On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 1:36:43 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 9:18:10 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 5:56:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:46:37 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> > > > Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:08:38 p.m. UTC-5, Roger Meriman wrote:
> > > > >> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> On Fri, 26 May 2023 08:16:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, 25 May 2023 18:06:42 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> How knows, maybe it'll be so popular that we'll have moderated groups
> > > > >>>>> again...I wonder if any of those are left....
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> pH in Aptos
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> I don't like moderated Usenet groups...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sorry, I was interrupted by a phone call.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> One more item on moderation. One of the goals of moderation was to
> > > > >>> limit off-topic discussions. However, when the moderation was being
> > > > >>> organized, moderation details soon became the prime (and probably
> > > > >>> sole) topic of discussion. A day didn't drift by without at least one
> > > > >>> complaint about excessive or insufficient moderation. Instead of
> > > > >>> off-topic political discussions, we had off-topic moderation
> > > > >>> discussions. This is not progress.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Yup that was my experience as well Usenet didn’t really work well
> > > > >> moderated, plus the cycling one just became one man’s fiefdom and died.
> > > > >
> > > > > Check out the other rec.bicycles newsgroups and you'll see that most of
> > > > > them are just spam nowadays. Darn little bicycling related content in most of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > Similar across other subjects as well.
> > > >
> > > > Roger Merriman
> > > Subject drift is normal isn't it? Or perhaps people don't have minds to think with. If you're in danger of theft from your account on Paypal which you use to pay for your Ebay bicycle parts shouldn't you know it? If the vaccines that most people took endanger them, shouldn't they know? Or perhaps like my younger brother he doesn't WANT to know that they screwed up and what to look out for?
> > >
> > > Technically we probably shouldn't be talking about the Giro either. So that is another outlawed topic?
> > >
> > > I think that we ought to let people talk about what they want to and then upbraid them if the subject is beneath contempt like Krygowski's anti-Constitutional gun crap. That is the fun part. It gives me something to laugh about on the harder rides.
> > I just did another 32 miles and 1400 feet of climbing This puts me about even with last year with over 50,000 meters of climbing in the last 12 months, I've been using Garmin Edges for about 3 1/2 years and in that time have covered over 800,000 km It just showed a message that I have started stronger this year than last but we'll see.
> Eight hundred thousand kilometer in three and a half years?
>
> Lou

I misread the numbers. It was 500,000 FEET of climbing and 12,500 miles on the Garmin - or 20,000 km and 152,000 meters of climbing. in 3 1/2 years

I used VDO with altimeter built in and logged all of my mileage and climbing. After I "came to" my fiend got me to ride again and since I was riding with him, for perhaps 5 years I was doing 8,000 miles a year After he moved back to Arizona, I dropped to 5 or 4 thousand miles a year. I didn't get my first Garmin until he had gone. And I think that I was recording rides off of the Garmin onto paper and clearing the Garmin information until you told me the correct way to do it. So that is probably an under estimate.

Thanks for catching that.

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 3:36:43 p.m. UTC-5, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 9:18:10 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 5:56:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:46:37 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> > > > Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:08:38 p.m. UTC-5, Roger Meriman wrote:
> > > > >> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> On Fri, 26 May 2023 08:16:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, 25 May 2023 18:06:42 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> How knows, maybe it'll be so popular that we'll have moderated groups
> > > > >>>>> again...I wonder if any of those are left....
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> pH in Aptos
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> I don't like moderated Usenet groups...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sorry, I was interrupted by a phone call.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> One more item on moderation. One of the goals of moderation was to
> > > > >>> limit off-topic discussions. However, when the moderation was being
> > > > >>> organized, moderation details soon became the prime (and probably
> > > > >>> sole) topic of discussion. A day didn't drift by without at least one
> > > > >>> complaint about excessive or insufficient moderation. Instead of
> > > > >>> off-topic political discussions, we had off-topic moderation
> > > > >>> discussions. This is not progress.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Yup that was my experience as well Usenet didn’t really work well
> > > > >> moderated, plus the cycling one just became one man’s fiefdom and died.
> > > > >
> > > > > Check out the other rec.bicycles newsgroups and you'll see that most of
> > > > > them are just spam nowadays. Darn little bicycling related content in most of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > Similar across other subjects as well.
> > > >
> > > > Roger Merriman
> > > Subject drift is normal isn't it? Or perhaps people don't have minds to think with. If you're in danger of theft from your account on Paypal which you use to pay for your Ebay bicycle parts shouldn't you know it? If the vaccines that most people took endanger them, shouldn't they know? Or perhaps like my younger brother he doesn't WANT to know that they screwed up and what to look out for?
> > >
> > > Technically we probably shouldn't be talking about the Giro either. So that is another outlawed topic?
> > >
> > > I think that we ought to let people talk about what they want to and then upbraid them if the subject is beneath contempt like Krygowski's anti-Constitutional gun crap. That is the fun part. It gives me something to laugh about on the harder rides.
> > I just did another 32 miles and 1400 feet of climbing This puts me about even with last year with over 50,000 meters of climbing in the last 12 months, I've been using Garmin Edges for about 3 1/2 years and in that time have covered over 800,000 km It just showed a message that I have started stronger this year than last but we'll see.
> Eight hundred thousand kilometer in three and a half years?
>
> Lou

