info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Interesting risk differences between two countries.
130 views
Skip to first unread message
James
Jun 23, 2015, 5:47:40 PM6/23/15
to
John B.
Jun 23, 2015, 6:38:07 PM6/23/15
to
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:47:34 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf
Ah yes. As some great man once said. "Figures don't lie, but liars
figure"
It apparent from your reference that bicyclists never die, or at least
they don't die on the roads, as none are listed on the reference you
posted :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf
Ah yes. As some great man once said. "Figures don't lie, but liars
figure"
It apparent from your reference that bicyclists never die, or at least
they don't die on the roads, as none are listed on the reference you
posted :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
James
Jun 23, 2015, 7:06:26 PM6/23/15
to
--
JS
Andre Jute
Jun 23, 2015, 9:49:32 PM6/23/15
to
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:47:40 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
>
> --
> JS
Extremely interesting; thanks for this.
One has to wonder whether the strikingly greater safety of pedestrians when compared to cyclists in New Zealand than in Australia is a function of different rates or intensities of urbanization.
After reading your tables, I've given up the idea of buying a BMW GS... I'm too young to be an organ donor.
Andre Jute
> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
>
> --
> JS
Extremely interesting; thanks for this.
One has to wonder whether the strikingly greater safety of pedestrians when compared to cyclists in New Zealand than in Australia is a function of different rates or intensities of urbanization.
After reading your tables, I've given up the idea of buying a BMW GS... I'm too young to be an organ donor.
Andre Jute
Frank Krygowski
Jun 23, 2015, 10:19:55 PM6/23/15
to
On 6/23/2015 5:47 PM, James wrote:
> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
Very interesting! I'd like it even better if in addition to the ratios
relative to car travel, they gave at least one raw number - e.g. "xxx
fatalities per hours of travel" - for at least one mode. If they gave
one, we could deduce the rest.
The only actual per-hour figures are in the first graph, but since it's
accidents per hour (instead of fatalities or injuries) we can't tell
much from it.
But comparing pedestrians and cyclists: In New Zealand, peds have a
fatality per hour rate about 0.84 that of motorists, while cyclists have
a rate about 1.55 that of motorists. So cyclists are 1.55/0.84= 1.84
higher risk per hour exposure.
If we assume an average pedestrian speed of 3 mph or 5 kph (typical
walking pace), then a cyclist would have to travel only about 5.5 mph or
9 kph to be safer than pedestrians on a per-mile basis. IOW, in NZ,
cyclists are safer than pedestrians per mile (or km) traveled. That
last fact keeps popping up for almost every westernized country.
Australia's data is old, from the 1980s. But it shows cyclists being
safer per hour, as well as safer per mile.
Of course, none of those figures includes the health benefits from
active travel, nor the benefits to other members of society from not
using a deadly form of transport.
--
- Frank Krygowski
> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
Very interesting! I'd like it even better if in addition to the ratios
relative to car travel, they gave at least one raw number - e.g. "xxx
fatalities per hours of travel" - for at least one mode. If they gave
one, we could deduce the rest.
The only actual per-hour figures are in the first graph, but since it's
accidents per hour (instead of fatalities or injuries) we can't tell
much from it.
But comparing pedestrians and cyclists: In New Zealand, peds have a
fatality per hour rate about 0.84 that of motorists, while cyclists have
a rate about 1.55 that of motorists. So cyclists are 1.55/0.84= 1.84
higher risk per hour exposure.
If we assume an average pedestrian speed of 3 mph or 5 kph (typical
walking pace), then a cyclist would have to travel only about 5.5 mph or
9 kph to be safer than pedestrians on a per-mile basis. IOW, in NZ,
cyclists are safer than pedestrians per mile (or km) traveled. That
last fact keeps popping up for almost every westernized country.
Australia's data is old, from the 1980s. But it shows cyclists being
safer per hour, as well as safer per mile.
Of course, none of those figures includes the health benefits from
active travel, nor the benefits to other members of society from not
using a deadly form of transport.
--
- Frank Krygowski
jbeattie
Jun 23, 2015, 10:51:12 PM6/23/15
to
-- Jay Beattie.
