>Perhaps the Chinese government will consider doing what the Korean
government
>has done.  I believe the citizens of South Korea must prove to the
government
>that they have a place to park a car before they are allowed to buy one.

That's Japan, I think, or maybe only Tokyo.  I think they raised the
distance-from-your-house limit a few years ago from 1 km to 2 km.

I think Paris had a rule like that back in the 1940s

Jeremy Parker

Enforcement of traffic rules on our public roads has long been in decline. Rushed and impatient drivers too often race through traffic, run red lights, or thoughtlessly squeeze past bicyclists, joggers, and schoolchildren. Despite the development of more crashproof cars, our roads have become less safe overall, as well as less civil.

WE THE PEOPLE respectfully call upon all police, drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, prosecutors, and legislators: please help bring back civility, common sense, and the rule of law to our public roads. Let’s make everyone safer by being more civil; and by enforcing the common-sense traffic laws we already have, fairly and equally for all.

We ask that our prosecutors and legislators find a way to effectively act against drunk and unlicensed drivers. We hope our police will try to concentrate on the few who directly endanger others: most especially, motorists who drive recklessly in residential, school, or business areas, use their vehicle to harass or threaten others, or squeeze too close to bicyclists or pedestrians. Please remember that every person, without exception, has a fundamental civil right to use and be protected by the law on our public roads.

We ask that drivers do their part by paying full attention to driving; by being patient and remaining civil even when wronged; and by slowing down. In its 100-year history the motor vehicle has killed and injured millions of people; and it continues to do so. That is why only people who are trained, licensed, regulated, and insured are allowed to operate such dangerous high-speed machinery on public roadways. Please note that public roads were not built just for cars: before the car, public roads in the USA were being paved for bicyclists.

Please remember that every State Drivers’ Manual recommends that safe practice for motorists is:

It is your responsibility to adjust your driving to assure everyone's safety." (Va. DMV)

Please keep a safe distance when passing pedestrians or bicyclists, no matter where they are on the road. Even in a crosswalk or bikelane, squeezing past scares them. "Drivers shall pass at a safe distance & reasonable speed."

We point out that bicyclists can be much safer by learning to use the rules of the road to politely cooperate with other drivers: not only to signal, but to politely merge, yield, change lanes, use lights at night -- all the rules. Cyclists who cooperate with other drivers have 80% fewer collisions than cyclists who don’t use traffic rules.

------- (please see www.bicyclinglife.com ) -------

However, the ride-to-the-right rule for bicyclists is widely misunderstood. Most people think it says cyclists must always stay right: but this isn’t so. Cyclists need to avoid common hazards, so most state laws say:

"ride to the right *EXCEPT* when passing, turning left, or to avoid objects, parked cars, moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface or other hazards; or when in a vehicle lane too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to pass safely, side by side, within the lane."

Conditions like these are quite common when bicycling. Traffic law clearly says that to avoid them, don’t stay right. In these conditions the law specifically instructs bicyclists to be safe by behaving as other drivers do:

So to avoid hazardous conditions bicyclists should politely merge left, and ride nearer to the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past -- just as any other driver would do. Some may think this unsafe for bicyclists, but this is normal practice for all slow drivers: drive to the right when it’s safe, but use a full lane when needed. The law is the same for bicyclists precisely because this is the best and safest way to operate a bicycle in traffic.

------- (please see www.bicyclinglife.com ) -------

In summary, we plead with every road user: please practice safety first. Traffic rules define the safest way known for sharing public roads: apply the same rules and rights to every individual, and hold each individual responsible for their behavior. We not only have to share our public roads -- we should be sharing the ideal of safety for everyone on the road. Together, with patience and safe practice from each of us, this can happen.

Thank you for your time and consideration. To sign this petition, please email it to friends, co-workers, students, local police, sheriffs, DA’s, gov’t. officials, newsletters, newspapers, advice columns, letters/editors, psa’s, …

Permission to copy with credit, and distribute for free, is granted. (c) 2001 Lauren Cooper CycleMedia@...

--- In chainguard@y..., cyclemedia@y... wrote:
>> Tell me again what's wrong with a bikelane that's a true
>> traffic lane ...