That's only about 625 kilometres EVERY SINGLE DAY! WOW! Super bicyclist rides again.

Cheers

On Tue, 30 May 2023 17:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 3:36:43?p.m. UTC-5, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 9:18:10?PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 5:56:08?PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:46:37?AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> > > > Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 2:08:38?p.m. UTC-5, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> > > > >> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>> On Fri, 26 May 2023 08:16:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> On Thu, 25 May 2023 18:06:42 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
>> > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>> How knows, maybe it'll be so popular that we'll have moderated groups
>> > > > >>>>> again...I wonder if any of those are left....
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> pH in Aptos
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> I don't like moderated Usenet groups...
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Sorry, I was interrupted by a phone call.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> One more item on moderation. One of the goals of moderation was to
>> > > > >>> limit off-topic discussions. However, when the moderation was being
>> > > > >>> organized, moderation details soon became the prime (and probably
>> > > > >>> sole) topic of discussion. A day didn't drift by without at least one
>> > > > >>> complaint about excessive or insufficient moderation. Instead of
>> > > > >>> off-topic political discussions, we had off-topic moderation
>> > > > >>> discussions. This is not progress.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >> Yup that was my experience as well Usenet didn’t really work well
>> > > > >> moderated, plus the cycling one just became one man’s fiefdom and died.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Check out the other rec.bicycles newsgroups and you'll see that most of
>> > > > > them are just spam nowadays. Darn little bicycling related content in most of them.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Cheers
>> > > > >
>> > > > Similar across other subjects as well.
>> > > >
>> > > > Roger Merriman
>> > > Subject drift is normal isn't it? Or perhaps people don't have minds to think with. If you're in danger of theft from your account on Paypal which you use to pay for your Ebay bicycle parts shouldn't you know it? If the vaccines that most people took endanger them, shouldn't they know? Or perhaps like my younger brother he doesn't WANT to know that they screwed up and what to look out for?
>> > >
>> > > Technically we probably shouldn't be talking about the Giro either. So that is another outlawed topic?
>> > >
>> > > I think that we ought to let people talk about what they want to and then upbraid them if the subject is beneath contempt like Krygowski's anti-Constitutional gun crap. That is the fun part. It gives me something to laugh about on the harder rides.
>> > I just did another 32 miles and 1400 feet of climbing This puts me about rven with last year with over 50,000 meters of climbing in the last 12 months, I've been using Garmin Edges for about 3 1/2 years and in that time have covered over 800,000 km It just showed a message that I have started stronger this year than last but we'll see.
>> Eight hundred thousand kilometer in three and a half years?
>>
>> Lou
>
>That's only about 625 kilometres EVERY SINGLE DAY! WOW! Super bicyclist rides again.
>
>Cheers

Ah but that is only 389 miles a day. Why, nothing to it, it's only 16
mph :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 12:49:00 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/25/2023 10:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > I am continuously irked by people riding on the roads with black kit.
> Let them have their choice.
>
> I'm irked by people who claim riding a bike is dangerous unless done in
> garishly colored faux team kit - AKA "full mating plumage."
>

I don't hold "dangerous unless", but I do feel it's safer to be wearing more visible clothing than all black. Most of my clothing is old team kit from the three I rode for, I have a closet full of the stuff.

On 5/31/2023 10:42 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 12:49:00 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/25/2023 10:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> I am continuously irked by people riding on the roads with black kit.
>> Let them have their choice.
>>
>> I'm irked by people who claim riding a bike is dangerous unless done in
>> garishly colored faux team kit - AKA "full mating plumage."
>>
>
> I don't hold "dangerous unless", but I do feel it's safer to be wearing more visible clothing than all black. Most of my clothing is old team kit from the three I rode for, I have a closet full of the stuff.

Whether bright colored jerseys and shorts are safer, and how much safer,
depends on lighting conditions and surroundings. I'm not convinced the
difference significantly reduces crash risk for typical riders. I think
most riders would get far more visibility improvement by riding two feet
farther from the road's edge.

