Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[P. J. Alling]

On 5/23/2010 12:01 PM, William Robb wrote:


- Original Message - From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, 
not





Cut Bill a little slack would you.  From what I read, he would at
least tell the dealer how the vehicle was damaged. ;-) :-)))



And I'd be treating it as an insurance issue. I wouldn't try to 
pretend that my truck was delivered with someones brains embedded in 
the radiator.


William Robb


Boy, that's giving the cycles the benefit of doubt.

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"

Subject: Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not




Cut Bill a little slack would you.  From what I read, he would at
least tell the dealer how the vehicle was damaged. ;-) :-)))



And I'd be treating it as an insurance issue. I wouldn't try to pretend that 
my truck was delivered with someones brains embedded in the radiator.


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Mann"

Subject: Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not



On May 23, 2010, at 3:30 AM, William Robb wrote:

There is no justification for refusing to share the road, but that is a 
two way street, so to speak. A cyclist who is operating his vehicle in 
such a way as to be a danger to others deserves some consequences.


A danger to others?  Who exactly would that be?


Anyone else on the road. Avoiding an idiot on a bike may well put an 
innocent pedestrian into the path of a vehicle, or may cause me to take out 
another cyclist.


For myself, if I have to make the choice of going up on a sidewalk or 
crashing into a building to avoid an adult cyclist who is being an ass, 
I'll take the path that does the least damage to my vehicle and puts 
someone other than me clearly at fault.


And you may end up in all sorts of shit if they find out you deliberately 
chose that course of action.  Damaging some property isn't in the same 
league as maiming or killing someone.  I can understand if your choice is 
between running down one person or a whole family though.


I have a right to self preservation. Since motor vehicle collisions are 
unpredictable, smashing into a parked car at speed may well cause me injury. 
You put yourself in a situation where I have to choose between potentially 
hurting myself and definitely hurting you, and you are going to get hurt.
If you don't like it, then obey the rules of the road. It's a pretty simple 
concept to follow.


I'm not out there hunting bike riders, I'm just expecting them to drive 
their vehicles in a safe and sane manner and obey the rules. If they aren't 
going to do that, they are going to be someone's hood ornament eventually.




I do cut young children a lot of slack, but about the time they hit 
puberty I figure they should be showing some sense.
If that means playing Whack-A-Mole with an idiot who wants to be a 
fatality, then I'm not going to argue with the dork.
If I run into a parked car to avoid a cyclist, I'm the one who has run 
into a parked car, and I'll also be the one who get's nicked for doing 
it, since the cyclist is unlikely to wait around to admit fault.

It's easier on my insurance that way.


You'd kill someone to avoid a bit of hassle?  What the fuck kind of 
misguided ethics do you live by?  Would you then return your vehicle to 
the dealer for a refund?


No, I'd return my vehicle to the dealer to have the grill replaced.


Our police are taking it pretty seriously though. A few weeks ago a 
cyclist ran a stop sign and got knocked over by a truck. The police made 
the effort to go to the hospital and ticket him for failing to stop, and 
I believe operating a vehicle without due care and attention.


He obviously deserved it for being stupid... even though the ticket was 
probably the least of his worries.


Down here the law is that if you could have stopped but chose not to, you 
bear responsibility.  This applies regardless of how stupidly the person 
you hit was behaving.  If you think about that for a few seconds you'll 
realise it makes sense in the context of road safety.




If it's just a matter of stopping, then fine. If it's a matter of choosing 
what I am going to hit, I'll hit whatever is going to cause me the least 
harm. If that is a fool on a bicycle who is creating havoc on the street, 
well, he should have thought things through a little more carefully.


Why should I take a head on with a bus because a moron cyclist ran a stop, 
failed to yield or swerved into my path? You want me to respect your right 
to the road, then you need to show me the same respect and operate your 
vehicle properly. At the end of the day, a bike colliding with a motor 
vehicle is going to hurt the cyclist more than the car driver, so it behoves 
the cyclist to obey the rules and not presume that he has carte blanche to 
pretend that he owns the road and everyone else can bloody well drive into 
the ditch.


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[Tom C]

On 5/23/10, David Mann  wrote:
>
> You'd kill someone to avoid a bit of hassle?  What the fuck kind of
> misguided ethics do you live by?  Would you then return your vehicle to the
> dealer for a refund?
>

David,

Cut Bill a little slack would you.  From what I read, he would at
least tell the dealer how the vehicle was damaged. ;-) :-)))

Tom C.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[David Mann]

On May 23, 2010, at 3:30 AM, William Robb wrote:

> There is no justification for refusing to share the road, but that is a two 
> way street, so to speak. A cyclist who is operating his vehicle in such a way 
> as to be a danger to others deserves some consequences.

A danger to others?  Who exactly would that be?