--- In chainguard@y..., forester@j... wrote:
> ... if it is too narrow for a motor-traffic lane,
> it must be a bikelane,
> there is no other choice for what traffic might use it.

Traffic "...means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles,
and other conveyances either singly or together
while using any highway for the purpose of travel."

Narrow traffic that I've observed on public roadways:
- bicycle, human powered
- bicycle, motor powered (a.k.a. motorbike, moped, etc.)
- horse (traveling with rider)
- inline skater (seen drafting the bicycles on club rides)
- pedestrian, human powered (haven't seen a robot yet!)
- quadcycle (both human and motor powered)
- tricycle (both human and motor powered)

BTW, has anyone seen a unicycle, wheelchair or Segway(TM)
on a public roadway?

Bruce Rosar

In a message dated 1/1/2002 1:30:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
brucewr@... writes:

>
>  BTW, has anyone seen a unicycle, wheelchair or Segway(TM)
>  on a public roadway?
>

Yes.


Sarah

An updated version of the Right to the Road article was just uploaded to
Crankmail, http://www.crankmail.com/Rt2Road.html.  This includes some
information by John Allen, an account by Tom Revay (did I spell that
right?), a postscript on Lauren's case and John Forester's incident near
Lake Tahoe (luckily he did not have to deal with the Boston law enforcement
people).

In another page, http://www.crankmail.com/sidewalk-laws.html, I have added
more accounts of NE Ohio community cycling ordinances.  I made up a scoring
scheme, similar to school grades.  I would appreciate any helpful comments.
Also, is anyone else doing a similar project?

=======================

Ratings:  A=excellent, B=acceptable, C=poor, D=very poor, F=unacceptable.
This is not like school where half of the students are, by definition, below
average.  This is the government's rules for bicycle traffic.  These rules
must be good.  Anything less is a gross failure of the government.

The criteria are based mostly on the WORST feature in the bicycle laws.  A
mandatory sidewalk law produces an "F".  A mandatory sidepath law creates a
"D" rating.  (A sidepath is a multi-use path adjacent to a roadway.)  These
are less offensive than sidewalk laws because there are few sidepaths.
However a sidepath is generally about as dangerous as a sidewalk.  A
sidewalk law for children (but not adults) nets a "C".  (The difference
again is because fewer people are affected.)  Minor "nuisance laws" produce
a "B".  Finally, laws consistent with state law rate an "A".  Minor features
may modify the rating with a "plus" or "minus".

Fred Oswald

Steve Goodridge made an interesting comment as true in this mainland as in
Asia:

>The trend is to treat  them as wildlife and fence them with
>lines or barriers rather than structure their behavior according
>to equitable driving techniques.

Thanks.  Another comparison that may be useful at times is to compare
facilities advocates with quacks, bike facilities with people wearing
magnets around the neck rather than seeking medically sound cancer cures.

Fred Oswald

On Tuesday 01 January 2002 10:19 am, Fred Oswald wrote:

>
> Thanks.  Another comparison that may be useful at times is to compare
> facilities advocates with quacks, bike facilities with people wearing
> magnets around the neck rather than seeking medically sound cancer cures.
>
> Fred Oswald
>

Oh, I like that, I'm stealing it right now.

--
____________________________________
John Andersen / Juneau Alaska
andersen@...

In a message dated 1/1/2002 2:05:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fredoswald@... writes:

> The criteria are based mostly on the WORST feature in the bicycle laws.  A
>  mandatory sidewalk law produces an "F".  A mandatory sidepath law creates a
>  "D" rating.  (A sidepath is a multi-use path adjacent to a roadway.)  These
>  are less offensive than sidewalk laws because there are few sidepaths.
>

I would like to point out that sidewalk/side path laws depend on the
definitions of sidewalks and side paths.  Florida had a mandatory side path
law 20 years ago (the wording of which is still available in West's annotated
statutes), but for practical intents and purposes it was a mandatory sidewalk
law.  There is a sidewalk near me, adjoining a busy arterial, which has "bike
route" signs on it.  Those signs have been there for 25 years and they
originally referred to the sidewalk as the "bike route."


