Re: Frazz last week
Brian Huntley
> It just struck me on the way home tonight (on my motorcycle, hence the
> connection)--in the Frazz story arc last week, where Frazz tries to get
> Coach Hacker to ride a bicycle, he insists he wears a helmet.
>
> I couldn't help noticing one piece of safety equipment which, in my
> humble opinion, would save way more lives than helmets would: a
> rear-view mirror. A helmet protects you in case you fall off the bike
> (and actually I agree with Frazz that Coach Hacker, as a bicycle novice,
> should be wearing one). A rear-view mirror lets you know what's around
> you, preventing you from crashing your bike in the first place.
>
> Also, Frazz himself displays the kind of attitude which actively
> prevents the everyday populace from riding bicycles in the first place.
> Boo, hiss!
>
> SEE ALSO: advice on riding bicycles for NORMAL people, courtesy of Jamie
> Zawinsky:http://jwz.livejournal.com/883988.html
>
> Anyone who thinks that a 100km ride is a "nice relaxing afternoon" is
> disqualified from that discussion. Sorry, -=> Jym <=-.
A surprisingly small number of serious bike accidents involve being
rear-ended. Most are caused by cars turning into the bike, either via
a 'right hook' or a 'left cross.'
Personally, I have a mirror on most of my bikes and miss it when I
don't have one. But they can be distracting for some people. And heck,
helmets are controversial enough! Especially in 3-4 panels.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Dave Brown <dagb...@LART.ca> wrote:
> SEE ALSO: advice on riding bicycles for NORMAL people, courtesy of
> Jamie Zawinsky: http://jwz.livejournal.com/883988.html
>
> Anyone who thinks that a 100km ride is a "nice relaxing afternoon" is
> disqualified from that discussion. Sorry, -=> Jym <=-.
Well, I'm disqualified by both your criterion and Jamie's, but I'm still
going to kick in with this:
> 6. Get a u-lock. Lock through the frame and the back wheel. Your
> bike will be stolen, so don't get too attached to it. This
> also means, don't waste your money on junk like baskets and
> lights. Just get a backpack.
This is Bad Advice, *especially* for a novice rider. Few things will
make you more uncomfortable and sour you on bicycle-commuting faster
than a backpack. They put strain on your back and they make you
sweaty as hell. A decent rack is about $15-30 and can be installed by
most people, or the bike shop will probably do it for $10. A
removable bag can be had for as low as $20, more for a bigger / nicer
model. The bike carries all that weight for you (that's not to say
it's "free," energy-wise, but at least it's off your back) and you can
take it in to work / home / shopping / whatever with you so it won't
get stolen along with the bike.
I also think the knobby tire advice, for road / path commuters, is
pretty bad. You'd be amazed how much energy those knobs suck away.
Actually, about 90% of that "advice" is pretty bad, which is telegraphed
right there in the disclaimer that basically points out you shouldn't take
advice from people who know what they are talking about. But the above
stands out. (I liked the comment that said it's like Sheldon Brown's
worst nightmare.)
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> I couldn't help noticing one piece of safety equipment which, in my
> humble opinion, would save way more lives than helmets would: a
> rear-view mirror.
But if I were teaching someone to ride, I'd absolutely forbid him to
wear a mirror until after he'd mastered the art of looking back.
Pauses to check: yes, my head turns more easily to the left than to
the right. I'm still failing to look back when I change lanes to the
*right*. Bad, bad habit.
Amusing note: when on a tour of southern England during the eighties,
I left my mirror where it was: it was much easier to look right with
a left-mounted mirror than to train my other eye.
The *most* important piece of safety equipment is a set of wrenches
for tightening all your bolts -- particularly the brake bolts. (But,
thanks to lock nuts etc., it's been many years since I heard anything
when I bounced my bike before a ride.)
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Cindy Kandolf
> I couldn't help noticing one piece of safety equipment which, in my
> humble opinion, would save way more lives than helmets would: a
> (and actually I agree with Frazz that Coach Hacker, as a bicycle novice,
> should be wearing one). A rear-view mirror lets you know what's around
> you, preventing you from crashing your bike in the first place.
Wait a minute. You're advocating a rear-view mirror, which is a rather
unusual piece of equipment, but you link to a blog (link below) that
tells people not to bother with LIGHTS? Lights (as the resident
teenager has finally discovered, hallelujah)[1], are NOT to help *you*
see, but to help *others* see *you*. When I'm driving in the dark or
iffy light conditions, I often want to stop and thank the bicyclists
who are carrying lights, because I've had a few scary incidents with
Invisible Cyclists, though thankfully I have always seen them in the
nick of time.
And battery-powered bike lights are dirt cheap.
> Also, Frazz himself displays the kind of attitude which actively
> prevents the everyday populace from riding bicycles in the first place.
> Boo, hiss!
Well, as a novice cyclist (haven't ridden since I was a teen, when I
got run off the road and into a *&@#$&!! cornfield) who is considering
buying a bike to ride to work, I have to say the "nice bike for under
$1000" line made me laugh cynically, but the idea that buying the
cheapest bike you can find is bad economy because it's going to suck
and you'll hate it? That part makes perfect sense. I sew, and I have
told many people that if you want to do more than just a little
mending now and then, stay away from the $100 machines. If you've got
a small budget, you are far better off buying a better used machine
for the same money. I hear later that they fell for the temptation of
a brand-new $100 machine and have decided that they "just don't have
the talent for sewing". It ain't the talent, it's the tools....
> SEE ALSO: advice on riding bicycles for NORMAL people, courtesy of Jamie
> Zawinsky: http://jwz.livejournal.com/883988.html
>
> Anyone who thinks that a 100km ride is a "nice relaxing afternoon" is
> disqualified from that discussion. Sorry, -=> Jym <=-.
>
> --Dave
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
flodmail: ci...@nethelp.no flodhome: Bærum, Norway
flodweb: http://www.flodnak.com/
[1] Of course, he discovered this about thirty seconds before deciding
that helmets make you look like a geek, so I'm still in Mom Worry
Mode, just for different reasons.
Brian Huntley
>
> Well, as a novice cyclist (haven't ridden since I was a teen, when I
> got run off the road and into a *&@#$&!! cornfield) who is considering
> buying a bike to ride to work, I have to say the "nice bike for under
> $1000" line made me laugh cynically, but the idea that buying the
> cheapest bike you can find is bad economy because it's going to suck
> and you'll hate it? That part makes perfect sense. I sew, and I have
> told many people that if you want to do more than just a little
> mending now and then, stay away from the $100 machines. If you've got
> a small budget, you are far better off buying a better used machine
> for the same money. I hear later that they fell for the temptation of
> a brand-new $100 machine and have decided that they "just don't have
> the talent for sewing". It ain't the talent, it's the tools....
It's similar in bikes - getting a good quality used bike is better
than a cheap new bike for most people. And bikes last a surprising
long time - my son and wife both ride Mixte framed bikes from the
1970s.
Joy Beeson
<brian_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And bikes last a surprising
> long time - my son and wife both ride Mixte framed bikes from the
> 1970s.
And if I ever see one of those for sale, I'll grab it. (unless it
doesn't fit.) I'm getting way too old to ride a diamond frame.
Though it hasn't been too bad since I learned to put my leg over knee
first when mounting, and pull it back foot first when dismounting.
cryptoguy
> Wait a minute. You're advocating a rear-view mirror, which is a rather
> unusual piece of equipment, but you link to a blog (link below) that
> tells people not to bother with LIGHTS? Lights (as the resident
> teenager has finally discovered, hallelujah)[1], are NOT to help *you*
> see, but to help *others* see *you*. When I'm driving in the dark or
> iffy light conditions, I often want to stop and thank the bicyclists
> who are carrying lights, because I've had a few scary incidents with
> Invisible Cyclists, though thankfully I have always seen them in the
> nick of time.