> For myself, if I have to make the choice of going up on a sidewalk or 
> crashing into a building to avoid an adult cyclist who is being an ass, I'll 
> take the path that does the least damage to my vehicle and puts someone other 
> than me clearly at fault.

And you may end up in all sorts of shit if they find out you deliberately chose 
that course of action.  Damaging some property isn't in the same league as 
maiming or killing someone.  I can understand if your choice is between running 
down one person or a whole family though.

> I do cut young children a lot of slack, but about the time they hit puberty I 
> figure they should be showing some sense.
> If that means playing Whack-A-Mole with an idiot who wants to be a fatality, 
> then I'm not going to argue with the dork.
> If I run into a parked car to avoid a cyclist, I'm the one who has run into a 
> parked car, and I'll also be the one who get's nicked for doing it, since the 
> cyclist is unlikely to wait around to admit fault.
> It's easier on my insurance that way.

You'd kill someone to avoid a bit of hassle?  What the fuck kind of misguided 
ethics do you live by?  Would you then return your vehicle to the dealer for a 
refund?

> Our police are taking it pretty seriously though. A few weeks ago a cyclist 
> ran a stop sign and got knocked over by a truck. The police made the effort 
> to go to the hospital and ticket him for failing to stop, and I believe 
> operating a vehicle without due care and attention.

He obviously deserved it for being stupid... even though the ticket was 
probably the least of his worries.

Down here the law is that if you could have stopped but chose not to, you bear 
responsibility.  This applies regardless of how stupidly the person you hit was 
behaving.  If you think about that for a few seconds you'll realise it makes 
sense in the context of road safety.

Dave



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely not

[steve harley]

On 2010-05-21 09:45 , Christian Skofteland wrote:

It's "Bike to work Week" in the US (Bike to work day was today).


i didn't know there was a national day; Denver's bike to work day is 23 
June this year


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely not

[mike wilson]

Bob W wrote:

the driver deliberately knocked him off


Far too big a step, not just in this scenario but many others.  No doubt 
it does happen but you couldn't get away with it more than two or three 
times.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely not

[Bob W]

> > 
> 
> Can't argue about the gobbiness.  But the incident is 
> interesting.  He seems to come out of his lane much further 
> into the road, far earlier than I would expect.  

I think he has come out at the right time, and in the right position. I'd
say he is cycling as advocated by the likes of John Franklin in Cyclecraft.
That is, he's taking the line justifiably.

> All very 
> difficult to evaluate clearly from one poxy helmetcam but it 
> seems, on first perusal, that there was fault on both sides.
> 

Can't agree with you. As I see it the driver deliberately knocked him off
the bike. The cyclist was not at fault at all.

> My personal style, when in heavy traffic, is to wobble like a 
> five-year-old on their first ride without stabilisers.  It 
> generates quite a lot of vituperative comment but, so far, no 
> collisions.

You are remarkably wise for one so young, my child. It seems that drivers
give more space to cyclists who are NOT wearing a helmet than to people who
are. This is thought to be because they assume that people wearing a helmet
know what they are doing, and people like me do not.

Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[Bob W]

> 
> I've been on the receiving end several times in one ride, in 
> fact.  I live in a fairly rural area and a lot of the people, 
> especially 20-something males, find it sporting to brush as 
> close to a cyclist as possible, yell obsenities, throw 
> objects (cans, bottles, etc) from their vehicles, brake-check 
> following cyclists, deliberately swerving into or in front of 
> bikes...  the list goes on.  Every one of those things has 
> happened to me.  I ride sanely, keep to the right as much as 
> possible, mind my own business and go out of my way to help 
> cars pass me on blind hills or corners.  As much as I've 
> experienced the one thing I try to remember is to keep the 
> middle finger firmly on the handlebar...
> 

I had a near miss this morning. I needed to turn right across oncoming
traffic to get to my street. I positioned myself correctly and waited for a
gap in the traffic. While I was waiting, an oncoming car needed to do a left
turn just after me. There was a van behind him driven by a young man who
rather than slow down pulled out at speed to go round him and came straight
at me. I could see the young man looking at and cursing the left-turning car
in front of him, so I know he had not seen me. I had to make a sharp jump to
my left to get out of his way. I knew there was no traffic coming behind me,
so I was safe, but if there had been I would have been lucky to escape.

Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Mann"

Subject: Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not



On May 22, 2010, at 5:47 AM, William Robb wrote:

Consequently, we also have a lot of car/ bicycle accidents where the car 
driver simply refuses to give up his right of way to an errant cyclist 
and takes him out instead.


That is absolutely disgusting.  There's no justification for that kind of 
behaviour and I hope such drivers are being hauled into court.  If they 
could have stopped but chose not to then they've committed assault, 
regardless of provocation.