Sarah

--- In chainguard@y..., Lauren Cooper <cyclemedia@y...> wrote:
> A Petition To Restore Civility & Law To Our Public Roads

Nicely written, Lauren. Thanks for posting it!

> ... please help bring ... common sense, ...

Invoking "common sense" to promote policies and practices based on
traffic science may be an ineffective technique.

"Since its beginnings, science has been an assault on common
sense." - Bruce Gregory: Inventing Reality

More than one person I've talked with about roadway cycling
has said that it's common sense which tells them that riding a
bike in traffic is excessively dangerous. Even some club
cyclists here feel that way unless they're riding in a group.

As defined:
"Common Sense is sound judgment not based on specialized
knowledge; native good judgment."

As observed:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by
age eighteen." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955), as quoted in
E.T. Bell Mathematics, Queen and Servant of the Sciences. 1952

Bruce Rosar

bwileyr wrote:
>
> Traffic "...means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles,
> and other conveyances either singly or together
> while using any highway for the purpose of travel."
>
> Narrow traffic that I've observed on public roadways:
> - bicycle, human powered
> - bicycle, motor powered (a.k.a. motorbike, moped, etc.)
> - horse (traveling with rider)
> - inline skater (seen drafting the bicycles on club rides)
> - pedestrian, human powered (haven't seen a robot yet!)
> - quadcycle (both human and motor powered)
> - tricycle (both human and motor powered)
>
> BTW, has anyone seen a unicycle, wheelchair or Segway(TM)
> on a public roadway?
>
> Bruce Rosar

Right here in Raleigh I can think of one guy in a motorized wheelchair
regularly
using the public roads downtown.  I think he mainly uses the sidewalks,
but not exclusively.
I even recall seeing one wheelchair recently on the road, at night, with
no lights!
Thankfully it was a small residential street.
I probably should have stopped and offered a blinkie or something, but
I'm embarrassed to say I didn't.

I suppose you're counting hand-cycles in "bicycle/tricycle, human
powered" - there's at least one of those
making regular use of the rural Green Level roads we all know and love
in the Triangle.

Also, here in the Triangle I can think of one inline skater who
accompanies us on rides who
definitely does *not* need to draft on club rides -
she's got no problem being at the front and taking serious hills!
(At least, those rides at my pace.)

-Adrian Hands
  Bicycle Commuter
  Raleigh, NC

My computer detected a virus sent to my email box 1-1-02  2:41 pm from "
mike
sales "   with attachment   Re: [CG] Re: Donnita Latimer vs The Chicago Park
District.

  virus w32.B@mm

Neve seen my computer  find a virus before. Whats up? I do not intend to
open this attachment.

David Smith

In a message dated 1/1/2002 6:36:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dlsmith@... writes:

> My computer detected a virus sent to my email box 1-1-02  2:41 pm from "
>  mike
>  sales "   with attachment   Re: [CG] Re: Donnita Latimer vs The Chicago
Park
>  District.
>
>   virus w32.B@mm
>
>  Neve seen my computer  find a virus before. Whats up? I do not intend to
>  open this attachment.
>

I've just gotten the same thing.  I couldn't confirm whether it was a
virus--I wasn't *about* to open it.  I suspected it was hate mail when I saw
the attachment said "YOU_ARE_FAT!" and that what I posted under that thread
must have struck a nerve.


Sarah

Bob Matter

I have to wonder if you sent the virus?


--- In chainguard@y..., "smithdl98144" <dlsmith@i...> wrote:
> --- In chainguard@y..., "Robert J. Matter" <rjmatter@p...> wrote:
> <http://pages.prodigy.net/rjmatter/gallery/bikelane.jpg>.
>
> Excellent propaganda!
>
> The biker in the bike lane is expertly positioned to get doored.
But
> how does the propagandist handle this? The motorist exits the car
> from the curb side door in this photo perfect illustration of bike
> lanes! Now, how many times have you seen this? I have done it in my
> 55 Chevy, with the vinyl bench seat, it makes a great slide, but I
> fear obsolete and no longer available.
>
> The biker in the bike lane is expertly postioned to the right of
> traffic, not in line with it, never, in any such propaganda I have
> seen. How does the propagandist handle this? Never does a car make
a
> right turn, to park, take a driveway or a right turn.
>
> In every bike facilities illustration I have ever seen, the bikers
> are neatly arranged to the right of traffic, and there are no
turning
> cars.
>
> Well at least they are beginning to recognize that some may want to
> turn left and will leave the bike lane.
>
> Will they ever consider other simple traffic maneuvers?
>
> Gee, did my conflict rate go down when I stopped riding like this!
>
> David Smith
> Seattle, Washington
>
> > -Bob Matter
> > -----------
> > "I didn't know I was injured until I was examined by a lawyer."
>
> And Uncle Tom never knew he was injured by segregation.

