Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:35:56



Quote:

> > That cyclist should not have been "coming up on the side"; that is, he
> > shouldn't have been passing on the right where there's any likelihood
> > that a motorist will turn right, unless he's riding slowly and ready
> > for an instantaneous panic stop. ?Passing on the right is always dicey
> > at best, and if done at all, should be done with tremendous care,
> > strobe light or not.

> "Should" this, "shouldn't" that.

Yes.  Despite the "every choice is valid" mentality that seems to be
more and more common, there are things that should be done, and other
things that should not.

Quote:

> The right hooked bicyclist is not necessarily "passing on the right";
> they're JRA and the passing motorist suddenly slows dramatically and
> chops off the bicyclist.

If this report was correct, that wasn't what happened.  "I just didn't
see him coming up on the side" would mean the cyclist was traveling
faster than the car.  (That's apparently what caused most of the
increase in right hooks at Portland's bike boxes.)

But yes, some right hooks (or left hooks in drive-on-left countries)
are caused by motorists almost passing, then *** into the turn.
Controlling the lane helps against those, as does awareness helped by
a mirror.

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:54:59


Quote:


> > > That cyclist should not have been "coming up on the side"; that is, he
> > > shouldn't have been passing on the right where there's any likelihood
> > > that a motorist will turn right, unless he's riding slowly and ready
> > > for an instantaneous panic stop.  Passing on the right is always dicey
> > > at best, and if done at all, should be done with tremendous care,
> > > strobe light or not.

> > "Should" this, "shouldn't" that.

> Yes.  Despite the "every choice is valid" mentality that seems to be
> more and more common,

Why are your laments so judgmental?

Quote:
> ... there are things that should be done, and other
> things that should not.

I agree, except that I find your range of valid choices and
circumstantial considerations extremely narrow-minded and intolerant.

Also, you seem to assume it is your place to do the "shoulding".

Quote:

> > The right hooked bicyclist is not necessarily "passing on the right";
> > they're JRA and the passing motorist suddenly slows dramatically and
> > chops off the bicyclist.

> If this report was correct, that wasn't what happened.  "I just didn't
> see him coming up on the side" would mean the cyclist was traveling
> faster than the car.

As they would be if the car suddenly and dramatically slowed.  But I
agree this sounded more like blithe overtaking on the right (which I
why I replied initially with "blithe bicyclist"), although there
wasn't much information to go on.

Quote:
>  (That's apparently what caused most of the
> increase in right hooks at Portland's bike boxes.)

I thought bike boxes were for stopped bicyclists.

Quote:
> But yes, some right hooks (or left hooks in drive-on-left countries)
> are caused by motorists almost passing, then *** into the turn.
> Controlling the lane helps against those, as does awareness helped by
> a mirror.

Controlling the lane on the off chance that a car will be turning into
the parking lot driveway?  Ha!

Awareness, yes - absolutely.  (Is my mantra not consistently
"situational awareness"?)

Mirrors are problematic for me for a number of reasons.  Fortunately,
my hearing still goes a long way toward situational awareness.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Joe Rie » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:00:04

Quote:


> Part of it was that. But part of it was that I guess I forgot to turn
> off the strobe when I reached the venue of the event.

>> The law and cooperative common sense is pretty much universal "as far
>> right as practicable".  "Lanes" have nothing to do with it.  There's
>> no problem whatsoever with riding straight through to the right of a
>> right turn lane; the problem only arises when riding straight through
>> to the right of right turning traffic - lanes notwithstanding.  People
>> have to use their heads, navigate, anticipate, and negotiate rather
>> than expect everything to be layed out and prescribed for them.

> In this case there was no right turn lane. There was the right lane
> and the bike lane. The cyclist should have been exceptionally careful
> because of the type of shopping center. It was on a Saturday too, when
> this particular shopping center is rather terrifying.

> The key thing in this sort of traffic configuration is for the
> cyclists to make themselves as conspicuous as possible. A front strobe
> definitely helps. It won't stop someone who doesn't look to the right
> rear before turning, but it will help someone who does glance because
> a strobe is so conspicuous.

