BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

While in London did you see people talking on their cell phones while driving? Probably not, because it is illegal, as is texting, and it is enforced. I don't think neon clothing or Christmas tree lights are going to stop you from being rear ended by somebody who is distracted.Bright clothing is not going to prevent people from doubling the speed limit on residential streets. Sorry. If anything it may help prevent victim blaming if there is an accident, but as we know in Pittsburgh victim blaming in cycling accidents is like Steeler football, people love it.

Thus commented, "re; "We can't dress for biking the way we dress to go to the grocery store or out on a date..." What?!? That's COMPLETELY the goal, to get the roadways to the point where it's safe to do that. Look at Amsterdam, or Copenhagen, they do go out to the store and out on dates and everywhere else and they don't dress like riot police to do it. It's going to take some work, but we can get there too."

^^ post that on the pg site ^^

The drivers are the ones that need fixed but...

pause

I still believe there is some responsibility to the cyclist to attempt to be visible. This can be done in *any* attire so the point goes away once the standard blinkies are purchased.

Didn't some woman run over a garbage man this spring/summer? And he was wearing a FULL BODY reflective suit?

Yes. I believe she ran right into the back of the truck.

Edit, here is the link. http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/city-sanitation-worker-struck-by-suv/

i was hit 2 years ago while wearing neon at 4pm on a bright sunny day. The driver said she saw me, but was just trying to get in front of me. So yeah, it's our fault.

Of course it's your fault Marko, you were on a bike!

I agree with orionz06. The blinky can light up someone wearing all black. Add in the colorful shirts I see almost all of us wearing, or our super bright jackets and being visable is not the issue. Driver distraction is the issue.

Yeah it’s always the cyclist’s fault.

OT but related: A guy was killed the other day on route 28 while changing a tire on the side of the road. It was 4am and another driver had stopped so there were two cars on the side of the road (presumably with headlights and flashers on) yet they were struck by a passing vehicle. Of course no charges were filed, because we as a society don’t hold drivers responsible for anything bad that happens unless there is alcohol involved.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-north/man-killed-changing-tire-along-route-28-in-tarentum-656072/

ALSO, from from earlier this year:

"Further research reveals that this was a guy who rode often, wore all the proper gear (including helmet and reflective clothing), is reported to have been almost annoying in his determination to obey EVERY traffic sign, and took (and encouraged others he rode with, to take) bike safety education courses. Accident occured at 4:30 in the afternoon. So sad."

http://bike-pgh.org/bbpress/topic/lehigh-valley-cyclist-killed

The article on the tire-changing death says charges are pending while they investigate. (Of course that might mean they just want to make sure the driver wasn't on any drugs before deciding not to charge him.)

The letter says "We can't dress for biking the way we dress to go to the grocery store or out on a date."

We're obviously not dealing with the sharpest quill on the goose here.

Marko: The other person injured in the 28 crash was his passenger, not a second driver.

^The tv news said he called a friend who drove out to help him - but whatever. The point is that he was struck while on the side of the road at o'dark thirty. You have to be seriously NOT paying attention to not see another vehicle on the side of the road. Like the couple that was hit while changing a tire on route 40 a few months back while wearing safety vests - in that case it was a DUI.

We cyclist tend to think that drivers deliberately target us – and absolutely some do. But they are also assholes towards everybody else too. They will drive up on the sidewalk to pass a school bus, they will strike a police motorcycle, they will run into buildings and other inanimate objects – because all they care about is themselves and getting somewhere “on time” or some other trivial excuse.

While wearing bright colors and using blinkies is highly recommended, it is not getting to the root cause of most crashes.

But all the clothes I own are earth tone.

yeah, rapha & chrome missed the memo on that one.

so did Outlier

I was hit wearing bright yellow and having front and rear lights on. (just my $0.02)

But I wear the same clothes for cycling as I do for grocery shopping and dating

I don't date, but I usually wear the same clothes for cycling and grocery shopping because i usually cycle to the grocery store.

I agree with Orion. I think there is some duty to make yourself visible to other road users. Cars are required to be illuminated and I think bikes should be as well. Almost hit a cyclist the other day on my motorcycle. The jackass was riding in the opposite lane of traffic, around 8pm at night, with no lights around a pretty fast/blind corner on the Blvd of the Allies in Schenley. If he didn't have a reflector on his handlebars I dont think I would have seen him.

But... I almost hit not only a car but two motorcycles last night. The car was not lit and an old clunker. It was dark grey and heading downhill and my lights did not help me see shit. Got really close and then *car* happened. They needed the new Fiks trunk lid stickers.

You can only do so much but had I been texting and eating and changing the station I probably would have ended up in the back of an Oldsmobile. I like to consider myself a great driver who is attentive as all hell. I think cycling thousands of miles on the road a year helps with that. Still almost hit someone.

Yeah, I'm not saying that its enforced on cars I'm just saying that it is a legal requirement.

It's already a legal requirement for bicycles.

“(a) Every pedacycle, when in use between sunset and sunrise, shall be equipped on the front with a lamp which emits a beam of white light intended to illuminate the pedalcycle operator’s path and visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front, a red reflector facing to the rear which shall be visible at least 500 feet to the rear and an amber reflector on each side. Operators of pedacycles may supplement the required front lamp with a white flashing lamp, light-emitting diode or similar device to enhance their visibility to other traffic and with a lamp emitting a red flashing lamp, light-emitting diode or similar device visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear. A lamp or lamps worn by the operator of a pedacycle shall comply with the requirements of this subsection if the lamp or lamps can be seen at the distances specified.

I agree some people are just assholes towards bicyclists, but they are generally not following traffic laws anyway. A couple of days ago I was passed with a foot or so gap by a guy who was speeding. When I caught up with him he yelled "Get off the road" and continued on without stopping through a stop sign. These people are sloppy, dangerous drivers, who should not be on the road. We are more aware of them because we're more at risk and can observe things much more closely.