James
Jun 23, 2015, 11:27:33 PM6/23/15
to
On 24/06/15 11:49, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:47:40 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
>> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
>>
>>
>
> On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:47:40 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
>> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
>>
>>
>
> Extremely interesting; thanks for this.
>
> One has to wonder whether the strikingly greater safety of
> pedestrians when compared to cyclists in New Zealand than in
> Australia is a function of different rates or intensities of
> urbanization.
>
Agree. No doubt there are numerous factors that influence the results.
>
> One has to wonder whether the strikingly greater safety of
> pedestrians when compared to cyclists in New Zealand than in
> Australia is a function of different rates or intensities of
> urbanization.
>
Urbanization is one. There will be cultural differences, road design,
speed limits, law enforcement, and others I'm sure.
> After reading your tables, I've given up the idea of buying a BMW
> GS... I'm too young to be an organ donor.
>
it was pinning the rider's leg. Once we had him out, with suspected
broken or dislocated shoulder, we were able lift and untangle the bike
from a barbed wire fence and rocks to get it back to road level. He
missed the left turn on to the bridge here;
<https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.31823,152.922269,3a,75y,327.03h,68.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sroIEkf_dNNbB9a8xBHYUaA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664>
Temporary Australians is what the ambos call them.
--
JS
James
Jun 23, 2015, 11:31:29 PM6/23/15
to
--
JS
Tim McNamara
Jun 24, 2015, 12:02:10 AM6/24/15
to
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 05:38:04 +0700, John B <johnbs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, riding your bike *is* good for you...
wrote:
Andre Jute
Jun 24, 2015, 12:16:18 AM6/24/15
to
Andre Jute
Tosspot
Jun 24, 2015, 2:27:48 AM6/24/15
to
On 23/06/15 23:47, James wrote:
> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
Why use per hour instead of passenger km? I mean, based on that the
faster you go the safer you'll be.
> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
Why use per hour instead of passenger km? I mean, based on that the
faster you go the safer you'll be.
Frank Krygowski
Jun 24, 2015, 10:46:52 AM6/24/15
to
But that can't be! New Zealand won't let anyone ride a bike without a
helmet, so riding a bike there must now be perfectly safe!
Oh wait... the Oz data shows that cycling was even safer back _before_
they made everyone wear helmets...
Damn. Data is just so confusing! I guess that's why so many people
ignore data and just go with anecdotes. They're _so_ much easier to
understand!
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Jun 24, 2015, 10:58:19 AM6/24/15
to
On 6/23/2015 11:27 PM, James wrote:
>
> I helped drag a new looking Ducati out of a ditch on Sunday. Initially
> it was pinning the rider's leg. Once we had him out, with suspected
> broken or dislocated shoulder, we were able lift and untangle the bike
> from a barbed wire fence and rocks to get it back to road level.
It was in the mid-1980s, IIRC, that sport bikes with racing fairings
>
> I helped drag a new looking Ducati out of a ditch on Sunday. Initially
> it was pinning the rider's leg. Once we had him out, with suspected
> broken or dislocated shoulder, we were able lift and untangle the bike
> from a barbed wire fence and rocks to get it back to road level.
first started popping up here. I liked the look of them, partly because
I've always been an aerodynamics freak. But I'm certainly not a racer.
On a motorcycle, I'm an extremely careful rider.
Anyway, I'd ridden my old BMW to work and parked in the motorcycle lot,
then looked a little jealously at a new fully-faired sport bike that
appeared there for the first time. Brand new and very sexy looking.
About a week later, I rode my motorcycle in again. That same bike was
parked there, minus its right mirror, and with scratches and gouges all
down the right side.
Going fast on a motorcycle isn't as easy as the ads make it look. And
18-year-olds prove that every day.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Jun 24, 2015, 11:08:31 AM6/24/15
to
cyclists and pedestrians.
