ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-24-2014, 08:55 AM   #4831
aalexander
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Anchorage
Oddometer: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgconner View Post
The category "all", not (All), is a typo, it is Fall. Just like Motorcyclists, many accidents are caused by the mishandling of the bike independent of other vehicles.
Ok, that makes more sense. I'm not entering an opinion of the right/wrong of his views on bike lanes, I don't really care. I'm just saying that the dude has an agenda, and he's selecting statistics which support his crusade, so relying on statistical information he's providing is fraught with peril.

Like I said, a study of the cause of bicycle accidents resulting in death or overnight hospitalization would be a lot more representative of how significant a danger cars are to cyclists. A lot more meaningful than one which includes "I fell off my bike and got a little road rash on my elbows" I don't see that in his article.
aalexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 08:58 AM   #4832
aalexander
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Anchorage
Oddometer: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgconner View Post

You will note that he was proven absolutely correct in what you call an irrational test:

For whatever reasons, Palo Alto then repealed their mandatory sidepath law. In 1994, Wachtel, Lewiston and Likens showed that even at low cycling speeds the bikeways that I had tested in 1975 produced a car-bike collision rate 1.8 times that for the adjacent roadways.
Well, not not really, He concluded a danger 1000 times greater, based on one anecdotal incident. A study showing a 1.8 times greater risk actually disproves his claim. Never mind the absurdity of the "experiment" he described being any kind of empirical study.
aalexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 09:17 AM   #4833
IdahoRenegade
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Sagle, Idaho
Oddometer: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdmichael View Post
Ok... however, you are in Pennsylvania and I am in California. Idaho law does not apply to either state. I'm only concerned with California law unless I am travelling elsewhere. The "slow vehicle" statutes do not apply in California to cyclists, mostly due to the ease to which you can pass a cyclist. Idaho also has a law that allows cyclists to treat stop signs as "yield" signs and signals as "stop" signs. Those don't apply outside of Idaho either.
No one ever said they did. The first sentence of my post was "Here, state law is pretty clear." "Here" being Idaho, not CA or PA.

Now, with regard to pulling over and not impeding the normal flow of traffic; it's pretty sad that this has to be made a law. It is simple common sense and common courtesy. The attempt to link motorcycles to bycicles is pretty silly-with perhaps a few exceptions motorcycles keep up with the average speed of traffic and don't impeed others. Now, I can drive my tractor down local roads whenever I want. If there is traffic on the road, I make every effort to pull over and allow them to pass. To do anything else would make me an inconsiderate asshat, who puts my "right" above the convenience of every other person on the highway. Same I guess if I wanted to ride a pedal car...or bicycle. There are plenty of safe, considerate bicyclists who make an effort not to hold up traffic. I even see some do as I do when I ride, to pull over into driveways and let traffic pass. But I see far too many who ride 2 or more abreast, or in a long, continuous line, and refuse to allow traffic to pass, holding up a long line of cars form miles. Then they whine that someone is "unsafe" when they pass. It is this limited percentage of asshats that give bicyclists a bad name and engender bad feelings towards most bicyclists. No different than the "loud pipes" crowd and motorcycles.
IdahoRenegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 09:52 AM   #4834
Rgconner
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Oddometer: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by aalexander View Post
Ok, that makes more sense. I'm not entering an opinion of the right/wrong of his views on bike lanes, I don't really care. I'm just saying that the dude has an agenda, and he's selecting statistics which support his crusade, so relying on statistical information he's providing is fraught with peril.

Like I said, a study of the cause of bicycle accidents resulting in death or overnight hospitalization would be a lot more representative of how significant a danger cars are to cyclists. A lot more meaningful than one which includes "I fell off my bike and got a little road rash on my elbows" I don't see that in his article.
The article is not that detailed. His book has about 3+ chapters dealing with the subject.

A book that used to teach courses at Universities, he is not just some crank.

His opposite, a pro-bike path advocate, does not even bother with statistics:
Quote:
"Although Forester makes a number of theoretical arguments why bikeways are unsafe, his empirical test of the superiority of vehicular cycling is based on a sample of one -- a single bike ride he took on a new bike path in Palo Alto, California."

I asked him if it were still his opinion that standard traffic engineering methods and data were irrelevant to determining the safety and convenience of various traffic operations, and whether he preferred direct empiric comparison testing, as his sentence indicated. I did not need to get around to stating that he had never done any such direct empiric comparisons, but I suggested that since he had discarded standard methods of determining the safety and convenience of various traffic operations, all of his views about the safety and convenience of traffic operations were unsupported?