>
> And battery-powered bike lights are dirt cheap.
Hear, Hear!
I've encountered entire families riding at night, without lights, and
without even reflectors. Darwin bait. I want to see the cops take
their kids away for reckless endangerment.
I'm not very fond of those flashing LED lights some cyclists
use now, but they are far preferable to nothing at all.
When I was in highschool, I lived in a rural part of Britain,
and at night it was so dark that the headlight on the bike
was a necessity to see where you were going - you
could run off the road without it, or more likely into a
pothole or road debris.
Back then, my bike lights ran off a dynamo leaning
against the wheel. If you stopped, the lights went out.
Peter Trei
aemeijers
>
> When I was in highschool, I lived in a rural part of Britain,
> and at night it was so dark that the headlight on the bike
> was a necessity to see where you were going - you
> could run off the road without it, or more likely into a
> pothole or road debris.
>
> Back then, my bike lights ran off a dynamo leaning
> against the wheel. If you stopped, the lights went out.
>
> Peter Trei
>
>
Either the lube in them would get so gummed up it was like riding uphill
all the time, they dragged so bad, or the rubber cover on the drive peg
would get glazed, and they wouldn't spin at all, especially if the wheel
was at all wet. I very quickly switched to a battery light, or did
without. (No, I did not ride in traffic without lights after dark.)
If gas gets so expensive that I have to seriously contemplate riding
after dark at my advanced age, I'll probably rig up a coat of many
colors of flashing LEDs, hooked to a fanny pack of rechargeable
batteries. (Think Electric Horseman on acid....)
--
aem sends...
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not very fond of those flashing LED lights some cyclists
> use now, but they are far preferable to nothing at all.
I'm a huge fan of them as rear lights. A steady red just blends into
the background, what with all those tail lights, road signs, traffic
signals, etc. A random-pattern flashing LED powered off two AA
batteries isn't going to be bright enough to interfere with anyone's
vision, even in fog (and I've seen that a few times), but it really
grabs one's attention.
> Back then, my bike lights ran off a dynamo leaning
> against the wheel. If you stopped, the lights went out.
Thank God for advances in battery technology. Bike lights have gotten
*amazing*. In fact, modern bicycle lighting has created a whole new
sport that was impossible only ten or so years ago: nighttime mountain
biking.
Of course, these same advances in battery technology also made it
possible for those two jackasses in the Panera Bread store earlier
today who just had to share the most intimate details of a) an
apartment search and b) the traffic conditions on 28th Street with
everyone within a 100' radius ...
Jym Dyer
> in the Frazz story arc last week, where Frazz tries to get
> Coach Hacker to ride a bicycle, he insists he wears a helmet.
=v= Unlike _Yehuda_Moon_, _Frazz_ must deal with newspaper
editors.
=v= Imagine the letters they'd get if he *didn't* do that.
Nearly every newspaper in the U.S. is convinced that helmets
are the be-all and end-all of bicycling safety, to the extent
that every collision reported includes the detail of whether
or not the bicyclist had a helmet on, no matter how irrelevant
that may be to the situation at hand.
> SEE ALSO: advice on riding bicycles for NORMAL people,
> courtesy of Jamie Zawinsky:
http://jwz.livejournal.com/883988.html
=v= I saw that, and even passed it around in bicycling circles,
but I mostly don't agree with it. But I have a messenger bag
and clip shoes, so he's not going to listen to me.
> Anyone who thinks that a 100km ride is a "nice relaxing
> afternoon" is disqualified from that discussion. Sorry,
> -=> Jym <=-.
=v= Then I'm not disqualified. 100km ain't what I consider
relaxing. 100 miles, on the other hand ...
<_Jym_>
racs...@gmail.com
> \
>
> Nearly every newspaper in the U.S. is convinced that helmets
> are the be-all and end-all of bicycling safety, to the extent
> that every collision reported includes the detail of whether
> or not the bicyclist had a helmet on, no matter how irrelevant
> that may be to the situation at hand.
There's a big difference between the "be all and end all" of safety
and the kind of precaution that makes sense. This newspaper editor was
convinced of the latter by talking to his son who has worked in a
Level 1 Trauma Center, and by a friend whose son was a courier in
Boston until he hit his (unprotected) head on the asphalt and died.
No, it's not the be-all and end-all. I don't think someone wearing a
helmet can safely run through red lights as if the rules of the road
don't apply to bicyclists, or can safely swoop around corners without
checking the cross-traffic or can safely ride sitting up no hands or
can safely ride with a iPod plugged into his ears. And I suppose it's
asking a lot to expect people who do stupid things like that to at
least make one intelligent choice.
Meanwhile, we ask the police about seatbelts in auto accidents and
about helmets in bike and motorcycle accidents. It's part of the
story, just like the BAC and if someone entered the intersection
against the light and whether the drivers were properly licensed.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> Of course not. But his advice was for the casual cyclists--the ones who
> would normally hop into a car to drive a couple of miles to have a cup
> of coffee at their local Starbucks.
No cyclist is casual enough for inflating bicycle tires at a gas
station to make any sense. The time to top off your tire pressure is
*before* the ride.
Not to mention that pressure gauges designed for automobile tires
don't work all that well with bicycle tires.
And I *don't* pump up my 90-lb tires "weekly" -- and what's the big
deal about a few strokes with a floor pump anyway? Even when you are
using schraeder valves, pumping up a tire isn't all that hard.
Quote from http://jwz.livejournal.com/883988.html :
"Getting them to replace a flat for you costs $20 and takes 10
minutes, including the tube, and you don't get dirty."
Repairing the flat yourself takes ten minutes, and you don't have to
carry the bike to the shop. And flats hardly ever happen within
walking distance of a bike shop.
"I'm a little (just a little!) surprised at the level of vitriol this
one provoked. It's like I farted in bike-church. You'd think I was
making fun of Linux or something."
After opening the conversation with gratuitous insults couched in
unprintable language, he pretends to be surprised that he got
precisely the reaction that he was fishing for. I often wonder how
folks get that hard up for attention.
I didn't bother reading the responses to see whether they really are
"vitriol", because he admits to editing them.
Telling innocent newbies that doing suicidally-dangerous things is all
right as long as it makes them *feel* safe probably helped him get
hostile responses. At least he didn't advise beginners to ride into
the teeth of the traffic so that they can see what hits them. Not
that I *noticed* anyway.
--
Joy Beeson
Mike Marshall
>Even when you are
>using schraeder valves, pumping up a tire isn't all that hard.
You must use Poser valves... ?
-Mike "it's a bike joke"
Mike Beede
wrote:
> (As for the "mirrors are unusual on bicycles"--if they were common,
> there wouldn't exactly be any point in advocating them. Plus, they're
> legally mandated on every other kind of wheeled transportation--there
> must be a good reason for that.)
Roller blades got mirrors!
Mike Beede
Jym Dyer
> Meanwhile, we ask the police about seatbelts in auto accidents
> and about helmets in bike and motorcycle accidents. It's part
> of the story, just like the BAC and if someone entered the
> intersection against the light and whether the drivers were
> properly licensed.
=v= Most of those things are usually relevant. For collisions
involving bicycles, it is *sometimes* relevant whether the
rider was wearing a helmet, and in those cases it makes sense
to report it. Usually, though, presence or absence of a helmet
is completely irrelevant to the material facts of the incident.