In a message dated 1/1/2002 7:01:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dlsmith@... writes:

> Bob Matter
>
>  I have to wonder if you sent the virus?
>

That, or perhaps he's sending posts to those who are kooky enough to write
and send viruses.  We must have had some kind of impact.  I had no idea
somebody cared enough about what *I'm* saying to send me a virus.


Sarah

dlsmith@... writes:

> My computer detected a virus sent to my email box 1-1-02  2:41 pm from "
>  mike
>  sales "   with attachment   Re: [CG] Re: Donnita Latimer vs The Chicago
Park
>  District.
>
>   virus w32.B@mm
>
>  Neve seen my computer  find a virus before. Whats up? I do not intend to
>  open this attachment.
>

Sarah Paraleagle612@... replied:

>I've just gotten the same thing.  I couldn't confirm whether it was a
>virus--I wasn't *about* to open it.  I suspected it was hate mail when I saw
>the attachment said "YOU_ARE_FAT!" and that what I posted under that thread
>must have struck a nerve.

Sounds like the "BadTrans" virus.  Details can be found at:
http://vil.mcafee.com/dispVirus.asp?virus_k=99069&
(and at other virus protection company web sites, too)

Here is a brief description of how the virus works and
what it does:
|
|Badtrans.b details:
|This mass mailing worm attempts to send itself using Microsoft
|Outlook by replying to unread and read email messages. It also
|mails itself to email addresses found within files that exist on
|your system. It drops a keylogging trojan into the SYSTEM
|directory as KDLL.DLL. This trojan logs keystrokes for the
|purpose of stealing personal information (such as credit card and
|bank account numbers and passwords). This information is later
|emailed to the virus author(s).
|

All you have to do is click on the attachment and you will
be sending out the virus to every address in YOUR mailbox.
Get some virus protection and don't open unexpected attachments!

J F Scott
 

David Smith wrote:

My computer detected a virus sent to my email box 1-1-02  2:41 pm from "
mike
sales "   with attachment   Re: [CG] Re: Donnita Latimer vs The Chicago Park
District.

 virus w32.B@mm

Neve seen my computer  find a virus before. Whats up? I do not intend to
open this attachment.

David Smith

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/vOUolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

*********** TOO MUCH MAIL VOLUME? ********************
The chainguard list is a relatively high-volume list. If the individual-email format is swamping your mailbox or you are going on vacation, don't unsubscribe, just swich to "digest" or "nomail" mode (see below).

To change your status, send a blank email as shown below:
  Subscribe:    chainguard-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  Digest Mode: chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com
  Website Access/Hold Mode: chainguard-nomail@yahoogroups.com
  Normal Mode: chainguard-normal@yahoogroups.com
Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chainguard-owner@yahoogroups.com

Chainguard site: http://chainguard.org
To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In chainguard@y..., bob.bayn@u... wrote:
> dlsmith@i... writes:
> > My computer detected a virus sent to my email box 1-1-02 2:41 pm
> > from "mike sales" ...

FYI: I just sent the following email to Mike;

Mike,

The W32/Badtrans-B worm has run on your computer, causing copies
of the worm to be emailed out and your system to become infected.

Please disinfect your computer immediately with the W32.Badtrans.B@mm
Removal Tool
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/ven
c/data/w32.badtrans.b@...>

or by following the Manual Removal procedure documented at
<http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/ven
c/data/w32.badtrans.b@...>

Bruce Rosar

smithdl98144 wrote:
>
> Bob Matter
>
> I have to wonder if you sent the virus?