If the driver doesn't see a cyclist while passing, there is little hope
he's going to see him while completing the right hook.  A front strobe
seems useless in this situation.  Your initial description was unclear,
if the driver was already in front (say, moving slowly because of slow
traffic) and the cyclist is passing on the right, then the cyclist is at
fault.  Depending on a strobe to provide a non-existent right-of-way in
that situation seems a fool's game.

--
Joe Riel

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Joe Rie » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:04:13

Quote:



>>> Daytime?  If you don't look for a blithe bicyclist coming up on the
>>> side, you're not going to see the strobe any more than you'll see the
>>> bicyclist themself.

>> In the daytime unlit cyclists are much less conspicuous than a well lit
>> cyclist at night. In the daytime unlit cyclists blend in with all the
>> other unlit stuff between the sidewalk and the traffic lane such as
>> parked cars, street light poles, etc. At night, a properly lit cyclist
>> is distinguished from all these other items.

>> I know that when I'm driving in the daytime a cyclist with a strobe
>> light is far more visible than an unlit cyclist.

>> Of course the whole idea behind daytime running lights, and especially
>> the requirement in many states that motorcycles have their lights on all
>> the time is based on the fact that the light makes the vehicle more
>> visible in the daytime.

> Forgot the picture link for the area: <http://oi45.tinypic.com/fnbipj.jpg>

What are the single chevrons pointing in both directions supposed
to indicate?  They suggest that is a bi-directional bike-lane,
which almost certainly is not the case.

--
Joe Riel

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:08:23


Quote:

> Part of it was that. But part of it was that I guess I forgot to turn
> off the strobe when I reached the venue of the event.

That'll get you noticed :-)

Quote:
> > The law and cooperative common sense is pretty much universal "as far
> > right as practicable".  "Lanes" have nothing to do with it.  There's
> > no problem whatsoever with riding straight through to the right of a
> > right turn lane; the problem only arises when riding straight through
> > to the right of right turning traffic - lanes notwithstanding.  People
> > have to use their heads, navigate, anticipate, and negotiate rather
> > than expect everything to be layed out and prescribed for them.

> In this case there was no right turn lane. There was the right lane and
> the bike lane. The cyclist should have been exceptionally careful
> because of the type of shopping center. It was on a Saturday too, when
> this particular shopping center is rather terrifying.

> The key thing in this sort of traffic configuration is for the cyclists
> to make themselves as conspicuous as possible. A front strobe definitely
> helps. It won't stop someone who doesn't look to the right rear before
> turning, but it will help someone who does glance because a strobe is so
> conspicuous.

I agree that a bright strobe is attention getting, and that is why I
said, "in heavy traffic situations where it might be the extra
noticeability against distraction or innatention"; but if a motor
vehicle pilot actually looks (even glances) at a bicyclist in broad
daylight heading for their same point in space and time and *still*
doesn't "notice" them, well... (it's ultimately up to the bicyclist to
watch out for themselves).

And the bright strobe headlight is *great* for getting noticed in
reduced visibility conditions - especially reduced ambient light where
the flashing light is reflected off of so many things ahead.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:30:40


Quote:


> >> Daytime?  If you don't look for a blithe bicyclist coming up on the
> >> side, you're not going to see the strobe any more than you'll see the
> >> bicyclist themself.

> > In the daytime unlit cyclists are much less conspicuous than a well lit
> > cyclist at night. In the daytime unlit cyclists blend in with all the
> > other unlit stuff between the sidewalk and the traffic lane such as
> > parked cars, street light poles, etc. At night, a properly lit cyclist
> > is distinguished from all these other items.

> > I know that when I'm driving in the daytime a cyclist with a strobe
> > light is far more visible than an unlit cyclist.

> > Of course the whole idea behind daytime running lights, and especially
> > the requirement in many states that motorcycles have their lights on all
> > the time is based on the fact that the light makes the vehicle more
> > visible in the daytime.