=v= Helmet use is actually a complicated issue: first-order
effects are obvious, which is why I wear a helmet, but second-
order effects are very complicated. It is also a contentious
issue: the Usenet helmet flamewar has been going on, nonstop,
since the advent of net.bicycle in the 1980s. Contentious
but irrelevant details generally only fuel heated reactions.
(I'll note that you yourself just responded to my mention
of helmet use by conflating it with a laundry list of gripes
about unsafe, but unrelated, actions by certain bike-riders.)
=v= I used to live in the state bordering yours, which thinks
that municipal emergency medical services is some form of
socialism and so relies on volunteers like myself. One thing
I learned in my EMT training is that drivers who don't use
seatbelts have a much greater propensity for losing control
of their cars, and for the same reason, passengers who don't
use seatbelts have a greater propensity for interfering with
drivers, causing them to lose control of their cars!
=v= So I appreciate that you inquire about this information,
but I have to tell you, I see this very relevant fact reported
far less frequently than the usually irrelevant detail about
helmet use.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
| "Getting them to replace a flat for you costs $20 and takes
| 10 minutes, including the tube, and you don't get dirty."
> Repairing the flat yourself takes ten minutes, and you don't
> have to carry the bike to the shop. And flats hardly ever
> happen within walking distance of a bike shop.
=v= One problem with certain bike shops is that the employees
will give you attitude. If you walk into a bike shop like that
with a flat tire that you can't/won't fix yourself, you'll be
branded as a n00b and treated with disdain. They'll tell you to
come back in an hour and it probably still won't be done then.
=v= I don't know where jwz lives, but I know where his nightclub
is. The three closest bike shops are attitude-laden. I guess
he gets all his flats near home. :^)
<_Jym_>
racs...@gmail.com
> > = Mike Peterson
> > Meanwhile, we ask the police about seatbelts in auto accidents
> > and about helmets in bike and motorcycle accidents. It's part
> > of the story, just like the BAC and if someone entered the
> > intersection against the light and whether the drivers were
> > properly licensed.
>
> =v= Most of those things are usually relevant. For collisions
> involving bicycles, it is *sometimes* relevant whether the
> rider was wearing a helmet, and in those cases it makes sense
> to report it. Usually, though, presence or absence of a helmet
> is completely irrelevant to the material facts of the incident.
>
investigation and then write a follow up story, with, of course,
comments not only from the medical examiner but from pro- and anti-
helmet advocates who may agree or disagree with the medical findings?
I think I'll just ask if the guy was wearing a helmet. (What I will
NOT do is ask the police officer to speculate on whether it made a
difference -- that's an irresponsible question to ask and one that is
even more irresponsible to answer.)
> =v= Helmet use is actually a complicated issue: first-order
> effects are obvious, which is why I wear a helmet, but second-
> order effects are very complicated. It is also a contentious
> issue: the Usenet helmet flamewar has been going on, nonstop,
> since the advent of net.bicycle in the 1980s. Contentious
> but irrelevant details generally only fuel heated reactions.
> (I'll note that you yourself just responded to my mention
> of helmet use by conflating it with a laundry list of gripes
> about unsafe, but unrelated, actions by certain bike-riders.)
Wait for it ...
>
> =v= I used to live in the state bordering yours, which thinks
> that municipal emergency medical services is some form of
> socialism and so relies on volunteers like myself. One thing
> I learned in my EMT training is that drivers who don't use
> seatbelts have a much greater propensity for losing control
> of their cars, and for the same reason, passengers who don't
> use seatbelts have a greater propensity for interfering with
> drivers, causing them to lose control of their cars!
So the person who takes precautions in a car is probably a safer
driver all around, but the biker who doesn't wear a helmet is just as
cautious in every other respect as the person who does?
What about a person who doesn't use seatbelts and also doesn't wear a
helmet? Do his skills and attitudes change when he switches between
his car and his bike???
>
> =v= So I appreciate that you inquire about this information,
> but I have to tell you, I see this very relevant fact reported
> far less frequently than the usually irrelevant detail about
> helmet use.
You need to read better newspapers, and you need to write letters to
the ones that do a poor job. But for gods sake don't tell them that
helmet use is in a different category than running red lights, etc. Go
back and read what you wrote about seat belt users.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org
<racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the person who takes precautions in a car is probably a safer
> driver all around, but the biker who doesn't wear a helmet is just
> as cautious in every other respect as the person who does?
In my extensive experience, absolutely yes. In fact, the road-riding
guys I know who eschew helmets (on some rides) tend to be the guys who
look before acting, injure themselves less frequently, and frankly are
all-around better (not just "safer") riders.
This doesn't apply on trails, where going helmetless is flat-out
insanity. I literally don't know one single person (out of maybe a
hundred and fifty friends and acquaintances who trail bike) who does
that.
Joy Beeson
> =v= One problem with certain bike shops is that the employees
> will give you attitude. If you walk into a bike shop like that
> with a flat tire that you can't/won't fix yourself, you'll be
> branded as a n00b and treated with disdain. They'll tell you to
> come back in an hour and it probably still won't be done then.
There have been only three times I went to a bike shop after breaking
down. All three times, they dropped their scheduled work to get me
back on the road. The last time, though, I had time to walk to the
library and back while the mechanic finished up the job he was working
on when I limped in. <leghorn>Fawchunately</leghorn> I always carry a
hat and walking shoes for just such an emergency.
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> Assuming that isn't just Cyclist Hyperbole,
More like "I used to hang out with one of the guys who scrapes the
bodies off the pavement" hyperbole.
Most of the time, you do get away with running red lights, darting
across roads from unexpected places, doing wheelies in the oncoming
lane of State Farm Road at its intersection with Western Avenue, etc.,
but statistics do show that you are safer if you learn and follow the
rules of the road.
> what bits of his advice do
> you consider Putting The Good Cyclist At Immediate Risk Of Death?
"Do whatever you need to do to feel safe. "
Note that he didn't say "Do whatever you need to do to BE safe." --
it's "Do whatever you need to do to FEEL safe." Which, in isolation,
sounds like a nit-picky error of word choice -- were it not that he
repeatedly emphasizes that whenever somebody who might conceivably
know a little something tries to tell you what actually *is* safe, you
should put your fingers in your ears.
I have encountered many bike riders who feel ever so much safer when
they are coming toward me in my lane. So far, I've succeeded in not
running over any of them.
The number of wrong-way riders dropped to almost nothing when I moved
from New York's Capital District (Albany, Schenectady, and Troy) to a
small town in Indiana, but it may rise again now that our beloved city
fathers have decided that the bike-lane sections of the Greenway
should be painted down the left sides of one-way roads.
Peter B. Steiger
> I have encountered many bike riders who feel ever so much safer when
> they are coming toward me in my lane.
OK, I'm lost... why would it make a difference from the driver's point of
view whether you approach a cyclist from ahead or behind? I don't see
how either way is inherently more or less safe.
Riding towards you, the cyclist can see you from a ways off and move out
of your way; if they ride with the flow, they may not see you (if they
have mirrors at all) or hear you until it's too late.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes where
you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com (yes, that's a new address)
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid>
wrote:
> Most of the time, you do get away with running red lights, darting
> across roads from unexpected places, doing wheelies in the oncoming
> lane of State Farm Road at its intersection with Western Avenue,
> etc., but statistics do show that you are safer if you learn and
> follow the rules of the road.
Not that I'm denouncing "the rules of the road" as such, you
understand, but ... what "statistics" are these, specifically?
> I have encountered many bike riders who feel ever so much safer when
> they are coming toward me in my lane. So far, I've succeeded in not
> running over any of them.