There is no justification for refusing to share the road, but that is a two 
way street, so to speak. A cyclist who is operating his vehicle in such a 
way as to be a danger to others deserves some consequences.
For myself, if I have to make the choice of going up on a sidewalk or 
crashing into a building to avoid an adult cyclist who is being an ass, I'll 
take the path that does the least damage to my vehicle and puts someone 
other than me clearly at fault. I do cut young children a lot of slack, but 
about the time they hit puberty I figure they should be showing some sense.
If that means playing Whack-A-Mole with an idiot who wants to be a fatality, 
then I'm not going to argue with the dork.
If I run into a parked car to avoid a cyclist, I'm the one who has run into 
a parked car, and I'll also be the one who get's nicked for doing it, since 
the cyclist is unlikely to wait around to admit fault.

It's easier on my insurance that way.
Our police are taking it pretty seriously though. A few weeks ago a cyclist 
ran a stop sign and got knocked over by a truck. The police made the effort 
to go to the hospital and ticket him for failing to stop, and I believe 
operating a vehicle without due care and attention.


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely not

[mike wilson]

Bob W wrote:

Drivers in the UK are generally fairly considerate towards cyclists. Not as
good as the French, but not bad. 


And the BBC is normally fairly even-handed in its treatment of most
subjects. 


But have a look at this video for an extreme anti-bike bias. It beggars
belief:




Can't argue about the gobbiness.  But the incident is interesting.  He 
seems to come out of his lane much further into the road, far earlier 
than I would expect.  All very difficult to evaluate clearly from one 
poxy helmetcam but it seems, on first perusal, that there was fault on 
both sides.


My personal style, when in heavy traffic, is to wobble like a 
five-year-old on their first ride without stabilisers.  It generates 
quite a lot of vituperative comment but, so far, no collisions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[Christian Skofteland]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 01:38:51PM -0400, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: Christian Skofteland
> >It's "Bike to work Week" in the US (Bike to work day was today). The
> >Washington Post had an article about the conflicts between cars and
> >bikes that was slanted against bikes.  The writer kept going back to
> >the "bikers blowing through red lights and stop signs" argument but
> >only briefly touched on the drivers that go out of their way to
> >intimidated and assault bicyclists.
> >
> 
> I have seen plenty of the "bikers blowing through red lights and
> stop signs". It's a self correcting problem as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I've never witnessed motorists "go out of their way" to intimidate
> cyclists. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I have never seen it.
> 

I've been on the receiving end several times in one ride, in fact.  I live in a 
fairly rural area and a lot of the people, especially 20-something males, find 
it sporting to brush as close to a cyclist as possible, yell obsenities, throw 
objects (cans, bottles, etc) from their vehicles, brake-check following 
cyclists, deliberately swerving into or in front of bikes...  the list goes on. 
 Every one of those things has happened to me.  I ride sanely, keep to the 
right as much as possible, mind my own business and go out of my way to help 
cars pass me on blind hills or corners.  As much as I've experienced the one 
thing I try to remember is to keep the middle finger firmly on the handlebar...

-- 

Christian
-
http://404notfound.blogspot.com
http://birdofthemoment.blogspot.com


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[eckinator]

2010/5/22 Bob W :
> [...]
>>
>> I put on a helmet when it rains.  It keeps the hood of my
>> rain jacket on my head.

I have a reflective GoreTex helmet cover, keeps rain and wind out and
surface friction is enough to hold a Petzl TacTikka XP LED headlamp
which can be used as both a headlight or a taillight with slip-in
color screens

> That increases the chance of you having an accident. When you're wearing a
> hood and turn round to see if there are any juggernauts bearing down on you,
> the hood obscures most of your vision. To get it out of the way you have to
> take one hand off the handlebar.

Totally, tried the cobra hood of my ecwcs parka before and while it
was a nice fit, I didn't see a thing turning my head. And I find most
bicycle mirrors to be useless.

> I recommend wearing a traditional cycling
> cap made from a water-repellent material,such as this:
> 
>
> It may also help keep your scalp attached to your skull when you slide along
> the blacktop on your head.

I doubt that. Same as with motorcycle gear, if it isn't securely
attached, either to you or to another piece of gear, it will simply
come sliding right off on impact or shortly thereafter... =(

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Bob W]

> > It's tempting to point to statistics that show a (slightly) 
> lower rate 
> > of injury amongst helmet wearers.  But this is a self-selecting 
> > population; it's quite plausible that the sort of person 
> who elects to 
> > wear a helmet is less likely to engage in risky activities, 
> and thus 
> > would have a lower chance of an accident even without the helmet.
> 
> The stats would probably be more meaningful from 
> jurisdictions such as mine where it's illegal to ride sans 
> helmet (though of course many do, one the spot fines are 
> regularly dispensed).
> 

The figures from Aus show that although the number of serious injuries
declined, so did the number of miles cycled, so the rate of injury
increased. The health of the whole population also declined because the
people who didn't cycle but who would have done previously did not get the
health gains of cycling. So society as a whole lost out by make
helmet-wearing compulsory - mandatory helmets saved some people, but more
people died because instead of cycling they were slumped in front of
Neighbours with a tube of the amber nectar.

There are various problems with the before & after stats which can be quite
hotly contested, but similar results appear to found wherever the
'experiment' is carried out.

Here are some stats for GB, where helmets are not compulsory and where
helmet use has increased as the number of miles cycled has increased.
.

In London it seems there is safety in numbers, and that the more cyclists
there are on the roads, the safer cycling becomes regardless of helmet use -
although it is not at all unsafe compared with other activities.

Most cycling deaths here are the result of left-turning lorries crushing the
cyclist against the pavement barrier - something which helmets could not
prevent. The answer to that one lies in cyclist and driver training, and the
replacement of barriers with other means of keeping traffic off the
pavement.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Bob W]

> > Such studies have been done, of course.  But all they can 
> measure is 
> > the accident rate in the jurisdiction; they can't compare 
> the accident 
> > rate with helmets to the rate for the same area without helmet use.
> >
> 
> But they can.
> 
> Studies from a period before mandatory helmet wearing can be 
> compared to a period immediately after helmet mandation.  
> Provided other factors haven't significantly changed, and the 
> study periods encompass the same cycling population in the 
> same place and in the same seasons, then the results can be 
> fairly compared.

> Provided other factors haven't significantly changed,

There's the rub. 

It also would require the correct figures to have been gathered correctly.
The stuff I've read about it all seems to show that there are no
uncontroversial like-for-like figures available.

It's probably better if we go back to discussing the definition of Art -
it's an easier matter to settle.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Bob W]

> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM, John Sessoms 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Most cyclists are not idiots. It's just the idiots who get all the 
> > attention.
> 
> Same with drivers and pedestrians.  Most are kind and 
> courteous.  It's the minority of fools that we all see and hear about.
> 

They should set up a special place where they can all be gathered together
and kept away from the rest of us.

No, wait, isn't that London...?

Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Bob W]

[...]
> 
> I put on a helmet when it rains.  It keeps the hood of my 
> rain jacket on my head.
> 

That increases the chance of you having an accident. When you're wearing a
hood and turn round to see if there are any juggernauts bearing down on you,
the hood obscures most of your vision. To get it out of the way you have to
take one hand off the handlebar. I recommend wearing a traditional cycling
cap made from a water-repellent material,such as this:


It may also help keep your scalp attached to your skull when you slide along
the blacktop on your head.

Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[David Mann]

On May 22, 2010, at 5:47 AM, William Robb wrote:

> Consequently, we also have a lot of car/ bicycle accidents where the car 
> driver simply refuses to give up his right of way to an errant cyclist and 
> takes him out instead.

That is absolutely disgusting.  There's no justification for that kind of 
behaviour and I hope such drivers are being hauled into court.  If they could 
have stopped but chose not to then they've committed assault, regardless of 
provocation.

Dave
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Scott Loveless]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:53 PM, John Francis  wrote:
>
> It's tempting to point to statistics that show a (slightly) lower
> rate of injury amongst helmet wearers.  But this is a self-selecting
> population; it's quite plausible that the sort of person who elects
> to wear a helmet is less likely to engage in risky activities, and
> thus would have a lower chance of an accident even without the helmet.

You have the self-selecting part right, though I'm not convinced the
pro-helmet crowd takes fewer risks.  Rather, the folks who insist on
wearing a helmet are probably more concerned about a bump on the
noggin, and therefore more likely to seek medical treatment.  Whereas
people who wouldn't go to see a doctor for any but the most serious
head injuries are likely among those who refuse to wear a helmet.

I put on a helmet when it rains.  It keeps the hood of my rain jacket
on my head.

-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
__o
  _'\<,_
 (*)/  (*)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[frank theriault]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM, John Sessoms  wrote:

> Most cyclists are not idiots. It's just the idiots who get all the
> attention.

Same with drivers and pedestrians.  Most are kind and courteous.  It's
the minority of fools that we all see and hear about.

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Anthony Farr]

On 22 May 2010 12:00, John Francis  wrote:
>
> Such studies have been done, of course.  But all they can measure is the
> accident rate in the jurisdiction; they can't compare the accident rate
> with helmets to the rate for the same area without helmet use.
>

But they can.

Studies from a period before mandatory helmet wearing can be compared
to a period immediately after helmet mandation.  Provided other
factors haven't significantly changed, and the study periods encompass
the same cycling population in the same place and in the same seasons,
then the results can be fairly compared.

regards, Anthony

   "Of what use is lens and light
to those who lack in mind and sight"
   (Anon)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[John Francis]

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:30:57AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 22/05/2010, John Francis  wrote:
> 
> > It's tempting to point to statistics that show a (slightly) lower
> > rate of injury amongst helmet wearers.  But this is a self-selecting
> > population; it's quite plausible that the sort of person who elects
> > to wear a helmet is less likely to engage in risky activities, and
> > thus would have a lower chance of an accident even without the helmet.
> 
> The stats would probably be more meaningful from jurisdictions such as
> mine where it's illegal to ride sans helmet (though of course many do,
> one the spot fines are regularly dispensed).