> Forgot the picture link for the area: <http://oi45.tinypic.com/fnbipj.jpg>

Oooooo... that looks very much like the one right hook scenario (of
many) that put me down:  I was in the bike lane with very heavy
traffic to my left, when a car passed and then braked suddenly and
right hooked me.  I locked up the rear wheel, pitched bike sideways
turning with the car and staying clear to the inside, but the car did
not leave enough curb cut for me to ride up on, and I bought some of
the curb (still got up onto the sidewalk before laying it down).

(I notice that not only is there a stripe demarcing the bike lane, but
there's a sign _right there_ in case people still dont' get it.  Now
I've got a "shouldn't":  Drivers should never blithely cross a solid
line without really thinking about what they're crossing into.)

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Joe Rie » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:40:29

Quote:




>>>> Daytime?  If you don't look for a blithe bicyclist coming up on the
>>>> side, you're not going to see the strobe any more than you'll see the
>>>> bicyclist themself.

>>> In the daytime unlit cyclists are much less conspicuous than a well lit
>>> cyclist at night. In the daytime unlit cyclists blend in with all the
>>> other unlit stuff between the sidewalk and the traffic lane such as
>>> parked cars, street light poles, etc. At night, a properly lit cyclist
>>> is distinguished from all these other items.

>>> I know that when I'm driving in the daytime a cyclist with a strobe
>>> light is far more visible than an unlit cyclist.

>>> Of course the whole idea behind daytime running lights, and especially
>>> the requirement in many states that motorcycles have their lights on all
>>> the time is based on the fact that the light makes the vehicle more
>>> visible in the daytime.

>> Forgot the picture link for the area: <http://oi45.tinypic.com/fnbipj.jpg>

> What are the single chevrons pointing in both directions supposed
> to indicate?  They suggest that is a bi-directional bike-lane,
> which almost certainly is not the case.

Aah, I see those were inserted by Google Street View, they aren't
actually painted in the bike lane.

--
Joe Riel

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:59:03


Quote:


> > Part of it was that. But part of it was that I guess I forgot to turn
> > off the strobe when I reached the venue of the event.

> >> The law and cooperative common sense is pretty much universal "as far
> >> right as practicable".  "Lanes" have nothing to do with it.  There's
> >> no problem whatsoever with riding straight through to the right of a
> >> right turn lane; the problem only arises when riding straight through
> >> to the right of right turning traffic - lanes notwithstanding.  People
> >> have to use their heads, navigate, anticipate, and negotiate rather
> >> than expect everything to be layed out and prescribed for them.

> > In this case there was no right turn lane. There was the right lane
> > and the bike lane. The cyclist should have been exceptionally careful
> > because of the type of shopping center. It was on a Saturday too, when
> > this particular shopping center is rather terrifying.

> > The key thing in this sort of traffic configuration is for the
> > cyclists to make themselves as conspicuous as possible. A front strobe
> > definitely helps. It won't stop someone who doesn't look to the right
> > rear before turning, but it will help someone who does glance because
> > a strobe is so conspicuous.

> If the driver doesn't see a cyclist while passing, there is little hope
> he's going to see him while completing the right hook.  A front strobe
> seems useless in this situation.  Your initial description was unclear,
> if the driver was already in front (say, moving slowly because of slow
> traffic) and the cyclist is passing on the right, then the cyclist is at
> fault.  Depending on a strobe to provide a non-existent right-of-way in
> that situation seems a fool's game.

Well, actually an overtaking bicyclist *does* have the *legal* right-
of-way in a bike lane, and motorists are required to yield; but
pragmatically, your point stands.
 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Joe Rie » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:33:16

Quote:




>> > Part of it was that. But part of it was that I guess I forgot to turn
>> > off the strobe when I reached the venue of the event.

>> >> The law and cooperative common sense is pretty much universal "as far
>> >> right as practicable".  "Lanes" have nothing to do with it.  There's
>> >> no problem whatsoever with riding straight through to the right of a
>> >> right turn lane; the problem only arises when riding straight through
>> >> to the right of right turning traffic - lanes notwithstanding.  People
>> >> have to use their heads, navigate, anticipate, and negotiate rather
>> >> than expect everything to be layed out and prescribed for them.

>> > In this case there was no right turn lane. There was the right lane
>> > and the bike lane. The cyclist should have been exceptionally careful
>> > because of the type of shopping center. It was on a Saturday too, when
>> > this particular shopping center is rather terrifying.

>> > The key thing in this sort of traffic configuration is for the
>> > cyclists to make themselves as conspicuous as possible. A front strobe
>> > definitely helps. It won't stop someone who doesn't look to the right
>> > rear before turning, but it will help someone who does glance because
>> > a strobe is so conspicuous.

>> If the driver doesn't see a cyclist while passing, there is little hope
>> he's going to see him while completing the right hook.  A front strobe
>> seems useless in this situation.  Your initial description was unclear,
>> if the driver was already in front (say, moving slowly because of slow
>> traffic) and the cyclist is passing on the right, then the cyclist is at
>> fault.  Depending on a strobe to provide a non-existent right-of-way in
>> that situation seems a fool's game.

> Well, actually an overtaking bicyclist *does* have the *legal* right-
> of-way in a bike lane, and motorists are required to yield; but
> pragmatically, your point stands.

That is not clear to me (that an overtaking bicyclist has the legal
right of way while passing in the bicycle lane).  The CA vehicle code
does not seem definitive.  It does say that the cyclist, when
overtaking, does not have to remain "as far right as practicable", which
suggests that the intent is to pass on the left, not the right.  On the
other hand, passing on the right [for vehicles] is allowed if there is
more than one marked lane in the direction of travel, so it seems as
though that should allow a bicyclist to legally [if not safely] pass in
a marked bike lane.

Regardless, it is a dicey tactic at best, and, as you know, you really
have to be aware when doing so.  For example, it isn't uncommon for
stopped motorists to leave a gap at a driveway to allow a car coming
from the other direction to get across.  They won't see a cyclist
in the bike lane, and if there are a couple of stopped SUVs
you might not see the car.

--
Joe Riel

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:35:38


Quote:




> >> > Part of it was that. But part of it was that I guess I forgot to turn
> >> > off the strobe when I reached the venue of the event.

> >> >> The law and cooperative common sense is pretty much universal "as far
> >> >> right as practicable".  "Lanes" have nothing to do with it.  There's
> >> >> no problem whatsoever with riding straight through to the right of a
> >> >> right turn lane; the problem only arises when riding straight through
> >> >> to the right of right turning traffic - lanes notwithstanding.  People
> >> >> have to use their heads, navigate, anticipate, and negotiate rather
> >> >> than expect everything to be layed out and prescribed for them.

> >> > In this case there was no right turn lane. There was the right lane
> >> > and the bike lane. The cyclist should have been exceptionally careful
> >> > because of the type of shopping center. It was on a Saturday too, when
> >> > this particular shopping center is rather terrifying.

> >> > The key thing in this sort of traffic configuration is for the
> >> > cyclists to make themselves as conspicuous as possible. A front strobe
> >> > definitely helps. It won't stop someone who doesn't look to the right
> >> > rear before turning, but it will help someone who does glance because
> >> > a strobe is so conspicuous.

> >> If the driver doesn't see a cyclist while passing, there is little hope
> >> he's going to see him while completing the right hook.  A front strobe
> >> seems useless in this situation.  Your initial description was unclear,
> >> if the driver was already in front (say, moving slowly because of slow
> >> traffic) and the cyclist is passing on the right, then the cyclist is at
> >> fault.  Depending on a strobe to provide a non-existent right-of-way in
> >> that situation seems a fool's game.

> > Well, actually an overtaking bicyclist *does* have the *legal* right-
> > of-way in a bike lane, and motorists are required to yield; but
> > pragmatically, your point stands.

> That is not clear to me (that an overtaking bicyclist has the legal
> right of way while passing in the bicycle lane).  The CA vehicle code
> does not seem definitive.  It does say that the cyclist, when
> overtaking, does not have to remain "as far right as practicable", which
> suggests that the intent is to pass on the left, not the right.  On the
> other hand, passing on the right [for vehicles] is allowed if there is
> more than one marked lane in the direction of travel, so it seems as
> though that should allow a bicyclist to legally [if not safely] pass in
> a marked bike lane.