This is one of those very non-obvious safety questions. Lots of
cyclists have died because some jackass was changing the radio and
drifted onto the shoulder right into them. If those guys had been
going "against traffic" on the shoulder, at least some of them would
most certainly be alive today, seeing as it's easier to see a car
traveling in the shoulder with one's eyes than with the back of one's
neck. Not that there aren't other drawbacks, and I'm not saying
riding against traffic is safer, but if you're on a wide shoulder,
it's at least a question worth considering. (I almost always ride
with traffic, BTW. But I don't spend a lot of time riding on two-way
roads, and almost never when there is significant traffic.)
> The number of wrong-way riders dropped to almost nothing when I
> moved from New York's Capital District (Albany, Schenectady, and
> Troy) to a small town in Indiana, but it may rise again now that our
> beloved city fathers have decided that the bike-lane sections of the
> Greenway should be painted down the left sides of one-way roads.
The "with / against traffic" issue aside, I fail to see what is even
slightly wrong with that idea.
Mike Beede
"Peter B. Steiger" <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
> OK, I'm lost... why would it make a difference from the driver's point of
> view whether you approach a cyclist from ahead or behind? I don't see
> how either way is inherently more or less safe.
>
> Riding towards you, the cyclist can see you from a ways off and move out
> of your way; if they ride with the flow, they may not see you (if they
> have mirrors at all) or hear you until it's too late.
I imagine it's a function of closing speed?
Mike Beede
Sherwood Harrington
> In the previous article, Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Most of the time, you do get away with running red lights, darting
>> across roads from unexpected places, doing wheelies in the oncoming
>> lane of State Farm Road at its intersection with Western Avenue,
>> etc., but statistics do show that you are safer if you learn and
>> follow the rules of the road.
> Not that I'm denouncing "the rules of the road" as such, you
> understand, but ... what "statistics" are these, specifically?
I, too, would be interested in seeing who actually went to the trouble of
devising, funding, executing, publishing, and disseminating the results of
such a study.
Probably the same folks who would study which is better if you're going to
repeatedly immerse your head in a bucket of water: that the total number
of motions be even or odd.
Tinsley could get a month of strips out of it.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Well Duh, California
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I wonder how electric cars will affect the question? I was almost run over,
on foot, in the parking lot a few weeks ago by a backing up Prius. I never
really took especial care in that case because I could always hear when anyone
started their engine and put the thing in motion. Not anymore..
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Mike Marshall
>This is one of those very non-obvious safety questions. Lots of
>cyclists have died because some jackass was changing the radio and
>drifted onto the shoulder right into them. If those guys had been
>going "against traffic" on the shoulder, at least some of them would
>most certainly be alive today,
There is danger in riding a little bike amongst cars. There's a ton of
bikes around, on two lane curvy, hilly secondary roads where all the cars
are going at least 55. It would be suicidal to ride into the face of
traffic around here.
What about those bikers who ride three abreast? They usually have nice
bikes and those obscene spandex clothes, you'd think they'd have a clue...
-Mike "my new bike has six cylinders..."
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Dave Brown <dagb...@LART.ca> wrote, quoting
me:
> > This is one of those very non-obvious safety questions. Lots of
> > cyclists have died because some jackass was changing the radio and
> > drifted onto the shoulder right into them.
>
> him and stay away from the cars that are drifting over? It's not
> very hard to simply brake when a car starts heading towards you from
> the side.
That's good advice if the drift happens exactly as he's passing you.
It won't work out so well if he comes right up your butt.
I've personally been clipped by those big-ass rear view mirrors
rednecks put on their pickmeup trucks. Of course, this was in the
same place where I had about three beer cans tossed at me per week
(also, mostly, from pickmeup trucks): Florida. I lived there for two
years and concluded that it is a place where one simply does not ride
a bicycle on the road, ever.
> I hear that rear-view mirrors exist. Hey wait, isn't that how this
> whole thread got started?
I tried one of those things (helmet-mounted) about five years ago and
simply could not get used to it, so I gave it up. Maybe a handlebar-
mounted version would be more helpful, but it seems to me it would be
more distraction than help.
Mike Beede
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
> I've personally been clipped by those big-ass rear view mirrors
> rednecks put on their pickmeup trucks. Of course, this was in the
> same place where I had about three beer cans tossed at me per week
> (also, mostly, from pickmeup trucks): Florida. I lived there for two
> years and concluded that it is a place where one simply does not ride
> a bicycle on the road, ever.
First of all, I believe it is "pickemup truck." Second, I
have a bit of supporting evidence to the Florida thing: there
appeared to be no motorcycles on the road. My conclusion after
a week of Florida traffic was that it was selection--they'd
all been killed by the car drivers.
Mike Beede
Mark Jackson
> In article <g5d2nc$dt9$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>> I've personally been clipped by those big-ass rear view mirrors
>> rednecks put on their pickmeup trucks.
> First of all, I believe it is "pickemup truck."
Not if you're the guy on the bicycle.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
The law does not pretend to punish everything that is
dishonest. That would seriously interfere with business.
- Clarence Darrow
aemeijers
> In the previous article, Dave Brown <dagb...@LART.ca> wrote, quoting
> me:
>>> This is one of those very non-obvious safety questions. Lots of
>>> cyclists have died because some jackass was changing the radio and
>>> drifted onto the shoulder right into them.
>> Might I recommend that the cyclist pay attention to the cars around
>> him and stay away from the cars that are drifting over? It's not
>> very hard to simply brake when a car starts heading towards you from
>> the side.
>
> That's good advice if the drift happens exactly as he's passing you.
> It won't work out so well if he comes right up your butt.
>
> I've personally been clipped by those big-ass rear view mirrors
> rednecks put on their pickmeup trucks. Of course, this was in the
> same place where I had about three beer cans tossed at me per week
> (also, mostly, from pickmeup trucks): Florida. I lived there for two
> years and concluded that it is a place where one simply does not ride
> a bicycle on the road, ever.
>
>> I hear that rear-view mirrors exist. Hey wait, isn't that how this
>> whole thread got started?
>
> I tried one of those things (helmet-mounted) about five years ago and
> simply could not get used to it, so I gave it up. Maybe a handlebar-
> mounted version would be more helpful, but it seems to me it would be
> more distraction than help.
be the better part of valor. (especially younger less experienced
cyclists.) Yes, I know they have the same rights as cars, yada yada
yada. But the laws of physics have little respect for the laws of man.
Basically, any road with a stripe, is probably a lousy road to ride on,
other than maybe shortly after dawn on Sunday. Riding on a winding
narrow country road with multiple blind corners borders on the suicidal,
IMHO. They have painted bike lanes on many streets and semi-rural
2-laners around here. Most of these bike lanes are seldom if ever used,
but the city fathers proudly point to them and say- 'see- we are doing
our part!' (as required by their federal money grant for street repairs.)
Standard disclaimer- I always try to be aware of cyclists, and give them
as much room as I can- again, especially the little ones who are
traveling under sensory overload and don't even know I'm there. But a
lot of the ones I see riding- especially the spandex crowd- sometimes
seem to let their righteous self-image get in the way of their common sense.
--
aem sends...
Peter B. Steiger
> -Mike "my new bike has six cylinders..."
Mine goes up to 11.
Mike Marshall
>In article <g5cmgs$kc4$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
dagb...@LART.ca (Dave Brown) writes:
>You got yourself a Z1300?
OK... it's just new to me... (They quit making them in 2003, mine's a 97, sold
my bought-new Hardly Ridenson when I learned about Valkyries...)
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Dave Brown <dagb...@LART.ca> wrote:
> If he's already blatantly violating the easiest rule there is to
> follow, you have no idea what he's going to do, which makes you, as
> a driver, assuming you even notice him in the first place, create
> more of a hazard taking measures to avoid him.