Such studies have been done, of course.  But all they can measure is the
accident rate in the jurisdiction; they can't compare the accident rate
with helmets to the rate for the same area without helmet use.

The statistics strongly suggest that helmet use itself has at best a
negligible contribution to rider safety.  By far the most significant
contribution is the average number of miles cycled per road user; the
more general awareness of cyclists there is, the safer it is to cycle.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Rob Studdert]

On 22/05/2010, John Francis  wrote:

> It's tempting to point to statistics that show a (slightly) lower
> rate of injury amongst helmet wearers.  But this is a self-selecting
> population; it's quite plausible that the sort of person who elects
> to wear a helmet is less likely to engage in risky activities, and
> thus would have a lower chance of an accident even without the helmet.

The stats would probably be more meaningful from jurisdictions such as
mine where it's illegal to ride sans helmet (though of course many do,
one the spot fines are regularly dispensed).

-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely not

[Rob Studdert]

On 22/05/2010, Christian Skofteland  wrote:

> It's "Bike to work Week" in the US (Bike to work day was today). The 
> Washington Post had an article about the conflicts between cars and bikes 
> that was slanted against bikes.  The writer kept going back to the "bikers 
> blowing through red lights and stop signs" argument but only briefly touched 
> on the drivers that go out of their way to intimidated and assault bicyclists.

Some people just don't help themselves, twice this rainy week at night
I've been surprised to see a cyclist in front of me, sans lights,
helmet or reflective clothing. Generally I'm pretty careful and there
is very good visibility from my car but these ones were a complete
surprise, out of nowhere. The other morning a cyclist shot through a
red light just as my green turn arrow ok'd me to cross his path.
Sydney is a hideous place to cycle as transport.

-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[John Francis]

I don't think it's as clear-cut as some folks would have you beleive.

Helmets do seem to prevent (or at least reduce) one class of injury.
But as far as I can see there are some pretty credible studies that
suggest there is no causative link, or even correlation, between
wearing helmets and reducing the frequency or severity of injuries.

It's tempting to point to statistics that show a (slightly) lower
rate of injury amongst helmet wearers.  But this is a self-selecting
population; it's quite plausible that the sort of person who elects
to wear a helmet is less likely to engage in risky activities, and
thus would have a lower chance of an accident even without the helmet.

Al that being said, though, I still wear a helmet when I ride my bike.



On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 02:34:52PM -0600, Tom C wrote:
> Just yanking your chain.  Helmets are certainly smart.
> 
> How'd we survive?
> 
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Bruce Dayton  
> wrote:
> > I hadn't thought about teaching them humor...will have to think about
> > that.
> >
> > I am an avid cyclist and ride about 15 miles each day. ?I drag my
> > kids along as often as I can get them to. ?I do always wear a helmet
> > and require them to as well.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> > Friday, May 21, 2010, 1:00:01 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > TC> Is this the kind of humor you teach your kids at home? ;-)
> >
> > TC> Tom
> >
> > TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton
> > TC>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:54:54 PM, you wrote:
> >>>
> >>> TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, John Sessoms  
> >>> wrote:
> > As I said before, bad attitude, scoff-law cyclists on streets, roads and
> > highways are a self correcting problem. The ones who live, learn.
> >
> > The ones who won't learn ...
> >
> >>>
> >>> TC> But they forget almost immediately.
> >>>
> >>> TC> Tom C.
> >>>
> >>> It's those darn helmets...squeezes the brain so all the memories
> >>> spill out. ?:)
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Bruce
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>> PDML@pdml.net
> >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> >>> follow the directions.
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> > follow the directions.
> >
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Tom C]

Just yanking your chain.  Helmets are certainly smart.

How'd we survive?

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Bruce Dayton  wrote:
> I hadn't thought about teaching them humor...will have to think about
> that.
>
> I am an avid cyclist and ride about 15 miles each day.  I drag my
> kids along as often as I can get them to.  I do always wear a helmet
> and require them to as well.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bruce
>
>
> Friday, May 21, 2010, 1:00:01 PM, you wrote:
>
> TC> Is this the kind of humor you teach your kids at home? ;-)
>
> TC> Tom
>
> TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton
> TC>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:54:54 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, John Sessoms  
>>> wrote:
> As I said before, bad attitude, scoff-law cyclists on streets, roads and
> highways are a self correcting problem. The ones who live, learn.
>
> The ones who won't learn ...
>
>>>
>>> TC> But they forget almost immediately.
>>>
>>> TC> Tom C.
>>>
>>> It's those darn helmets...squeezes the brain so all the memories
>>> spill out.  :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>>> follow the directions.
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Bruce Dayton]

I hadn't thought about teaching them humor...will have to think about
that.