No, not me.  My Norton AntiVirus 2002 caught four incoming infected e-mails and
put notifications like this in my inbox:

---

Norton AntiVirus deleted the following email message because it was infected
with a virus:

From: "mike sales" <_mike.sales@...>
To: rjmatter@...
Subject: Re: [CG] Man posts bail in fatal crash

---

All came from "mike sales" <_mike.sales@...>.

I use Netscape e-mail exclusively so I am not susceptible to a lot of virii that
play havoc with Outlook.  Also Norton AntiVirus 2002 examines every outgoing
e-mail I send as well.

Happy New Year,

-Bob Matter
Hammond, Indiana
United States of Automobiles

Hi all,

Ken "The Barry Goldwater of Vehicular Cycling" and I are back to agreeing.

A few days ago, Ken wrote:

>>>Just about every attempt I have ever seen to instruct
about left turns either has its priorities wrong or simply
leaves out the most important elements. It almost always
starts its emphasis with signalling - if you are lucky it gets to
looking - it rarely mentions yielding - it _never_ mentions
developing proper roadway position early for approaching
left turns.<<<

True 'nuff.  That's the common instruction:  "signal before you turn."  The
instruction is ineffective, and I think on a gut level, people know that, so
they improvise crazy stunts like swoosh over to the left curb.

So. . . Let's break this down into the skills and insights you need to do it
right.  I'll restrict today's essay to the Big Two:

-- You need to not be afraid to get away from the curb.

-- You need to be able to look behind.

The "get away from the curb" part is one we've all observed:  bike riders
only feel safe when they're cringing "out of the way" of other traffic.
Fixing that takes the attitude shift that vehicular cycling is all about.

The "looking behind" part is an actual skill, taught in Effective Cycling.
My own hazy opinion is that you can learn this skill pretty well in a parking
lot sort of environment in about 10 minutes, but those 10 minutes are
critica, because if you haven't done that bit of practice, you'll be unable
to look behind on a road in real traffic.

The general public's inability to look behind was actually measured and
studied by esteemed researcher Richard Blomberg of Dunlap and Associates, in
a paper titled something like "Bicyclists' ability and inclination to look
behind before turning left."  (I have a copy of the paper somewhere, but a
brief search failed to unearth it.)  Executive summary:  the paper's contents
shouldn't surprise anyone.  Blomberg's researchers watched bicyclists in
left-turn situations and found that most of them couldn't scan to their rear
worth beans.

Therefore, teaching this skill is a huge priority.  People won't accept the
overall gestalt of vehicular cycling if they can't perform this skill.

John Schubert

(P.S. So, what about recumbents, on which almost no rider can look behind?
The best answer I have is, "Learn the skill on a wedgie, learn to use it
effectively, so when you ride your 'bent you know what you're missing.")

On Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:45 AM John Schubert wrote:

<<-- You need to be able to look behind...  Therefore, teaching this skill
is a huge priority.  People won't accept the overall gestalt of vehicular
cycling if they can't perform this skill.

(P.S. So, what about recumbents, on which almost no rider can look behind?
The best answer I have is, "Learn the skill on a wedgie, learn to use it
effectively, so when you ride your 'bent you know what you're missing.")>>


And what about those of us ('bent riders or not) who use a mirror and see no
need to turn around and look behind?  I possess the skill to look behind,
but my mirror tells me everything I need to know about what's going on
behind me and when it is or is not safe to signal and merge left.
Incidentally this is similar to the technique I use in a car and I've never
felt the need to turn around and look there either.

Ken Greene

On 2 Jan 2002, at 11:57, Greene, Ken H. wrote:


> I possess the skill to look behind,
> but my mirror tells me everything I need to know about what's going on
> behind me and when it is or is not safe to signal and merge left.
> Incidentally this is similar to the technique I use in a car and I've never
> felt the need to turn around and look there either.
>

Eventually you're likely to run into the uncommon but not rare
situation that will prove your assertion wrong.  I hope it's when
you're in your car rather than on your bike.