But in various forums and discussions, I've come across implications
that one is foolish to ride without "safer" bright clothing. (Please
note, I'm not accusing you of that.)

I've come across the same sorts of claims for riding without foam hats,
riding outside a "protected" bike lane, riding without a mirror, riding
on roads, riding without daytime running lights, riding without disc
brakes, riding without special shoes... It seems bicycling is a magnet
for such claims, as if it's such a hazardous activity that one must do
everything physically possible to reduce risk.

All those claims are questionable at best, based on available data; and
they pretty much preclude just jumping on a bike to buy a loaf of bread.
I think the warnings are bad for cycling and society.

Bicycling is _not_ very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 11:25:30 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/31/2023 10:42 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 12:49:00 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2023 10:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am continuously irked by people riding on the roads with black kit.
> >> Let them have their choice.
> >>
> >> I'm irked by people who claim riding a bike is dangerous unless done in
> >> garishly colored faux team kit - AKA "full mating plumage."
> >>
> >
> > I don't hold "dangerous unless", but I do feel it's safer to be wearing more visible clothing than all black. Most of my clothing is old team kit from the three I rode for, I have a closet full of the stuff.

> Whether bright colored jerseys and shorts are safer, and how much safer,
> depends on lighting conditions and surroundings. I'm not convinced the
> difference significantly reduces crash risk for typical riders.

I have no data to support it. I just feel better about it.

I think
> most riders would get far more visibility improvement by riding two feet
> farther from the road's edge.
>
> But in various forums and discussions, I've come across implications
> that one is foolish to ride without "safer" bright clothing. (Please
> note, I'm not accusing you of that.)

I wouldn't consider it foolish to ride without bright clothing.

>
> I've come across the same sorts of claims for riding without foam hats,
> riding outside a "protected" bike lane, riding without a mirror, riding
> on roads, riding without daytime running lights, riding without disc
> brakes, riding without special shoes... It seems bicycling is a magnet
> for such claims, as if it's such a hazardous activity that one must do
> everything physically possible to reduce risk.
>
> All those claims are questionable at best, based on available data; and
> they pretty much preclude just jumping on a bike to buy a loaf of bread.
> I think the warnings are bad for cycling and society.
>
> Bicycling is _not_ very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

Not when done correctly.

>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2023 10:42 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 12:49:00 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2023 10:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am continuously irked by people riding on the roads with black kit.
>>> Let them have their choice.
>>>
>>> I'm irked by people who claim riding a bike is dangerous unless done in
>>> garishly colored faux team kit - AKA "full mating plumage."
>>>
>>
>> I don't hold "dangerous unless", but I do feel it's safer to be wearing
>> more visible clothing than all black. Most of my clothing is old team
>> kit from the three I rode for, I have a closet full of the stuff.
>
> Whether bright colored jerseys and shorts are safer, and how much safer,
> depends on lighting conditions and surroundings. I'm not convinced the
> difference significantly reduces crash risk for typical riders. I think
> most riders would get far more visibility improvement by riding two feet
> farther from the road's edge.

Not convinced road position is any safer, it’s more pleasant as cars etc
can’t just squeeze past without moving off line and so the chance of close
pass is greater but being harmed rather than disturbed?

Same goes for hi vis and so on. Most cyclists even if it’s all black gear
it has reflective this and that.

To the best of my knowledge it’s junctions that are the risk areas not the
road as such, certainly in london it’s often heavy goods vehicles turning,
that causes death not the car that’s close passed you.
>
> But in various forums and discussions, I've come across implications
> that one is foolish to ride without "safer" bright clothing. (Please
> note, I'm not accusing you of that.)
>
> I've come across the same sorts of claims for riding without foam hats,
> riding outside a "protected" bike lane, riding without a mirror, riding
> on roads, riding without daytime running lights, riding without disc
> brakes, riding without special shoes... It seems bicycling is a magnet
> for such claims, as if it's such a hazardous activity that one must do
> everything physically possible to reduce risk.
>
> All those claims are questionable at best, based on available data; and
> they pretty much preclude just jumping on a bike to buy a loaf of bread.
> I think the warnings are bad for cycling and society.
>
> Bicycling is _not_ very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
>
Indeed it isn’t though some areas are into dangerous sports see DH racing
but yes it’s largely safe.

This said it’s more about a more pleasant experience. My commute I use a
old cycleway which runs for miles and bypasses number of junctions etc plus
parks and what not.