I am an avid cyclist and ride about 15 miles each day.  I drag my
kids along as often as I can get them to.  I do always wear a helmet
and require them to as well.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Friday, May 21, 2010, 1:00:01 PM, you wrote:

TC> Is this the kind of humor you teach your kids at home? ;-)

TC> Tom

TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton
TC>  wrote:
>>
>> Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:54:54 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, John Sessoms  
>> wrote:
 As I said before, bad attitude, scoff-law cyclists on streets, roads and
 highways are a self correcting problem. The ones who live, learn.

 The ones who won't learn ...

>>
>> TC> But they forget almost immediately.
>>
>> TC> Tom C.
>>
>> It's those darn helmets...squeezes the brain so all the memories
>> spill out.  :)
>>
>> --
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>>



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Larry Colen]

On 5/21/2010 12:57 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:


Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:54:54 PM, you wrote:

TC>  On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, John Sessoms  
wrote:

As I said before, bad attitude, scoff-law cyclists on streets, roads and
highways are a self correcting problem. The ones who live, learn.

The ones who won't learn ...



TC>  But they forget almost immediately.

TC>  Tom C.

It's those darn helmets...squeezes the brain so all the memories
spill out.  :)


One of the things that I've learned from racing is that fiberglass (or 
even carbon fiber) and nomex create a field that dampen brain waves. The 
proof is the way that when people get into their racecar and put on 
their helmets, their IQ immediately drops by 15-30 points.




--
Bruce






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Tom C]

Is this the kind of humor you teach your kids at home? ;-)

Tom

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton  wrote:
>
> Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:54:54 PM, you wrote:
>
> TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, John Sessoms  
> wrote:
>>> As I said before, bad attitude, scoff-law cyclists on streets, roads and
>>> highways are a self correcting problem. The ones who live, learn.
>>>
>>> The ones who won't learn ...
>>>
>
> TC> But they forget almost immediately.
>
> TC> Tom C.
>
> It's those darn helmets...squeezes the brain so all the memories
> spill out.  :)
>
> --
> Bruce
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Bruce Dayton]

Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:54:54 PM, you wrote:

TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, John Sessoms  wrote:
>> As I said before, bad attitude, scoff-law cyclists on streets, roads and
>> highways are a self correcting problem. The ones who live, learn.
>>
>> The ones who won't learn ...
>>

TC> But they forget almost immediately.

TC> Tom C.

It's those darn helmets...squeezes the brain so all the memories
spill out.  :)

--
Bruce



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[Tom C]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, John Sessoms  wrote:
> As I said before, bad attitude, scoff-law cyclists on streets, roads and
> highways are a self correcting problem. The ones who live, learn.
>
> The ones who won't learn ...
>

But they forget almost immediately.

Tom C.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely,, not

[John Sessoms]

From: "William Robb"

From: "John Sessoms"

From: Christian Skofteland

>> It's "Bike to work Week" in the US (Bike to work day was today). The
>> Washington Post had an article about the conflicts between cars and
>> bikes that was slanted against bikes.  The writer kept going back to
>> the "bikers blowing through red lights and stop signs" argument but
>> only briefly touched on the drivers that go out of their way to
>> intimidated and assault bicyclists.
>>

>
> I have seen plenty of the "bikers blowing through red lights and stop 
> signs". It's a self correcting problem as far as I'm concerned.

>
> I've never witnessed motorists "go out of their way" to intimidate 
> cyclists. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I have never seen it.

>
> I have been hit (brushed) by motorists twice when I was on a bicycle. Both 
> times I was knocked down, but otherwise uninjured. In neither case, one a 
> city bus, did the driver stop and inquire if I was OK. I don't even know 
> if they were aware they had knocked me down.

>
> I have twice had cyclists crash into me in my automobile. Once from the 
> rear, once from the passenger side. In both cases I checked that they were 
> OK. In neither case did the cyclist inquire as to possible damage done to 
> my vehicle ... the side hit DID require body work to repair.

>
> I try to be vigilant whenever cyclists are on the road. Given the 
> disparity in road weights & momentum, I don't ever want to hit one. But, 
> it's not going to be my fault if it happens. It will be in spite of my 
> having done everything I could to "share the road".

>


I don't know what the bike laws are in your part of the world, but here a 
bicycle is considered to be a motor vehicle, and as such is required to be 
operated in accordance with local laws.


In North Carolina, a bicycle is not a motor vehicle, but IS subject to 
follow the same "rules of the road", aka traffic laws as motor vehicles; 
i.e. stop signs, one-way streets, right-turn on red after stop, red 
means stop, green means go and yellow means floor it to get through 
before it turns red.