Jerry LaSala

--- In chainguard@y..., "Greene, Ken H." <kgreene2@t...> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:45 AM John Schubert wrote:
>
> <<-- You need to be able to look behind...  Therefore, teaching
this skill is a huge priority.  People won't accept the overall
gestalt of vehicular cycling if they can't perform this skill.
>
> (P.S. So, what about recumbents, on which almost no rider can look
behind? The best answer I have is, "Learn the skill on a wedgie,
learn to use it effectively, so when you ride your 'bent you know
what you're missing.")>>
>
>
> And what about those of us ('bent riders or not) who use a mirror
and see no need to turn around and look behind?  I possess the skill
to look behind, but my mirror tells me everything I need to know
about what's going on behind me and when it is or is not safe to
signal and merge left. Incidentally this is similar to the technique
I use in a car and I've never felt the need to turn around and look
there either.
>
> Ken Greene


I copy from Ken: "my mirror tells me everything I need to know"

Oh, really?

I like this one, the left turn for the bicyclist.

Why?

It is one of the best examples of the ability of the cyclist to
share, communicate and cooperate with traffic, and why traffic is
more fun from a bicycle.

First, the cyclist takes a postion in the road for travel. The
position you take and how you take it is the single largest factor in
how traffic of the vehicular culture will respond to you. The best
place is to get in line with the traffic, and ride a straight,
confident line. The cyclist speed relative to other traffic may
modify this position to cooperate with the other traffic. Here, the
cyclist can share a lane, where motor-vehicles may not.

To take the left turn, the cyclist changes position to take the
proper position for a left turn. Since the bicycle is a small vehicle
compared to lane width the cyclist position in the lane, says far
more about destination and intention than the motorized vehicle.

To change postition the cyclist first looks behind to check for
traffic, where this can also be seen by a following driver. The
cyclist body is visible compared to a motorist so the cyclist can
communicate better than the motorist. Looking, merging, and the
approaching intersection combine to better inform others of the
cyclist intention.

When others say that the mirror "tells me everything I need to know"
I feel dismay. They appear to miss the fun of cycling in traffic.
Where is the communication and cooperation? Are they unaware? Or in
this case is it just the practical limit of the recumbent that misses
a technically unnecessary but socially friendly component of
communication available to cyclists?

David Smith
Seattle, Washington

> X-Sender: dlsmith@...

> When others say that the mirror "tells me everything I need to know"
> I feel dismay. They appear to miss the fun of cycling in traffic.
> Where is the communication and cooperation? Are they unaware? Or in
> this case is it just the practical limit of the recumbent that misses
> a technically unnecessary but socially friendly component of
> communication available to cyclists?
>

You can use a hand signal to communicate the same information as the head turn.
Maybe not as "friendly", but probably a clearer form of negotiation to most
drivers.

-Peter Rosenfeld

On Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:47 PM Jerry LaSala wrote:

<<Eventually you're likely to run into the uncommon but not rare
situation that will prove your assertion wrong.  I hope it's when
you're in your car rather than on your bike.>>

The only such situation I can think of would be if I were followed by a
vampire (hint: they don't reflect in mirrors).  Perhaps you've never tried
an eyeglass-mounted mirror, because if you had you would realize that
(unlike car mirrors) there is no blind spot: one horizontal sweep of the
head shows everything up to 180 degrees behind you--there's no place for
anything to hide.

FHWA has recently issued its Tech Advisory on Shoulder Rumble Strips. The
full text may be found at
http:/www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs.htm

The State DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators, and many of the national
organizations dealing with bicycle issues were also informed.

Thank you for the comments you provided on the draft version of this
document.

Kevin R. St. Jacques, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Associate-in-Charge, Dallas
4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 915
Dallas, Texas  75206-4085
Phone:  (214) 890-4460
FAX:  (214) 890-7521
email:  kstjacques@...





asce-hpt is an email listserv for the Human Powered Transportation Committee of
the American Society of Civil Engineers (web page:
http://www.ascehpt.homestead.com. To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a blank email
to asce-hpt-subscribe@egroups.com or asce-hpt-unsubscribe@egroups.com or visit
http://www.egroups.com/list/asce-hpt, which also contains a message archive.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In chainguard@y..., Peter Rosenfeld <prosenfe@a...> wrote:
>
> > X-Sender: dlsmith@i...
>
> > When others say that the mirror "tells me everything I need to
know"  I feel dismay. They appear to miss the fun of cycling in
traffic. Where is the communication and cooperation? Are they
unaware? Or in this case is it just the practical limit of the
recumbent that misses  a technically unnecessary but socially
friendly component of  communication available to cyclists?
> >
>
> You can use a hand signal to communicate the same information as
the head turn. Maybe not as "friendly", but probably a clearer form
of negotiation to most drivers.
>
> -Peter Rosenfeld

I have watched cyclists signal a left from the right side of the road
without making a look behind visible to others. My reaction is that
it has an element of both force and rudeness.