As the direct route though slightly quicker is much more hassle ie busy
roads and junctions and quite frankly on the slow commute bike isn’t
terribly pleasant, I occasionally zip along on the Gravel bike and it’s
fine at those speeds etc.

But it’s just hassle I can do without, plus I like going though green
spaces the “slow” route I can largely switch off and enjoy it.

Roger Merriman

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 2:42:03 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 5/31/2023 10:42 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 12:49:00 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 5/25/2023 10:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I am continuously irked by people riding on the roads with black kit..
> >>> Let them have their choice.
> >>>
> >>> I'm irked by people who claim riding a bike is dangerous unless done in
> >>> garishly colored faux team kit - AKA "full mating plumage."
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't hold "dangerous unless", but I do feel it's safer to be wearing
> >> more visible clothing than all black. Most of my clothing is old team
> >> kit from the three I rode for, I have a closet full of the stuff.
> >
> > Whether bright colored jerseys and shorts are safer, and how much safer,
> > depends on lighting conditions and surroundings. I'm not convinced the
> > difference significantly reduces crash risk for typical riders. I think
> > most riders would get far more visibility improvement by riding two feet
> > farther from the road's edge.
> Not convinced road position is any safer, it’s more pleasant as cars etc
> can’t just squeeze past without moving off line and so the chance of close
> pass is greater but being harmed rather than disturbed?
>
> Same goes for hi vis and so on. Most cyclists even if it’s all black gear
> it has reflective this and that.
>
> To the best of my knowledge it’s junctions that are the risk areas not the
> road as such, certainly in london it’s often heavy goods vehicles turning,
> that causes death not the car that’s close passed you.
> >
> > But in various forums and discussions, I've come across implications
> > that one is foolish to ride without "safer" bright clothing. (Please
> > note, I'm not accusing you of that.)
> >
> > I've come across the same sorts of claims for riding without foam hats,
> > riding outside a "protected" bike lane, riding without a mirror, riding
> > on roads, riding without daytime running lights, riding without disc
> > brakes, riding without special shoes... It seems bicycling is a magnet
> > for such claims, as if it's such a hazardous activity that one must do
> > everything physically possible to reduce risk.
> >
> > All those claims are questionable at best, based on available data; and
> > they pretty much preclude just jumping on a bike to buy a loaf of bread..
> > I think the warnings are bad for cycling and society.
> >
> > Bicycling is _not_ very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
> >
> Indeed it isn’t though some areas are into dangerous sports see DH racing
> but yes it’s largely safe.
>
> This said it’s more about a more pleasant experience. My commute I use a
> old cycleway which runs for miles and bypasses number of junctions etc plus
> parks and what not.
>
> As the direct route though slightly quicker is much more hassle ie busy
> roads and junctions and quite frankly on the slow commute bike isn’t
> terribly pleasant, I occasionally zip along on the Gravel bike and it’s
> fine at those speeds etc.
>
> But it’s just hassle I can do without, plus I like going though green
> spaces the “slow” route I can largely switch off and enjoy it.
>
> Roger Merriman

Well Frank is perfectly welcome to wear anything he likes. If it were to more rapidly lead to his demise all to prove my point. But remember - this is the man who doesn't move over for traffic either so how would we tell?

On 6/1/2023 5:42 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I think
>> most riders would get far more visibility improvement by riding two feet
>> farther from the road's edge.
>
> Not convinced road position is any safer ...
>
> To the best of my knowledge it’s junctions that are the risk areas not the
> road as such, certainly in london it’s often heavy goods vehicles turning,
> that causes death not the car that’s close passed you.

I've read a lot about the HGV turning hazard in London. It's direct
proof that some road positions are safer than others. The position at
the side of a large truck that may turn is notorious for cyclist deaths.

I've read that the majority of those deaths (left hooks in London,
they'd be right hooks in the U.S.) have happened to women. There's been
speculation why that is. One common thought is women more than men have
a desire to be polite, to not delay the truck driver by being in front
of him. And they pay for their courtesy with their lives.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/1/2023 10:51 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Well Frank is perfectly welcome to wear anything he likes. If it were to more rapidly lead to his demise all to prove my point.

Tom, I've been riding avidly as an adult, for transportation and for
recreation, for over 50 years. It's far too late for a "rapid demise."

> But remember - this is the man who doesn't move over for traffic either so how would we tell?

So, are you a gutter bunny? Sounds like!

What do you do when an 8.5 foot truck comes up behind you in a ten foot
lane with no shoulder?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 6/1/2023 5:42 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> I think
>>> most riders would get far more visibility improvement by riding two feet
>>> farther from the road's edge.
>>
>> Not convinced road position is any safer ...
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge it’s junctions that are the risk areas not the
>> road as such, certainly in london it’s often heavy goods vehicles turning,
>> that causes death not the car that’s close passed you.
>
> I've read a lot about the HGV turning hazard in London. It's direct
> proof that some road positions are safer than others. The position at
> the side of a large truck that may turn is notorious for cyclist deaths.

It’s not really road position as such, as it happens almost with out fail
at junctions and these lorries are in a rush in heavily congested busy
urban areas ie construction traffic lots of pedestrians/cyclists and
everything else.

Ie a large vehicle with huge blind spots turning ie unable to see huge
areas around it? In streets full of pedestrians cyclists and so on? The
construction industry need to do better or they will get banned or need
sight man etc. not viable really.
>
> I've read that the majority of those deaths (left hooks in London,
> they'd be right hooks in the U.S.) have happened to women. There's been
> speculation why that is. One common thought is women more than men have
> a desire to be polite, to not delay the truck driver by being in front
> of him. And they pay for their courtesy with their lives.
>
Maybe I’ve also heard that but the deaths in london are very low ie single
figures the first death of 2023 was just a week or so, and male.

Roger Merriman

On 6/1/2023 1:59 PM, Roger Meriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 6/1/2023 5:42 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> I think
>>>> most riders would get far more visibility improvement by riding two feet
>>>> farther from the road's edge.
>>>
>>> Not convinced road position is any safer ...
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge it’s junctions that are the risk areas not the
>>> road as such, certainly in london it’s often heavy goods vehicles turning,
>>> that causes death not the car that’s close passed you.
>>
>> I've read a lot about the HGV turning hazard in London. It's direct
>> proof that some road positions are safer than others. The position at
>> the side of a large truck that may turn is notorious for cyclist deaths.
>
> It’s not really road position as such, as it happens almost with out fail
> at junctions and these lorries are in a rush in heavily congested busy
> urban areas ie construction traffic lots of pedestrians/cyclists and
> everything else.

In other forums, when someone has mentioned staying out of a trucker's
blind spot, some people have said "Stop blaming the victim! It's the
trucker's fault!"

Sure, truckers should be careful. But some of the fatalities have been
cyclists riding up into the curbside blind spots to try to pass turning
trucks. A foolish cyclist can defeat any reasonable tech solution to
this problem.

Calling for more driver care, truck side shields, more mirrors, video
cameras etc. is all well and good. But at the present time in the real
world, bicyclists should avoid being alongside any vehicle which can
turn across their path; especially large vehicles with known blind
spots. And lots of people don't know that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 6/1/2023 1:59 PM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2023 5:42 AM, Roger Meriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> I think
>>>>> most riders would get far more visibility improvement by riding two feet
>>>>> farther from the road's edge.
>>>>
>>>> Not convinced road position is any safer ...
>>>>
>>>> To the best of my knowledge it’s junctions that are the risk areas not the
>>>> road as such, certainly in london it’s often heavy goods vehicles turning,
>>>> that causes death not the car that’s close passed you.
>>>
>>> I've read a lot about the HGV turning hazard in London. It's direct
>>> proof that some road positions are safer than others. The position at
>>> the side of a large truck that may turn is notorious for cyclist deaths.
>>
>> It’s not really road position as such, as it happens almost with out fail
>> at junctions and these lorries are in a rush in heavily congested busy
>> urban areas ie construction traffic lots of pedestrians/cyclists and
>> everything else.
>
> In other forums, when someone has mentioned staying out of a trucker's
> blind spot, some people have said "Stop blaming the victim! It's the
> trucker's fault!"
>
> Sure, truckers should be careful. But some of the fatalities have been
> cyclists riding up into the curbside blind spots to try to pass turning
> trucks. A foolish cyclist can defeat any reasonable tech solution to
> this problem.
>
> Calling for more driver care, truck side shields, more mirrors, video
> cameras etc. is all well and good. But at the present time in the real
> world, bicyclists should avoid being alongside any vehicle which can
> turn across their path; especially large vehicles with known blind
> spots. And lots of people don't know that.
>
In areas like central london which are very busy, and will have folks
crossing the road, bikes/mopeds/scooters etc. having a vehicle that it’s
impossible to be sure it’s clear when manoeuvring is a daft idea and very
little excuse for it.

Note also that these deaths with lorries all happen central london so
fairly small area. It is solvable be that lorries with various sensors or
having to have a set route maybe or delivery out of rush hour and so on.

While you get lorries and so on around they are like you driving down the
road so the risk is fairly minimal if not negligible.

Roger Merriman