicular right-of-way
rules apply to them, that narrows it down and makes
the point more succinctly.

A fringe benefit to thinking in terms of right-of-way
is that it drives home the point that interrelations
on the road are /social/. For example, your
gutter-hugger cyclist who suddenly decides to make a
left turn. If there was a car driver upcoming from
behind in the inside lane, the rider no doubt would
have surprised him. The misdeed performed by the rider
was violating the driver's right-of-way.

> Soon after that idea's implanted,
> you can work on other concepts, like reacting to driver behavior.
>
>> Talk about putting the ball
>> in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
>> it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
>> and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
>> is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
>> shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
>> different things to different people.
>
> Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?
>
> "It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
> 'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."
>
> First things first.

First thing before setting wheel to road is to
understand the protocol of right-of-way. Those
/are/ the ultimate Rules Of The Road. Not just
being <pfffft> somehow "predictable."

cheers, & Common Law is time-tested & true,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

01-26-2007, 02:36 PM

In article <7Rruh.806565$1T2.534257@pd7urf2no>,
"nash" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> First thing's first: jettison idealized notions of the
> traffic system.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> I have a small problem with that. Everyone starts making their own rules
> and it slows me down. Me sticking to the rules that is.

Follow right-of-way rules and everything else
just naturally falls into place. Except when
other road users don't follow the rules. That's
when you've gotta be predictful instead of
predictable.

Right-of-way rules are not "idealized notions
of the traffic system" -- they're how it
/really/ works. Plain & simple.

Sometimes there are exceptions. That's what
signage is supposed to handle. No more, no less.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

01-26-2007, 02:46 PM

In article <45ba6303$0$27066$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> writes:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
>
>> One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
>> of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
>> them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
>
> The main pillars of vehicular cycling are not to be visible and
> predictable as you assert. Obviously the main pillar of vehicular
> cycling is to operate a bicycle as a vehicle, following vehicular rules
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In other words, observing the right of way protocol.
Why are people (especially cyclists) so loathe to
outrightly say: "right of way", and instead, dance
around such succint phrasing with foggy euphemisms
such as "rules of the road," "vehicular rules," &c?

Anyways, the "main pillars", or the 5 Principles of
Effective Cycling pretty much boil down to observing
and recognizing good ol' Right Of Way.

cheers,
Tom

> rather than pedestrian rules.
>
> Wayne
>

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca