If Only He'd Taken The Lane
 

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/135749

Note the article had to include:
"He was wearing a helmet" Of course he is still "seriously hurt".

He may have had his 'head down', however did passing traffic keep him
from getting around the trailer?

If Only He'd Taken The Lane
 

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/135749
>
> Note the article had to include:
> "He was wearing a helmet" Of course he is still "seriously hurt".

Why shouldn't they mention it? The writer isn't making a judgement,
they are stating facts of the wreck.

> He may have had his 'head down', however did passing traffic keep him
> from getting around the trailer?

What's the difference? Are you going to blame legally driven autos for
something yet another dimwit did on a bicycle?

If Only He'd Taken The Lane
 

In article .com>, Larry Bud wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> > http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/135749
>>
>> Note the article had to include:
>> "He was wearing a helmet" Of course he is still "seriously hurt".

> Why shouldn't they mention it? The writer isn't making a judgement,
> they are stating facts of the wreck.

It's the usual pro-nanny state crap.

>> He may have had his 'head down', however did passing traffic keep him
>> from getting around the trailer?

> What's the difference? Are you going to blame legally driven autos for
> something yet another dimwit did on a bicycle?

Dimwits in automobiles rutinely expect bicyclists to dive in and out of
parked vehicles on the road side. He should have been riding further to
left when parking is legal on the road and have been well to the left a
few hundred feet before the trailer. However, motorists will act to 'pin'
down a bicyclist on a path that is blocked by another motor vehicle.

I have had drivers intentionally try to force me into parked vehicles on
a number of occasions when I was younger and not as experienced. They
would do this by coming very close to me just before I reach the
parked vehicle intending to force me into going to the right to avoid a
collision with them but then having the parked vehicle directly in front
of me. Imagine they are either entirely ignorant or think it's funny.
Now when I see a parked vehicle ahead I move left gradually starting a
good distance before hand. By the time I reach the parked vehicle I am
outside the door zone.

This crash could have easily been the result of an inexperienced
bicyclist (in traffic) and motorists who pinned him in, or even
intentionally blocked his move to the left by accelerating. I would
expect the bicyclist went into the drop position and accelerated to
merge left but then had a driver accelerate to block, forcing him to
abort but being too late to stop. A dimwit POB riding slowly with his
head down would not have in anyway been seriously hurt, thusly this was
rider in the drop position going full out or at least at significant speed.

If Only He'd Taken The Lane
 

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:15:45 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>He may have had his 'head down', however did passing traffic keep him
>>from getting around the trailer?
>
> Let's suppose it did; did passing traffic also keep him from simply
> applying his brakes and stopping?

> Not outdriving one's brakes is the rule no matter what kind of vehicle
> one is driving.

You're driving, accelerating to merge into an open gap when the arsehole
accelerates and closes off that gap.

Bicycle brakes aren't the greatest and one has to use somewhat different
strategies. Remember, my premise is that he is not experienced with
bicycling in traffic.

But this brings up a flaw with your bike lane concept, nobody is to park
in traffic lanes.

If Only He'd Taken The Lane
 

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>> Not outdriving one's brakes is the rule no matter what kind of vehicle
>>> one is driving.

>>You're driving, accelerating to merge into an open gap when the arsehole
>>accelerates and closes off that gap.

> Leaving a gap behind him for you to erge into.

Not the same with a bicycle. Someone can accelerate and block you when
you are at a point of no return. You can actually be in the gap when the
driver accelerates and blocks you. Because of the size and speed
differential, 'behind him' becomes 'into him'. Of course an experienced
bicyclist in traffic expects this and can deal with or prevent it, the
inexperienced bicyclist however could end up crashing.

>>Bicycle brakes aren't the greatest

> All the more reason to never outdrive them.

In order to compete for space with motor vehicles, one does have to
outdrive the brakes in the sense you are describing them. However because
as bicycle is small, there is usually a way to compensate, for instance a
move to the left or right will allow one to stop safely along side a car.

Which reminds me of arseholes who have to pass at traffic signals. they
force their way past and then jam on the brakes. I have at times ended up
just going right past them because they took my braking space and well,
if they are going to pass rudely using their power, I'll pass rudely
using small size and take back my spot in the queue. (a majority of these
drivers fail to accelerate at the same rate as I do on the bicycle when
the light turns green)

> In any case, either this guy wasn't paying attention, or he failed to
> leave himself an out.

I stated he is likely inexperienced.

>>But this brings up a flaw with your bike lane concept, nobody is to park
>>in traffic lanes.

> Huh?

Parking in 'bicycle' lanes forcing these sort of situations.

If Only He'd Taken The Lane
 

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> The story says the trailer was parked on the shoulder of the road, not
> in a bike lane. Oh, wait - according to you a "bicycle lane" is merely
> a "glorified shoulder," so in your eyes the trailer WAS in the bike
> lane. My bad. :)

Then the bicyclist wasn't where he should have been. He should have been
on the roadway.

If Only He'd Taken The Lane
 

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/135749
>
>Note the article had to include:
>"He was wearing a helmet" Of course he is still "seriously hurt".

Maybe if he weren't wearing a helmet he could have seen in front of
him even with his head down.

>He may have had his 'head down', however did passing traffic keep him
>from getting around the trailer?

Who cares? Did his bike have brakes?


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.