Just so I have this straight ... your contention is that a driver,
traveling along on the right side of the road, will see a cyclist
traveling in the opposite shoulder, 12-15 feet away at his closest
point of approach, and will immediately ... um ... what, exactly?
Yank his steering wheel suddenly, flying over the guard rail and into
the raging river below? His head will explode? He'll get home and
send his bank account information to Nigerian spammers?
I see cyclists doing this all the time, and while it does tickle my
"That's dumb" sensor somewhere in the back of my brain, I've never,
ever observed anything I'd call a hazard to others in the practice.
Sherwood Harrington
> [...] He'll get home and
> send his bank account information to Nigerian spammers?
> I see cyclists doing this all the time, [...]
I thought as much.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Jym Dyer
> So we should wait three months until there has been a complete
> investigation and then write a follow up story, with, of
> course, comments not only from the medical examiner but from
> pro- and anti- helmet advocates who may agree or disagree with
> the medical findings?
=v= Here's a tip: unless it involves a minor blow to the head,
the helmet is irrelevant. Parameters are spelled out pretty
clearly in the helmet safety ratings.
=v= In my part of the world, complete investigations are pretty
rare when it's "just" a cyclist, but when they do happen they
generally focus on material facts of the collision. And if
relevant information comes up in the investigation, they may
indeed be considered newsworthy. I presume you know the drill.
> So the person who takes precautions in a car is probably a
> safer driver all around, but the biker who doesn't wear a
> helmet is just as cautious in every other respect as the
> person who does?
=v= You are totally missing my point, and what's more, you are
again demonstrating the editorial bias that is my complaint!
=v= My point isn't that sobriety and seat belt use indicate a
safer driver, but that both are germane because both have an
effect on the driver's ability to handle the vehicle. This
is not the case with a bicycle helmet. Nor is it appropriate
to infer and imply that bicyclists without helmets are to be
regarded as unsafe. And print that fact just to show 'em.
> You need to read better newspapers, and you need to write
> letters to the ones that do a poor job.
=v= You assume too much. I've been a bicycle and transportation
advocate and activist for years and have been plugged into the
media's handling of these issue for years, from newspapers that
range from good to bad. I've been quoted in some of the better
ones on the topic. I also know a thing or two about journalism,
as my estimable editor (and former r.a.c.s regular) recognized
when he gave me a column that focused on media criticism.
> But for gods sake [sic] don't tell them that helmet use is
> in a different category than running red lights, etc.
=v= You're the one who conflated the categories. I make no
association between the two, because there is none.
=v= As I wrote, the first-order benefits of wearing a helmet
are obvious (and that's why I wear one), but the second-
order benefits are much more complicated. Briefly:
o There's been some indication that motorists are less
cautious around helmeted bicyclists.
o There's been some indication that bicyclists with helmets
may take more risks.
o There's a definite correlation between numbers of riders
on the road and safety, but also indications that mandatory
helmet use discourages ridership.
I'm not interested in going further into the details of a helmet
flamewar that has, as I mentioned, been raging for two decades
elsewhere on Usenet. Read rec.bicycles.soc if you're actually
interested in the details.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: I was involved in a civil suit for a hit and run that I
was an eyewitness at. A cyclist not wearing a helmet was hit by
an SUV right in front of me, and the SUV-driver fled the scene.
The lawyer for the driver's insurance company made these two
arguments, without missing a beat:
o Because the cyclist who was hit wasn't wearing a helmet,
she was unsafe, a menace to society, etc., which is why
the driver had to flee the scene.
o Because I was wearing a helmet, I looked menacing in
appearance, etc., which is why the driver had to flee
the scene.
I expect this sort of thing from lawyers; I hold journalists
to a higher standard.
Jym Dyer
> = J.D. Baldwin
>> I have encountered many bike riders who feel ever so much
>> safer when they are coming toward me in my lane. So far,
>> I've succeeded in not running over any of them.
> This is one of those very non-obvious safety questions.
> Lots of cyclists have died because some jackass was changing
> the radio and drifted onto the shoulder right into them. If
> those guys had been going "against traffic" on the shoulder,
> at least some of them would most certainly be alive today ...
=v= Statistically it is much safer to be in the lane with
traffic, not against it. The same statistics show that the
main population of wrong-way riders are children, but even a
super-alert adult has less reaction time when traveling into
an oncoming car vs. a rear-ending car. If it's that much of
a concern, get a rear view mirror.
=v= There's also a difference between in the lane and on the
shoulder, of course.
<_Jym_>
Joy Beeson
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
> OK, I'm lost... why would it make a difference from the driver's point of
> view whether you approach a cyclist from ahead or behind? I don't see
> how either way is inherently more or less safe.
Imagine yourself driving down a quiet, narrow city street where nobody
is in a hurry: cars move at thirty miles per hour and bikes at ten.
Scenario one:
=========
You approach a bicycle from behind. If nobody is coming the other
way -- and if you can *see* that nobody is coming the other way -- you
move into the oncoming lane until the bicycle is safely behind you.
Nobody is endangered, inconvenienced, or terrified.
If it isn't safe to pass, you need to slow down to ten miles per hour
before you reach the bike. Closing speed is only twenty miles per
hour to start with, and drops rapidly once you take your foot off the
accelerator, so it's possible that you won't even have to brake. You
have to follow at ten miles per hour until you find a place where it's
safe to pass or the bike rider finds a place where he can pull off the
road to let you by, but nobody is endangered or terrified.
Scenario two:
=========
You see a bike rider coming at you in your lane at forty miles per
hour. The only space you can dodge into is the space where he
actually belongs and he might dodge too, so your only option is to hit
the brakes, keep straight and predictable, and pray that you can come
to a full and complete dead stop before you meet. If you succeed in
coming to a full and complete dead stop, you are still going to crash
unless the bike rider dodges or stops. The rider is endangered, you
are terrified, and everybody is inconvenienced.
Real Life:
======
The corner of 155/State Farm and Western Avenue/US 20: I'm on State
Farm, waiting to turn right onto 20. There are two lanes going my way
on 20. The car or light truck that's coming is in the lane I don't
want, but by the Grace of God and all His Angels, I wait until it has
passed to pull into the intersection.
If I hadn't waited, I'd have had my choice between crashing into a
heavy vehicle and smearing the wrong-way rider who suddenly appeared.
As it was, I suffered only an elevated heart rate for a time, and the
wrong-way rider was completely oblivious that anything had happened.
> Riding towards you, the cyclist can see you from a ways off and move out
> of your way; if they ride with the flow, they may not see you (if they
> have mirrors at all) or hear you until it's too late.
Walking on the left is a good idea *only* when it's possible to get
completely out of the roadway when you see a vehicle coming. If you
can't get out of the road, what good does it do you to see what you
can't get out of the way of?
In traffic law, responsibility lies with the person who can see what's
going on. The responsibility of the vehicle being overtaken is to
keep straight, refrain from speeding up just as the other guy has
committed himself, and generally be predictable.
Though the Greenway designers here are as crazy as junebugs, the folks
who organize marathon races here have the wit to realize that a pack
of twenty or forty runners *can't* get out of the way, and that folks
intent on winning a race aren't likely to realize that they need to
try. The marathon routes are marked on the right side of the road
where they belong. Having encountered a pack of marathoners coming at
me in my lane in my former home, I feel like singing praises every
time I see arrows on the pavement.
I did manage to come to a stop before we met, and the pack split --
some going into the ditch and some into the oncoming lane. It took
*ages* for them all to get by so that I could continue on my way.
Peter B. Steiger
> You see a bike rider coming at you in your lane at forty miles per hour.