Well, yes - I was thinking of Oregon law, which says drivers must
yield to bicyclists in the bike lane.  "Yield" seems pretty
straightforward to me (a bicyclist traveling at a reasonable speed in
a lane designated for bike travel should not have to "yield" to
someone *entering* their lane... legally speaking).

Quote:
> Regardless, it is a dicey tactic at best, and, as you know, you really
> have to be aware when doing so.  For example, it isn't uncommon for
> stopped motorists to leave a gap at a driveway to allow a car coming
> from the other direction to get across.  They won't see a cyclist
> in the bike lane, and if there are a couple of stopped SUVs
> you might not see the car.

Yes, since we know very well that drivers very often will not yield
(even sort of understand why they might not think to - bicycle traffic
is relatively uncommon and therefor unexpected in most places, bicycle
traffic presents no significant threat to their safety, bicycle
traffic is inferior in terms of the social power the motorist feels
behind the wheel, bicycles are slow, etc.)... since we know this very
well and can easily anticipate it, we have to be prepared to yield for
our own safety.

This is why route selection is so important to me.  When I find myself
in such situations where anticipatable hazards that can only be
mitigated by suppressing my bikey exuberance are a constant threat,
it's not a very pleasant experience - tense and uncomfortable.
Blech!  Fortunately my exploratory nature leads to discovery of much
more satisfactory routes.  I'm not *afraid* to ride pretty much
anywhere... but... blech!

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:46:01


<snip>

Quote:

> ... passing on the right [for vehicles] is allowed if there is
> more than one marked lane in the direction of travel, so it seems as
> though that should allow a bicyclist to legally [if not safely] pass in
> a marked bike lane.

Oh, in Oregon, at least, bicycles are allowed to pass on the right
regardless of any lane markings, but yeah - it's dicey.

<snip>

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by SMS » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:40:30


Quote:
> (I notice that not only is there a stripe demarcing the bike lane, but
> there's a sign _right there_ in case people still dont' get it.  Now
> I've got a "shouldn't":  Drivers should never blithely cross a solid
> line without really thinking about what they're crossing into.)

The discussion here seems to be between what drivers should do and what
drivers actually do. Unfortunately, it's often up to cyclists to help
encourage the former and discourage the latter.

What many drivers actually do is to not pay extreme attention to
non-four wheel vehicles, whether they are bicycles or motorcycles.
Hence, various methods of increasing conspicuity have been developed.
These methods are not 100% effective, but some of them are effective
enough that they are definitely worth employing. The two methods that
have the most effect in improving the behavior of drivers are the
powerful front strobe and the flash flag
<http://www.flashback.ca/flashflags.html>.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by SMS » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:38:17


Quote:
> Well, actually an overtaking bicyclist *does* have the *legal* right-
> of-way in a bike lane, and motorists are required to yield; but
> pragmatically, your point stands.

This is true, and it's one of the most common and most dangerous aspects
of bicycle lanes. It's the bicycle equivalent of motorcycle lane
splitting. The alternative for the two wheeled vehicles is to remain
stuck in the heavy traffic and behave exactly like a vehicle.
 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:42:13


Quote:

> > (I notice that not only is there a stripe demarcing the bike lane, but
> > there's a sign _right there_ in case people still dont' get it.  Now
> > I've got a "shouldn't":  Drivers should never blithely cross a solid
> > line without really thinking about what they're crossing into.)

> The discussion here seems to be between what drivers should do and what
> drivers actually do. Unfortunately, it's often up to cyclists to help
> encourage the former and discourage the latter.

> What many drivers actually do is to not pay extreme attention to
> non-four wheel vehicles, whether they are bicycles or motorcycles.
> Hence, various methods of increasing conspicuity have been developed.
> These methods are not 100% effective, but some of them are effective
> enough that they are definitely worth employing. The two methods that
> have the most effect in improving the behavior of drivers are the
> powerful front strobe and the flash flag
> <http://www.flashback.ca/flashflags.html>.

Sure, and neon vests and...