WTF DO YOU DO IF THE BIKE RIDE ISTHE DATE!?!??!!?!??@@@@@@

Or if you always wear reflective clothing on dates

Maybe the guy was just giving fashion advice. Fluorescents are so back.

For some reason, the phrase "retro-reflective Hammer pants" just will not leave my mind.

*Or if you always wear reflective clothing on dates*

Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong...

I always get myself into trouble staring at ladies in fluorescent. My girlfriend doesn't believe Im checking out their bikes. Plus, I cant help but NOT look at fluorescent. Unless of course Im texting.

Theoretically the safest person on Earth:



Though we could also wear very tasteful reflective suits of Lumatwill. Except you have to get tailored in London. And they cost like 5 grand. And Gary Fisher is the only person who has one.

I don't know, I think Don Cherry might have a couple.

(latter from http://doncherryjacketwatch.wordpress.com/ ...)

Ho. lee. crap. You win.

This here's a pretty badass suit, never really wanted a suit before but (drool):



Shoulda worked harder in school.

The **real** solution to cell phone related distraction(s) is something that no one I've ever talked to is willing to embrace.

The technology to do this is already in place. EVERY functional cell phone (in the US) has an embedded gps system - mandated as of 1999 by the FCC.

The speed I'm mentioning can be debated, whatever the number, it is the concept.

Cell phones - STOP - transmitting, STOP receiving, excepting emergency numbers when they are moving faster then 10 mph.

And now we are done with texting or talking while driving.

It does not happen it can not happen. I chose 10 mph, as it allows you to walk, even to possibly bike, or to be stuck in a slow moving traffic jam, and still be able to talk.

To implement, all that would have to be done is upload the needed software to all cell phones on their next connection to the cell phone system.

@btdt, great solution but it would mean that even a passinger on a public bus couldn't use their phone... YES!

*IF* you find this problematic, I do not

Public Transit could be outfitted with a relay service, basically the bus would be it's own cell tower, so to the phone, it would appear that it was not moving.

I certainly have no problem at all with passengers in a moving car using a phone. Plenty of circumstances I consider it a benefit. ("Mom! I'll make the call. You're driving.")

The one time that system would malfunction would be when someone needed to dial 911. Not gonna happen.

Exceptions can always be made with software. You can dial 911 when an iPhone is locked for instance.

as I originally stated :

Cell phones - STOP - transmitting, STOP receiving, EXCEPTING emergency numbers when they are moving faster then 10 mph.

if the bus' micro cell was down, the primary cell service would still be functioning, and emergency calls would be completed

How much are all these "micro cells" going to cost? Why should public transit systems bear the cost of irresponsible drivers? What's going to stop people from installing them on their cars or more likely using other hacks or countermeasures to get around the restrictions? Disallowing passengers use of their devices is probably a non-starter regardless, and there are plenty of legitimate uses of a phone in a moving vehicle - navigation, streaming music, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a terrible problem, but it doesn't have a simple technical solution.

I doubt you will ever see anything passed that limit communication. Simply too many things to go wrong. More so it still won't solve the problem. What about searching for songs on an iPod?

Estimates of equipping Port Authority with the technology to something vital like having each bus tell a central computer system its current location, and being able to provide that to willing riders standing at a bus stop, is into seven digits, maybe even eight. I've been arguing for this technology for over 10 years, and they still don't have it. All because of money. Let's settle the supposedly simple stuff like funding transit properly before we start adding like-to-haves like the above suggestion.

@been_there_done_that ...as I originally stated

Yeah, yeah.

After you've already said it once, the rest of us have all been there done that

Still got the same issues, so it won't ever (and IMO never should) happen.

Say something once, why say it again?

-David Byrne

If we are talking about real GPS (with satellites) then it's easy to disable it in the car. Phone has to see satellites to detect its current position and to calculate speed from previous reading. You can buy a $5 jammer for this purpose too (it would not affect cell transmission due to differences in frequencies). If you talking about positioning using cell towers and something similar to triangulation then simple repeater where one end is out and coax cable goes inside car which can be easily turned into Faraday cage so your phone talks to internal end of the repeater.

Jammers are illegal as all hell.

I though it depends on emitting power. You don't need one that works beyond 4-5 feet. Just put it close to phone.

I think you meant police radar jammers.

From NASA

What's special about transmitting on GPS frequencies?

GPS signals are used for critical functions including timing, radio communications, and aircraft navigation. Consequently, transmissions on or near GPS frequencies are highly restricted All levels and types of transmissions are prohibited within 12 MHz of 1575.42 MHz, 1227.6 MHz, and 1381.05 MHz without a valid Radio Frequency Authorization coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration and US Coast Guard at the national level.

@steven FCC regulates this stuff. This is current status for emitting powers:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=57c386f887f57887e532363ddb2d4820&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.16.2.234.6&idno=47

This is how it's supposed to be measured: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=57c386f887f57887e532363ddb2d4820&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.16.1.234.16&idno=47

But real interesting part is http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=57c386f887f57887e532363ddb2d4820&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.16.2.234.2&idno=47 -- if you have old computer with open bus you can use it as emitter.

GPS signal strength is very low -- http://www.npu.edu/B8345F4D-39AC-4D15-AB4B-927E0CFA4AC7/FinalDownload/DownloadId-B70644F9E7AE2D04F9254C73E692416A/B8345F4D-39AC-4D15-AB4B-927E0CFA4AC7/seminars/files/Shane_Lee_10282006.pdf look for the slide GPS Signal Strength.

But you don't even need a emitter. GPS does not work in house, or in forest. Just cover antenna with dense enough material and GPS is out.