Ah! Now I see the gap in my understanding - it never occurred to me a
cyclist would occupy the actual road lane. I simply don't bike anywhere
that there isn't enough shoulder/sidewalk space for me to stay off the
road. I also don't think I ever owned a bike / was in shape enough to
come close to 40 MPH even when I was young and skinny and spent most
waking hours on a bicycle.
Sherwood Harrington
>> You see a bike rider coming at you in your lane at forty miles per hour.
> Ah! Now I see the gap in my understanding - it never occurred to me a
> cyclist would occupy the actual road lane.
I so very much wish they wouldn't, but a small percentage of bicyclists
here in the Santa Cruz Mountains will take up a full lane of a 2-lane
road, especially going downhill. It's especially irksome when one does
that traveling at about 35mph, 10mph slower than the speed limit, and will
*not* pull over under any circumstances. That speed is slow enough to
bottle up traffic behind the cyclist, but too fast to safely pass on the
sinuous roads.
David Armour
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:42:34 -0400, "Peter B. Steiger"
> <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>
>> OK, I'm lost... why would it make a difference from the driver's point of
>> view whether you approach a cyclist from ahead or behind? I don't see
>> how either way is inherently more or less safe.
>
> Imagine yourself driving down a quiet, narrow city street where nobody
> is in a hurry: cars move at thirty miles per hour and bikes at ten.
> Scenario one:
> =========
> You approach a bicycle from behind. If nobody is coming the other
> way -- and if you can *see* that nobody is coming the other way -- you
> move into the oncoming lane until the bicycle is safely behind you.
> Nobody is endangered, inconvenienced, or terrified.
I had an idea a few years back for a line of cycling clothes that
I meant to call "Think Backhoe". They would've been warning-sign
yellow with a backhoe-silhouette inside a cartoon-thought
cloud-balloon. I imagined the graphic would have operated at
something approaching a sub-liminal level on both cyclists and
motorists, to reinforce the notion of a cyclist being merely a
slow-moving vehicle, like a backhoe, which admittedly motorists
can find frustrating to be stuck behind, but which is also large
and intimidating-enough to encourage sucking-it-up. Unfortunately
for the sake of unilaterally raising the safety levels on our
continent's roadways, I also had so much fun imagining my then
adolescent nieces as the primary sales force unleashed on
unsuspecting, primarily male staffed, bicycle stores that I never
got around to doing anything, but I digress.
Thanks for the summaries, btw; v. apt. FTR, I ride on the right
(at least in Canada), wear a helmet although I do prefer riding
without one, love my handlebar mirror, and have never been as fit
as the four months one summer when I had to ride forty-five
minutes two times a day, five days a week. I also wouldn't trust
the average motorist further than I could spit .... his vehicle.
My wariness has served me well, for the most part, except for the
time the guy in the mason's truck turned right just as I passed
his right rear (so I couldn't have seen his turn signal, if he'd
even had it on.) I can testify that trying to plough up a modern,
paved street with bare elbows doesn't turn out well for the
elbows; amazingly I escaped, apart from the raw elbows, with
mostly bruises only, although they were some of the most
impressively colored I have ever seen. That, and the still-vivid
memory of the time I still had enough of to imagine the truck's
rear wheels going over my hips and me doing The Human Toothpaste
Tube routine.
We've managed to change public-opinion about drinking and driving
in little more than one generation, but somehow I'm still
pessimistic about changing attitudes to cycling in N. America.
Ten dollar a gallon gasoline might do it, I suppose. But it also
might just make motorists *more* surly. <sigh>
Dann
news:g5h8pm$2sv$1...@blue.rahul.net.
It's strictly a defensive measure. Nothing personal is intended I'm
sure.
If drivers would have treated bicyclists like backhoe's in the past
[thanks David for the brilliant if unpursued idea], then I'd be willing
to bet the cyclists would be a bit more accomodating today. Sharing the
road and respecting everyone else's right to be there being not in vogue
for several decades.
Of course, one of the reasons why I don't ride a bike to work is because
of how I see my neighbors in cars treat my neighbors on bikes.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Ernest Dotson
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:44:31 -0400, Joy Beeson sez:
>
> > You see a bike rider coming at you in your lane at forty miles per hour.
>
> Ah! Now I see the gap in my understanding - it never occurred to me a
> cyclist would occupy the actual road lane. I simply don't bike anywhere
> that there isn't enough shoulder/sidewalk space for me to stay off the
> road. I also don't think I ever owned a bike / was in shape enough to
> come close to 40 MPH even when I was young and skinny and spent most
> waking hours on a bicycle.
I think Joy is adding vectors there to get the 40 mph closing speed.
That is, the car is moving at 30 mph and the bike at 10. 10mph is
actually a pretty leisurely bike ride.
I'll note that riding bicycles on the sidewalk is illegal in most
places. That's not to say that cyclers should take up the middle of
the road if they can avoid it. Most places I've lived have laws that
state they should try to stick to the right side of the lane unless
turning. Actually riding your bike on the sidewalk (as opposed to
walking it) is a pretty bad thing though.
--
Ernest
Cedar
Absolutely! The biggest issue is at intersections. The driver of a car
looks to see if pedestrians are coming before going into an
intersection. S/he looks in certain areas, because s/he's expecting
someone walking to be going at a certain speed, and is not looking for
a bicyclist who is going much faster.
Ernest Dotson
The other concern, of course, is for the pedestrians. Cyclists
zooming down the sidewalks isn't particularly safe for *them*.
--
Ernest
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Depends. I could take pictures of miles of sidewalk around here and not
catch a single pedestrian on film.
Sherwood Harrington
> On 14 Jul 2008, Sherwood Harrington said the following in
> news:g5h8pm$2sv$1...@blue.rahul.net.
>> Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:44:31 -0400, Joy Beeson sez:
>>
>>>> You see a bike rider coming at you in your lane at forty miles per
>>>> hour.
>>
>>> Ah! Now I see the gap in my understanding - it never occurred to me
>>> a cyclist would occupy the actual road lane.
>>
>> I so very much wish they wouldn't, but a small percentage of
>> bicyclists here in the Santa Cruz Mountains will take up a full lane
>> of a 2-lane road, especially going downhill. It's especially irksome
>> when one does that traveling at about 35mph, 10mph slower than the
>> speed limit, and will *not* pull over under any circumstances. That
>> speed is slow enough to bottle up traffic behind the cyclist, but too
>> fast to safely pass on the sinuous roads.
>>
> It's strictly a defensive measure. Nothing personal is intended I'm
> sure.
> If drivers would have treated bicyclists like backhoe's in the past
> [thanks David for the brilliant if unpursued idea], then I'd be willing
> to bet the cyclists would be a bit more accomodating today. Sharing the
> road and respecting everyone else's right to be there being not in vogue
> for several decades.
If the cyclists I refer to treated other traffic the way backhoe drivers
do (or drivers of other heavy, slow-moving equipment), then there wouldn't
be an issue. Heavy equipment operators generally recognize that they are
an impediment to the flow of traffic, and will pull over to let it pass at
the first opportunity. These cyclists won't do that.
In areas like this in which what few roads exist are two-lane, common
courtesy demands that we all do what we can to allow traffic to flow
safely and as freely as possible. Arrogant, self-righteous, shiny-butted
jackasses from the city with nothing better to do with their time and
energy than clog up local traffic don't help the general image of
recreational bicyclists.
In my humble opinion.