As I said before, bad attitude, scoff-law cyclists on streets, roads and 
highways are a self correcting problem. The ones who live, learn.


The ones who won't learn ...


We have such a huge problem here with cyclists operating with a holier than 
thou I'm entitled attitude that there is a growing sentiment growing among 
drivers that cyclists really don't have a right to be there since they abuse 
the privledge so frequently.


Bicycles are governed by additional rules off road on such as 
bike/pedestrian pathways. We call them greenways.


And that's where I see a lot more discourtesy and just plain bad manners 
from cyclists. Cyclist-pedestrian collisions are as harmful to 
pedestrians as automobile-cyclist collisions are to cyclists.


It doesn't take a collision to injure a pedestrian forced to take 
evasive action to avoid being run down by a cyclist. But I see cyclists 
on the greenways acting the same way towards pedestrians as they accuse 
motorists of acting towards cyclists.



Consequently, we also have a lot of car/ bicycle accidents where the car 
driver simply refuses to give up his right of way to an errant cyclist and 
takes him out instead.


I won't swerve into the path of another motor vehicle and cause an 
accident to avoid a cyclist who is failing to obey traffic laws. I will 
slow down, even brake hard ... change lanes IF POSSIBLE, but I recognize 
there are limits to what I can safely do to avoid the idiots.


Most cyclists are not idiots. It's just the idiots who get all the 
attention.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[Adam Maas]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM, John Sessoms  wrote:
> From: Christian Skofteland
>>
>> It's "Bike to work Week" in the US (Bike to work day was today). The
>> Washington Post had an article about the conflicts between cars and
>> bikes that was slanted against bikes.  The writer kept going back to
>> the "bikers blowing through red lights and stop signs" argument but
>> only briefly touched on the drivers that go out of their way to
>> intimidated and assault bicyclists.
>>
>
> I have seen plenty of the "bikers blowing through red lights and stop
> signs". It's a self correcting problem as far as I'm concerned.
>
> I've never witnessed motorists "go out of their way" to intimidate cyclists.
> Not saying it doesn't happen, but I have never seen it.
>
> I have been hit (brushed) by motorists twice when I was on a bicycle. Both
> times I was knocked down, but otherwise uninjured. In neither case, one a
> city bus, did the driver stop and inquire if I was OK. I don't even know if
> they were aware they had knocked me down.
>
> I have twice had cyclists crash into me in my automobile. Once from the
> rear, once from the passenger side. In both cases I checked that they were
> OK. In neither case did the cyclist inquire as to possible damage done to my
> vehicle ... the side hit DID require body work to repair.
>
> I try to be vigilant whenever cyclists are on the road. Given the disparity
> in road weights & momentum, I don't ever want to hit one. But, it's not
> going to be my fault if it happens. It will be in spite of my having done
> everything I could to "share the road".
>

My experience, as a cyclist, is that cyclists are most of the problem
in the city, but also the least dangerous portion.

Unfortunately when somewhere between 50 and 70% of the cyclists
commuting flagrantly ignore little things like traffic lights or
traffic direction on one way streets, it's a little hard to justify
cracking down on the 5-10% of drivers who drive in a fashion that's
unsafe to cyclists.

I've been hit by more cyclists than I have drivers (1 car hit, in a
school zone, on a school day right before class almost 20 years ago,
about 1 hit by another cyclist per year in the 6-7 years of commuting
in Toronto, 1 total hit as a pedestrian by a cyclist riding illegally
on the sidewalk through a construction awning). Thankfully no injuries
yet. Most of my hits by other cyclists have come when I'm stopped for
a light next to a car and they try and force themselves through too
small a gap.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Colen"

Subject: Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not





The problem is that often times the safest thing to do on a bicycle is not 
to come to a complete stop, but to slow down enough to check for traffic, 
and come to a stop if necessary.


When you're at a stop on a bike, you're dead in the water and have no way 
to get out of the way of anything.  I hear that Idaho recognizes this and 
allows bicyclists to come to a safe "rolling stop".


We don't recognize "rolling stops" as anything other than what they are, 
which is not stopping.
It doesn't bother me unless it's my turn to go at a 4 way stop and I'm 
halfway through the intersection and a 10 speed zips by my grill with the 
driver doing a Brewer at me.

Thats when I tend to floor it.

William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[Larry Colen]

On 5/21/2010 10:47 AM, William Robb wrote:


I don't know what the bike laws are in your part of the world, but here
a bicycle is considered to be a motor vehicle, and as such is required
to be operated in accordance with local laws.


Same here.


We have such a huge problem here with cyclists operating with a holier
than thou I'm entitled attitude that there is a growing sentiment
growing among drivers that cyclists really don't have a right to be
there since they abuse the privledge so frequently.