Pucher replied with a long answer giving his usual correlations, but when pressed for a real answer he replied: "I don't care what traffic engineers say. I do what is popular."
Having said that, I am sure there a lot of people that disagree with the techniques and opinions given in "Proficient Motorcycling" as well.
Just take ATGATT for example...
__________________
Undersecretary of the Ministry of Silly Posts.

Rgconner screwed with this post 07-24-2014 at 10:01 AM
Rgconner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 10:13 AM   #4835
rbrsddn
3banger
 
rbrsddn's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Madison,CT
Oddometer: 2,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoRenegade View Post
No one ever said they did. The first sentence of my post was "Here, state law is pretty clear." "Here" being Idaho, not CA or PA.

Now, with regard to pulling over and not impeding the normal flow of traffic; it's pretty sad that this has to be made a law. It is simple common sense and common courtesy. The attempt to link motorcycles to bycicles is pretty silly-with perhaps a few exceptions motorcycles keep up with the average speed of traffic and don't impeed others. Now, I can drive my tractor down local roads whenever I want. If there is traffic on the road, I make every effort to pull over and allow them to pass. To do anything else would make me an inconsiderate asshat, who puts my "right" above the convenience of every other person on the highway. Same I guess if I wanted to ride a pedal car...or bicycle. There are plenty of safe, considerate bicyclists who make an effort not to hold up traffic. I even see some do as I do when I ride, to pull over into driveways and let traffic pass. But I see far too many who ride 2 or more abreast, or in a long, continuous line, and refuse to allow traffic to pass, holding up a long line of cars form miles. Then they whine that someone is "unsafe" when they pass. It is this limited percentage of asshats that give bicyclists a bad name and engender bad feelings towards most bicyclists. No different than the "loud pipes" crowd and motorcycles.
The bicyclist shouldn't have to stop what they're doing, just because drivers are too timid to just go around them. I think people just look for things to piss and moan about...
rbrsddn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 10:30 AM   #4836
IdahoRenegade
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Sagle, Idaho
Oddometer: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgconner View Post
Sacramento's own bike trail (originally built and maintained by the local bike clubs and then seized under Emanate Domain) is invaded by equestrians, runners, walkers, and skaters.
You mean bicyclists have to share a trail with others going slower than them and impede their ride? Oh the horror!

IdahoRenegade screwed with this post 07-24-2014 at 11:46 AM
IdahoRenegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 10:46 AM   #4837
catweasel67
Still a B.A.N
 
catweasel67's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria
Oddometer: 8,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgconner View Post
***snip***

Sacramento's own bike trail (originally built and maintained by the local bike clubs and then seized under Emanate Domain) is invaded by equestrians, runners, walkers, and skaters.

***snip***
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoRenegade View Post
You mean bicyclists have to share a trail with others going slower than them and impeed their ride? Oh the horror!
The horror is the quality of the spelling...

"Eminent" not "emanate"
"Impede" not "impeed"
__________________
Planning NA 2010 NA 2010
Adriatic Loop August 09 Mandello Guzzi Protest Sept 09
"I've got the key to the gates of paradise...but I've got too many legs!!" Jeff
Guns don't kill people, people kill people but people with guns manage to kill more people than people without.
catweasel67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 10:50 AM   #4838
IdahoRenegade
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Sagle, Idaho
Oddometer: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by catweasel67 View Post
The horror is the quality of the spelling...


"Impede" not "impeed"
OK, ya got me teach.

I just find the hypocrisy of cyclists pretty sad. They complain that they have to slow down and share paths with others that go slower than they like, yet can't comprehend that people in motor vehicles operators have the same attitude towards them.
IdahoRenegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 11:00 AM   #4839
aalexander
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Anchorage
Oddometer: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgconner View Post
The article is not that detailed. His book has about 3+ chapters dealing with the subject.

A book that used to teach courses at Universities, he is not just some crank.

His opposite, a pro-bike path advocate, does not even bother with statistics:

Having said that, I am sure there a lot of people that disagree with the techniques and opinions given in "Proficient Motorcycling" as well.
Just take ATGATT for example...
It seems that you may share the same view of bikepaths as the author, so I should point out that I'm not arguing against that view. Like I said earlier, I don't really have an opinion, and He may well have a point. I can think of at least one particular type of bike path used in my city which I believe is more dangerous than riding in traffic, so I'm not a bike path crusader who is hostile to the viewpoint. I'm just criticizing some of the things he uses to support his view. I'm a big fan of empiricism, and what he claims to be empiricism is not, not by any stretch of the imagination. In my view using such absurd claims of "empiricism" which are so transparently ridiculous ultimately tends to work against you. If for no other reason that if gives your adversaries valid grounds for criticism.