David Armour
> In article <4vXek.103022$gc5.93523@pd7urf2no>,
> David Armour <d.f.a...@shawONOspam.ca> wrote:
>> I had an idea a few years back for a line of cycling clothes that
>> I meant to call "Think Backhoe". They would've been warning-sign
>> yellow with a backhoe-silhouette inside a cartoon-thought
>> cloud-balloon. I imagined the graphic would have operated at
>> something approaching a sub-liminal level on both cyclists and
>> motorists, to reinforce the notion of a cyclist being merely a
>> slow-moving vehicle, like a backhoe, which admittedly motorists
>> can find frustrating to be stuck behind, but which is also large
>> and intimidating-enough to encourage sucking-it-up.
>
Okay, I'm up to two "brilliant"s in one thread. I'm going to have
to lie down for a bit; the weight of this swollen head...
> Treat a bicycle the same way you'd treat a backhoe. It's a slow-moving
> vehicle which you're more than welcome to pass--as soon as it's safe to
> do so.
>
> This assumes, of course, that the bicycle rider is also aware of the
> rules of the road, and actually follows them. But if that can be beaten
I meant the outcome to follow on with the cyclist in a similarly
subliminal fashion as a consequence of the consideration of the
cartoon-y graphic (whether or not it was actually purchased and
put on); I kinda knew that the cyclist was the weak link in the
proposed chain of sneaky-ish motivational strategizin', but I
also think that considering yourself akin to a backhoe as a
cyclist has a good chance of encouraging your own behaviour
modification, in a positive way. For some cyclists, I'm sure, the
modification would move in the direction of making them more
aggravating, but then those Darwinian principles tend to kick
in... :c)
> into their heads, then suddenly everything becomes that much safer for
> everyone. Awesome.
Okay, two brilliants and an "awesome". Woozy now.
But thanks anyway!
And I've always liked the cartoon-y aspects of the idea, viz.
using the cloud-balloon graphic to telegraph the thought concept,
cross linguistic barriers, etc. (Which reminds me, are you
still in Japan?)
Mike Marshall
>> bicyclists here in the Santa Cruz Mountains will take up a full lane
>> of a 2-lane road, especially going downhill. It's especially irksome
>> when one does that traveling at about 35mph, 10mph slower than the
>> speed limit, and will *not* pull over under any circumstances.
They'll pull over. You're not working hard enough to get their attention.
-Mike
nickelshrink
I sure wish this were true here. We even have a paved bicycle
path along the pretty-heavily used 2-lane road through our town,
but its apparently not Good Enough for the Serious Cyclists,
most of whom refuse to use it. They know perfectly effing well
they're backing people up behind them. They. do. not. care.
I'm not sure what i could do to get more of their attention than i
already have, besides blasting the horn. I honestly would have
before now, but it really is not my intention to startle one so badly
he falls under my wheels.
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
I don't think butting them with your bumper qualifies as "working
harder." But with some sort of humane cow-catcher attachment, I
could endorse it in limited cases. Only used responsibly, of
course.
I agree with Sherwood, by the way. The important differences are
that there are few backhoes, and they aren't being driven to
self-importantly impede the flow of other traffic.
Mike Beede
Dann
news:g5intn$ef0$1...@blue.rahul.net.
> If the cyclists I refer to treated other traffic the way backhoe
> drivers do (or drivers of other heavy, slow-moving equipment), then
> there wouldn't be an issue. Heavy equipment operators generally
> recognize that they are an impediment to the flow of traffic, and will
> pull over to let it pass at the first opportunity. These cyclists
> won't do that.
>
> In areas like this in which what few roads exist are two-lane, common
> courtesy demands that we all do what we can to allow traffic to flow
> safely and as freely as possible. Arrogant, self-righteous,
> shiny-butted jackasses from the city with nothing better to do with
> their time and energy than clog up local traffic don't help the
> general image of recreational bicyclists.
>
> In my humble opinion.
That's an opinion that I'm pretty sure I'd share were I in your shoes. I
didn't mean to suggest that the cyclists were correct in their actions.
OTOH, if the choice is between having a motorist accidentally kill you
whilst peddling on the edge of the pavement or having a motorist
purposefully kill you while you are consuming the full width of the lane,
well......
And then there's the "me first" attitude that seems to have infested our
little corne of Eden as well.
Dann
news:78fj5g...@phb.lart.ca.
> In article <xJ4fk.1665$US3....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article
>> <f25dc584-b02e-4fc8...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ernest Dotson <ewdo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The other concern, of course, is for the pedestrians. Cyclists
>> >zooming down the sidewalks isn't particularly safe for *them*.
>>
>> Depends. I could take pictures of miles of sidewalk around here and
>> not catch a single pedestrian on film.
>
> Ah yes, but that's because you're using a digital camera.
>
POTY nominee!
Mike Marshall
>I honestly would have
>before now, but it really is not my intention to startle one so badly
>he falls under my wheels.
I know how you feel, but all the bikers who don't have enough of a clue
to behave as if all cars are:
A. out to get them
or
B. being driven by blind zombies
are living on borrowed time anyhow...
-Mike
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
>
>
>In article <xJ4fk.1665$US3....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
>Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
><f25dc584-b02e-4fc8...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ernest Dotson <ewdo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The other concern, of course, is for the pedestrians. Cyclists
>> >zooming down the sidewalks isn't particularly safe for *them*.
>>
>> catch a single pedestrian on film.
>
>
Depends. I shoot most of the blog stuff digitally, but I still use a
35mm SLR for a lot of vacation and family stuff.
The no pedestrian thing is because I live in Columbia SC.
unMichael
> In article <f25dc584-b02e-4fc8-8674-a80fa2e8c...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Ernest Dotson <ewdot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 15, 9:47 am, Cedar <kristen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 15, 6:36 am, Ernest Dotson <ewdot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jul 14, 11:13 pm, "Peter B. Steiger" <see....@for.email.address>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> . Actually riding your bike on the sidewalk (as opposed to
>
> >> > walking it) is a pretty bad thing though.
>
> >> Absolutely! The biggest issue is at intersections. The driver of a car
> >> looks to see if pedestrians are coming before going into an
> >> intersection. S/he looks in certain areas, because s/he's expecting
> >> someone walking to be going at a certain speed, and is not looking for
> >> a bicyclist who is going much faster.
>
> >The other concern, of course, is for the pedestrians. Cyclists
> >zooming down the sidewalks isn't particularly safe for *them*.
>
> >--
> >Ernest
>
> Depends. I could take pictures of miles of sidewalk around here and not
> catch a single pedestrian on film.
Just curiously, are they instead walking in the street, the way some
lackwits up here do?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
No, they're driving.
I suppose the sidewalks get normal use down-town (for the people who still
go there), but in general in most of town, no. Two Notch has a small number,
but Trenholm (which I was specifically thinking of with the 'miles of sidewalk'
thing, almost none).
In fact, when we used to ride our bikes to Elementary school, we were
specifically told to use the sidewalks.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>
>
In fact, I just drove the entire (original) length of Trenholm and
part of Decker. Here's what I mean:
http://www.tednolan.net/misc/trenholm.avi
Plays fine on Linux/Bsd. If you have an absolutely stock Windows box loaded
directly from MS CDs, you may need the free xvid codec:
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Nic_XviD_Codec.htm
Brian Huntley
> In article <f3defd35-5aab-4ef3-8999-e8a784c3d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Around here (Toronto), bikes with wheels 20" or smaller may ride on
the sidewalk, regardless of the age of the rider. Anything bigger
should be in the street - as should the 20" BMX bikes with adult
riders, really.
Your video shows sidewalks that disappear, are overgrown, and that
have multiple driveway cuts per mile. Definitely not a place I'd want
to ride at 30 kph. I'm not a triathlete like Frazz or Jef, but rather
use my bike as basic transportation most of the time.
Besides, the sidewalks don't get plowed when it snows.
Nice video -thanks for sharing.