Same here.  Not to mention the "Critical Massholes" that do far more to 
piss people off than they do to promote cycling.


The problem is that often times the safest thing to do on a bicycle is 
not to come to a complete stop, but to slow down enough to check for 
traffic, and come to a stop if necessary.


When you're at a stop on a bike, you're dead in the water and have no 
way to get out of the way of anything.  I hear that Idaho recognizes 
this and allows bicyclists to come to a safe "rolling stop".



Consequently, we also have a lot of car/ bicycle accidents where the car
driver simply refuses to give up his right of way to an errant cyclist
and takes him out instead.

William Robb




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Sessoms"

Subject: Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not



From: Christian Skofteland

It's "Bike to work Week" in the US (Bike to work day was today). The
Washington Post had an article about the conflicts between cars and
bikes that was slanted against bikes.  The writer kept going back to
the "bikers blowing through red lights and stop signs" argument but
only briefly touched on the drivers that go out of their way to
intimidated and assault bicyclists.



I have seen plenty of the "bikers blowing through red lights and stop 
signs". It's a self correcting problem as far as I'm concerned.


I've never witnessed motorists "go out of their way" to intimidate 
cyclists. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I have never seen it.


I have been hit (brushed) by motorists twice when I was on a bicycle. Both 
times I was knocked down, but otherwise uninjured. In neither case, one a 
city bus, did the driver stop and inquire if I was OK. I don't even know 
if they were aware they had knocked me down.


I have twice had cyclists crash into me in my automobile. Once from the 
rear, once from the passenger side. In both cases I checked that they were 
OK. In neither case did the cyclist inquire as to possible damage done to 
my vehicle ... the side hit DID require body work to repair.


I try to be vigilant whenever cyclists are on the road. Given the 
disparity in road weights & momentum, I don't ever want to hit one. But, 
it's not going to be my fault if it happens. It will be in spite of my 
having done everything I could to "share the road".




I don't know what the bike laws are in your part of the world, but here a 
bicycle is considered to be a motor vehicle, and as such is required to be 
operated in accordance with local laws.
We have such a huge problem here with cyclists operating with a holier than 
thou I'm entitled attitude that there is a growing sentiment growing among 
drivers that cyclists really don't have a right to be there since they abuse 
the privledge so frequently.
Consequently, we also have a lot of car/ bicycle accidents where the car 
driver simply refuses to give up his right of way to an errant cyclist and 
takes him out instead.


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely, not

[John Sessoms]

From: Christian Skofteland

It's "Bike to work Week" in the US (Bike to work day was today). The
Washington Post had an article about the conflicts between cars and
bikes that was slanted against bikes.  The writer kept going back to
the "bikers blowing through red lights and stop signs" argument but
only briefly touched on the drivers that go out of their way to
intimidated and assault bicyclists.



I have seen plenty of the "bikers blowing through red lights and stop 
signs". It's a self correcting problem as far as I'm concerned.


I've never witnessed motorists "go out of their way" to intimidate 
cyclists. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I have never seen it.


I have been hit (brushed) by motorists twice when I was on a bicycle. 
Both times I was knocked down, but otherwise uninjured. In neither case, 
one a city bus, did the driver stop and inquire if I was OK. I don't 
even know if they were aware they had knocked me down.


I have twice had cyclists crash into me in my automobile. Once from the 
rear, once from the passenger side. In both cases I checked that they 
were OK. In neither case did the cyclist inquire as to possible damage 
done to my vehicle ... the side hit DID require body work to repair.


I try to be vigilant whenever cyclists are on the road. Given the 
disparity in road weights & momentum, I don't ever want to hit one. But, 
it's not going to be my fault if it happens. It will be in spite of my 
having done everything I could to "share the road".




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely not

[Christian Skofteland]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 04:02:08PM +0100, Bob W wrote:
> Drivers in the UK are generally fairly considerate towards cyclists. Not as
> good as the French, but not bad. 
> 
> And the BBC is normally fairly even-handed in its treatment of most
> subjects. 
> 
> But have a look at this video for an extreme anti-bike bias. It beggars
> belief:
> 
> 
> 

It's "Bike to work Week" in the US (Bike to work day was today). The Washington 
Post had an article about the conflicts between cars and bikes that was slanted 
against bikes.  The writer kept going back to the "bikers blowing through red 
lights and stop signs" argument but only briefly touched on the drivers that go 
out of their way to intimidated and assault bicyclists.

-- 

Christian
-
http://404notfound.blogspot.com
http://birdofthemoment.blogspot.com


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

VeryOT: no anti-bike bias here at all, oh no, absolutely not

[Bob W]

Drivers in the UK are generally fairly considerate towards cyclists. Not as
good as the French, but not bad. 

And the BBC is normally fairly even-handed in its treatment of most
subjects. 

But have a look at this video for an extreme anti-bike bias. It beggars
belief:





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.