I just prefer to make my riding experience my own, and take
responsibility for myself - knowing that motorists aren't apt to pay
due (positive) attention (more apt to scapegoat and vent the
frustration inherent in their chosen mode of transport - purportedly
"free" and yet subject to such a morass of constraints).  This is why
I prefer routes that minimize the need to cooperate with these poor
frustrated souls who have walked right into their own cage.

I don't mind diving into the fray - kind of need a fix of the
stimulation now and then, in fact.  But I do so with some great
cognizance of the constraints on motor traffic, exploiting the
advantage of my freedom from those constraints (not to their practical
detriment, but to no end their displeasure at perceiving my apparent
enjoyment from inside their miserable, frustrated circumstances).

It's pleasant if they go about their business (as best they can)
respecting and reasonably and sociably accomodating me; but I don't
count on it, don't really expect it, and don't make my enjoyment
dependent on it.  I like to view the transportation infrastructure as
a bird flying over it, except that my inability to *literally* fly
immerses me in the midst of it, so practicality cannot be disregarded
in order to survive and get along; but my sense of freedom soars above
the fray and guides me.

So many bicyclists lit up and decorated for ostentatious conspicuity
seem to be saying to traffic, "Notice me.  Include me.  I want to be
with and of you."  It's sad.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:28:21


Quote:


> > > (I notice that not only is there a stripe demarcing the bike lane, but
> > > there's a sign _right there_ in case people still dont' get it.  Now
> > > I've got a "shouldn't":  Drivers should never blithely cross a solid
> > > line without really thinking about what they're crossing into.)

> > The discussion here seems to be between what drivers should do and what
> > drivers actually do. Unfortunately, it's often up to cyclists to help
> > encourage the former and discourage the latter.

> > What many drivers actually do is to not pay extreme attention to
> > non-four wheel vehicles, whether they are bicycles or motorcycles.
> > Hence, various methods of increasing conspicuity have been developed.
> > These methods are not 100% effective, but some of them are effective
> > enough that they are definitely worth employing. The two methods that
> > have the most effect in improving the behavior of drivers are the
> > powerful front strobe and the flash flag
> > <http://www.flashback.ca/flashflags.html>.

> Sure, and neon vests and...

> I just prefer to make my riding experience my own, and take
> responsibility for myself - knowing that motorists aren't apt to pay
> due (positive) attention (more apt to scapegoat and vent the
> frustration inherent in their chosen mode of transport - purportedly
> "free" and yet subject to such a morass of constraints).  This is why
> I prefer routes that minimize the need to cooperate with these poor
> frustrated souls who have walked right into their own cage.

> I don't mind diving into the fray - kind of need a fix of the
> stimulation now and then, in fact.

I really appreciate my commute.  Expanses of solitude on country roads
(occasionally encountering another traveler, I try to accomodate, but
all too often simply glad to be quit of them and their regard for me),
hills to surmount with the determination of labor, descents to ride
like a surfer's caught wave, sleeping towns to pass through, the city
with it's bustle and fervent, gnarled traffic - so many disparate (and
yet all the same) psyches "negotiating" at the wheel.

Then the return trip escaping the *really* intense fervor of afternoon
rush hour in the city with those psyches at a frazzle from the day;
excaping to the relative solitude of rurality and then passing through
the calmer but now awake small towns.  As if all this weren't glorious
enough, concluded with the steepest descent of all and one last mile
into the town where I am home.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>  But I do so with some great
> cognizance of the constraints on motor traffic, exploiting the
> advantage of my freedom from those constraints (not to their practical
> detriment, but to no end their displeasure at perceiving my apparent
> enjoyment from inside their miserable, frustrated circumstances).

> It's pleasant if they go about their business (as best they can)
> respecting and reasonably and sociably accomodating me; but I don't
> count on it, don't really expect it, and don't make my enjoyment
> dependent on it.  I like to view the transportation infrastructure as
> a bird flying over it, except that my inability to *literally* fly
> immerses me in the midst of it, so practicality cannot be disregarded
> in order to survive and get along; but my sense of freedom soars above
> the fray and guides me.

> So many bicyclists lit up and decorated for ostentatious conspicuity
> seem to be saying to traffic, "Notice me.  Include me.  I want to be
> with and of you."  It's sad.