Joy Beeson
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
> I also think the knobby tire advice, for road / path commuters, is
> pretty bad.
The last time I went to the library, I parked my bike next to a bike
that appeared to have knobby tires, but on closer inspection, the
knobs were only on the sides, where they wouldn't make that horrible
noise or vibrate my hands into swelling up. And the knobs might
actually be useful on soft ground -- but I wonder what effect they
would have when one goes around a corner on pavement.
> You'd be amazed how much energy those knobs suck away.
About like a gravel road, I'd imagine. I can manage maybe one mile on
gravel, but I once rode over a hundred miles on pavement.
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid>
wrote:
> > I also think the knobby tire advice, for road / path commuters, is
> > pretty bad.
>
> The last time I went to the library, I parked my bike next to a bike
> that appeared to have knobby tires, but on closer inspection, the
> knobs were only on the sides, where they wouldn't make that horrible
> noise or vibrate my hands into swelling up. And the knobs might
> actually be useful on soft ground -- but I wonder what effect they
> would have when one goes around a corner on pavement.
The first time I went to Moab (the center of the mountain biking
universe), I got a set of Specialized Crossroads EX tires that had a
solid zig-zag tread down the center, but deep tread and knobs apart
from that. The zig-zag grabbed the slick rock like super glue, and
made for a sweet, sweet ride on the road as well. And with the knobs,
they were still quite good in dirt and on the corners. Spectacular
tires all around.
I've gone tubeless now, but if Specialized ever make this tire in a
tubeless model, I'll be all over it.
> > You'd be amazed how much energy those knobs suck away.
>
> About like a gravel road, I'd imagine. I can manage maybe one mile
> on gravel, but I once rode over a hundred miles on pavement.
I've ridden well over a hundred trail miles this week. And it's only
Wednesday. And tomorrow I head to the Big "M" trail. (But this is an
unusually big riding week for me, what with a little time off work, a
wife out of town, kids at camp and good weather. Kind of a perfect
storm.)
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
nickelshrink
Boy did that take me back! That was
quintessential Columbia. Good ol' Trenholm.
Interesting music mix!
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
nickelshrink <nickel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>
>Boy did that take me back! That was
>quintessential Columbia. Good ol' Trenholm.
>
>Interesting music mix!
>
>
>--
>pax,
>ruth
Thanks!
I wrote a program to pick songs randomly from my MP3 collection and
make jukebox cd-rs for the car. You can fit about 200 songs on a cd-r.
I never know what's coming up next, but I still have the staging directory
for that cd-r on my hard drive, so I can tell you we heard:
Mindless by Pussy Crush Tormenting from The Emotionally Fragile
Tell Her No by The Zombies
He's Got An Answer by Letters to Cleo from Wholesale Meats & Fish
Moments Like This by Peggy Lee from The Singles Collection
The Chokin' Kind Joe Simon from Beg, Scream & Shout! The Big Ol Box of 6s Soul
Bluebirds Over The Mountain by The Beach Boys from 20/20
Different Drum Stone Poneys feat. Linda Ronst from FLower Power
What Am I Living For by Chuck Willis
Sherwood Harrington
> If the cyclists I refer to treated other traffic the way backhoe drivers
> do (or drivers of other heavy, slow-moving equipment), then there wouldn't
> be an issue. Heavy equipment operators generally recognize that they are
> an impediment to the flow of traffic, and will pull over to let it pass at
> the first opportunity. These cyclists won't do that.
And, wouldn't you know it, just days later:
http://sherwords.blogspot.com/2008/07/im-happy-to-be-ok-but.html
Robin
wrote:
> And, wouldn't you know it, just days later:http://sherwords.blogspot.com/2008/07/im-happy-to-be-ok-but.html
OhmiGOD Sherwood, I'm glad you're OK too. What a story. Just reading
about it has me shuddering.
--Robin
Mike Beede
<f5103015-515c-4bf6...@v21g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Robin <rneth...@operamail.com> wrote:
That sounded unpleasant. Glad you're still with us. I'd have popped
the shifter into neutral. The engine probably has a rev limiter,
and if it doesn't, I'd have still assumed I'd have come out ahead
overall--the engine only has to run for five seconds or so to stop
the vehicle, and if they're vacuum-boosted brakes they'll go for a
little bit anyway if you don't pump them. But it sounds like you made
an optimal decision, meaning you retained your usefullness and so did
the truck.
I'd have sure opened my door when the jackass went by, too, so there's
a fair chance I'd be in jail now . . . .
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall
accelerate when I pressed the cruise control button. It must have been
terrifying for it to happen on a mountain twisty. I just used the brakes
to keep it around 80 or so, and then mashed them good at an exit and
turned it off when I was off the highway and only going 15 or 20...
Was there any interaction with the bicyclist after you got done lurching
and screeching???
-Mike
Peter B. Steiger
> And, wouldn't you know it, just days later:
> http://sherwords.blogspot.com/2008/07/im-happy-to-be-ok-but.html
Great jumpin' Jehoshaphat, that was scary reading. I handle crises
poorly; I'd have been frozen in indecision under those circumstances.
Glad you are able to tell the tale.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes where
you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com (yes, that's a new address)
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
aemeijers
2. Even at WOT, (wide open throttle), the brakes are stronger than the
engine.
3. You will NOT blow the engine dropping it in to neutral. The computer
includes a rev limiter. And that leaves your brakes and steering still
functional. Transmission may get a little smelly, but a fluid change
usually fixes that.
4. I'm surprised your steering column didn't lock, turning engine off.
Now THAT is dangerous.
5. Worst-case scenario, if brakes get hot and fail- ease it over into
ditch to scrub off speed that way. Hard on the paint, but that is what
insurance is for.
6. BTDT on getting towed and paying money for a trivial repair I coulda
done myself. The stupid feeling wears off quick.
--
aem sends...
Joy Beeson
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
[Cool-tire report deleted]
They sound as though they'd be better than knobbies in mud, too --
wouldn't make you take so much mud with you.
No slick rock around here (Northern Indiana), and I don't recall any
being mentioned in the Muddy reports I typed up for the Mohawk-Hudson
Wheelmen (New York). It was hard to clean up prose without
disturbing the mud!
I do recall some sharp shale that wrecked their tires.
The only time I ever rode in mud was on a "bike path" -- what they are
calling "greenway" these days. Never go for a ride along an old tow
path because your snow-shoe hike was rained out! When dried grass
got stuck in the mud on us, one of the riders muttered "turkey in the
straw!"
(Summary of three-page ride report deleted.)
(Icebergs! Gotta mention the stranded icebergs!)
> I've ridden well over a hundred trail miles this week. And it's only
> Wednesday. And tomorrow I head to the Big "M" trail. (But this is an
> unusually big riding week for me, what with a little time off work, a
> wife out of town, kids at camp and good weather. Kind of a perfect
> storm.)
I never was that energetic -- not even when I rode my child's-toy bike
over miles of gravel roads to get to the library.
After a September Century ride (a hundred miles on pavement) I
reminisced about how impressed I'd been with myself for being able to
ride to Colfax -- I'd trained until I could go around the four-mile
block twice, to be sure I'd get back. Then I thought for a bit . . .
on that bike, over those roads --- I'm *still* impressed with myself.
Sherwood Harrington
1. Thanks. My wife has also expressed gladness that my paycheck will
still be coming in.
2. Indeed; I now have heuristic proof of that. It's why I'm here at the
keyboard, not in a hospital bed. Or worse.
4. In retrospect, so am I -- but, by the time I turned the engine off,
the vehicle was moving very slowly and on a relatively straight part of
the highway, anyway.
6. It hasn't worn off yet.