Oh, and the fact that he has a book that is used in college classes doesn't prove anything. A lot of cranks write book which are used in classes.
aalexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 11:21 AM   #4840
sdmichael
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, CA
Oddometer: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoRenegade View Post
OK, ya got me teach.

I just find the hypocrisy of cyclists pretty sad. They complain that they have to slow down and share paths with others that go slower than they like, yet can't comprehend that people in motor vehicles operators have the same attitude towards them.
Sorry you can't see the difference. Pedestrians tend to be erratic and aren't vehicles. Cars also rarely walk dogs on leash, which are also erratic. Both of those tend to make passing far more dangerous and as a result, slow traffic. Passing a bicycle on a roadway is usually a fairly simple task. It really can't be that tough to pass, and do so safely, a vehicle that is narrow and is going usually less than 20 mph. The smallest engine motorcycle that is street legal should be able to handle that. HP and ability only goes up from there.

Paths tend to be considered "multi-use", designed for slower speeds, and not up to the same standards/widths as roads. Roads, while they are still multi-use, have much different rules, design standards, speeds, and vehicles.
__________________
Exploring California by motorcycle and bicycle, one road at time.
socalregion.com
sdmichael is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 11:29 AM   #4841
yosso
Studly Adventurer
 
yosso's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: SW Missouri
Oddometer: 969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Vaughan View Post
My vehicle carries a 12 pack on ice with drink holders and another passenger pedaling too. It's very serious business.
Completely off topic, but do open container laws apply to bicyclists?

Also, we need pictures.
__________________
Honda ST1300/2000 Suzuki DRZ400E/Ducati 750 Monster re-work Blog
yosso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 11:32 AM   #4842
sdmichael
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, CA
Oddometer: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by yosso View Post
Completely off topic, but do open container laws apply to bicyclists?

Also, we need pictures.
Not sure about open containers, but at least in California, you can get a DUI on a bicycle. As such, I would imagine similar rules with open containers apply.
__________________
Exploring California by motorcycle and bicycle, one road at time.
socalregion.com
sdmichael is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 11:43 AM   #4843
IdahoRenegade
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Sagle, Idaho
Oddometer: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdmichael View Post
Sorry you can't see the difference. Pedestrians tend to be erratic and aren't vehicles. Cars also rarely walk dogs on leash, which are also erratic. Both of those tend to make passing far more dangerous and as a result, slow traffic. Passing a bicycle on a roadway is usually a fairly simple task. It really can't be that tough to pass, and do so safely, a vehicle that is narrow and is going usually less than 20 mph. The smallest engine motorcycle that is street legal should be able to handle that. HP and ability only goes up from there.

Paths tend to be considered "multi-use", designed for slower speeds, and not up to the same standards/widths as roads. Roads, while they are still multi-use, have much different rules, design standards, speeds, and vehicles.
Aww, those mean ol' pedistrians inconvenience you? So sad. A pedestrian doing 3 miles per hour is an inconvenience to a bicyclist that otherwise do might 15...yet a bike doing 15 isn't to a motor vehicle that would otherwise do 60??? It's a lot simpler to ride a bike around a pedistrian, who often will make efforts to help you pass, than it is to pass a bike that requires an operator to go into oncoming traffic. You are quite right-paths are designed for slower speeds than roads...which is why low-speed vehicles should really utilize them when possible.
IdahoRenegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 12:50 PM   #4844
kbroderick
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Red Lodge, Montana
Oddometer: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdmichael View Post
Cars also rarely walk dogs on leash
Off-topic, but I've seen a dog on lead walking alongside an SUV, and I feared for the safety of the dog involved...waaaay too easy for the lead to get tangled in the vehicle in some manner, and the human responsible for both the dog and the vehicle didn't seem to be doing a great job handling either.
kbroderick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2014, 02:38 PM   #4845
Rgconner
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Oddometer: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoRenegade View Post
You mean bicyclists have to share a trail with others going slower than them and impede their ride? Oh the horror!
Not exactly. Pedestrians are slower, true, but worse is they can change 180 degrees direction in a single stride, and often do. They tend to refuse the lovely sand shoulders and insist on walking against traffic on the pavement.

Getting hit by a bike sucks, but the cyclist takes the worst of it.

Skaters are as fast as we are, but do not always do so with traffic and have lousy braking ability and tend to be reckless. Mostly a risk to themselves.

Horses react to bike riders like they are predators, which places the horse rider at risk more than the cyclists, although road apples are a nuisance.

And cyclists do not present any significant risk to the motorist, while all of the above can present a significant risk to the cyclist. SO you are making a false equivalence
__________________
Undersecretary of the Ministry of Silly Posts.

Rgconner screwed with this post 07-24-2014 at 02:43 PM
Rgconner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

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 On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014