The right side of the road is the wrong place to turn left.
The hand signal is much more forceful.

When I see a cyclist look behind and merge left, perhaps using the
hand signal for more negotiating force where the merging is tight,
then I find the cyclist more predictable and friendly, while I
experience noticeably more cooperation with this method.

David Smith
Seattle, Washington

>
> From: smithdl98144 <dlsmith@...>
>
> > You can use a hand signal to communicate the same information as
> the head turn. Maybe not as "friendly", but probably a clearer form
> of negotiation to most drivers.
> >
> > -Peter Rosenfeld
>
> I have watched cyclists signal a left from the right side of the road
> without making a look behind visible to others. My reaction is that
> it has an element of both force and rudeness.
>
> The right side of the road is the wrong place to turn left.
> The hand signal is much more forceful.
>


When, on occasion, I've ridden a recumbent and had to use a mirror to see
behind, I used a modified left signal to negotiate a lane change. I point left,
but with my hand about 45 degrees below horizontal. Seems to work well and I do
not think it looks aggressive.

-Peter R.

Ken Greene wrote:

>>Perhaps you've never tried an eyeglass-mounted mirror, because if you had
you would realize that (unlike car mirrors) there is no blind spot<<

Well, at least you acknowledge the existence of a blind spot when using a
mirror.

While it may be **possible** to do a complete sweep with an eyeglass mirror,
I think it's awfully easy to make a mistake when so doing.  So I say the head
turn is still essential.  Certainly, I would insist on teaching the head
turn, and then having the Ken Greenes of the world deviate from that method
their own risk.

By the way, I speak from experience:  I used a helmet-mounted mirror for nine
years (then I got rid of it to have less clutter during my racing days, and
never got around to re-installing it).  Even though I had a very good mirror,
I never felt it took the place of a head turn.

John Schubert

On Wednesday, January 02, 2002 1:56 PM John Schubert wrote:

<<While it may be **possible** to do a complete sweep with an eyeglass
mirror, I think it's awfully easy to make a mistake when so doing.  So I say
the head turn is still essential.  Certainly, I would insist on teaching the
head turn, and then having the Ken Greenes of the world deviate from that
method their own risk.
By the way, I speak from experience:  I used a helmet-mounted mirror for
nine years (then I got rid of it to have less clutter during my racing days,
and never got around to re-installing it).  Even though I had a very good
mirror, I never felt it took the place of a head turn.>>



Why do you think it's awfully easy to make a mistake?  It's no more likely
than making a mistake looking forward since the mirror view is clear and
unobstructed.  And what of developments in front of you as you perform the
classic head turn--there's no possibility that you may have missed seeing a
pothole in your path, or a pedestrian about to come off the curb?  I believe
that taking your eyes off the roadway in front of you is far more dangerous,
and prefer to minimize that by glancing (more than once if necessary) in the
mirror.

--- In chainguard@y..., Peter Rosenfeld <prosenfe@a...> wrote:

>
> When, on occasion, I've ridden a recumbent and had to use a mirror
to see  behind, I used a modified left signal to negotiate a lane
change. I point left,  but with my hand about 45 degrees below
horizontal. Seems to work well and I do  not think it looks
aggressive.
>
> -Peter R.


Yes, now we are talking about refining the language. An arm extended
fully and horizontal is easily taken that I am going all the way.

Pointing at the angle can imply less.

But here is one that has had the occasion to bother me as I rarely
cycle with others. Cyclists pointing out a rock to the right, but
then swerving left. It may be nice to point out to following cyclist,
but what if the follower (perhaps a motorist not noticed yet)
recieves the message from the vehicular perspective? Wrong signal for
the move.

David Smith
Seattle, Washington