These sorts of modal comparisons have been made dozens and dozens of
times. Sometimes they use per hour rates, sometimes per km traveled,
sometimes per trip. Each has some validity, depending on context. For
true transportation trips, I agree that per km makes more sense. One
benefit of per hour is that it's more general, and can be used to judge
non-transportation activities as well - things like swimming, e.g. That
doesn't apply to James's document, though.
BTW, it's been pointed out that "per km" rates give a sort of
unjustified bonus to motor vehicles, at least in westernized countries.
That's because limited access highways are far, far safer than
ordinary surface streets and roads; and they're used by motorists for a
large fraction of high-mileage trips. Furthermore, their use by bikes
or walkers is both forbidden and generally impractical.
So at least when comparing per kilometer rates between cars and bikes or
peds, it's more sensible to use car data for ordinary roads, and for
shorter trips - ones that a person might be willing to make by bike or
by walking. But I guess there's a limit on how detailed our data can be.
--
- Frank Krygowski
jbeattie
Jun 24, 2015, 1:56:59 PM6/24/15
to
-- Jay Beattie.
sms
Jun 24, 2015, 2:38:13 PM6/24/15
to
On 6/24/2015 10:56 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> I almost got hit last night while riding through an intersection -- basically in the crosswalk (light wouldn't turn, so I was hanging on the post beating on the button and then dropped off the curb-cut). I was proceeding straight, and the car was turning to driver's left, i.e. a left hook. I was going about five miles an hour -- a brisk pedestrian pace. I believe a very bright front flasher might have prevented this near miss. I concluded that since I was in a pedestrian facility riding at a brisk pedestrian pace that a pedestrian would have been similarly imperiled -- and thus, pedestrians should also use bright flashers and/or headlights, at least in intersections. They can be helmet mounted.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
A near hit, not a near miss.
> I almost got hit last night while riding through an intersection -- basically in the crosswalk (light wouldn't turn, so I was hanging on the post beating on the button and then dropped off the curb-cut). I was proceeding straight, and the car was turning to driver's left, i.e. a left hook. I was going about five miles an hour -- a brisk pedestrian pace. I believe a very bright front flasher might have prevented this near miss. I concluded that since I was in a pedestrian facility riding at a brisk pedestrian pace that a pedestrian would have been similarly imperiled -- and thus, pedestrians should also use bright flashers and/or headlights, at least in intersections. They can be helmet mounted.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
Front flashers are very effective for this sort of situation. In the Bay
Area, all the bike share bicycles have a front flasher. While we don't
want to pass more laws, the use of front flashers for urban and suburban
riding should be strongly encouraged, it just makes such a big
difference that it should be promoted.
Not sure if a pedestrian would have been as imperiled in your case.
Drivers look for pedestrians crossing on the opposing traffic side of
the road, but not bicycles.
In SF, on some one-way streets bicycles really need to be on the left
side because the two right lanes end up being a freeway entrance. Need
to watch out for left turning drivers in those cases.
Frank Krygowski
Jun 24, 2015, 5:32:59 PM6/24/15
to
On 6/24/2015 2:38 PM, sms wrote:
> On 6/24/2015 10:56 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>> I almost got hit last night while riding through an intersection --
>> basically in the crosswalk (light wouldn't turn, so I was hanging on
>> the post beating on the button and then dropped off the curb-cut). I
>> was proceeding straight, and the car was turning to driver's left,
>> i.e. a left hook. I was going about five miles an hour -- a brisk
>> pedestrian pace. I believe a very bright front flasher might have
>> prevented this near miss. I concluded that since I was in a pedestrian
>> facility riding at a brisk pedestrian pace that a pedestrian would
>> have been similarly imperiled -- and thus, pedestrians should also use
>> bright flashers and/or headlights, at least in intersections. They
>> can be helmet mounted.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>
> On 6/24/2015 10:56 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>> I almost got hit last night while riding through an intersection --
>> basically in the crosswalk (light wouldn't turn, so I was hanging on
>> the post beating on the button and then dropped off the curb-cut). I
>> was proceeding straight, and the car was turning to driver's left,
>> i.e. a left hook. I was going about five miles an hour -- a brisk
>> pedestrian pace. I believe a very bright front flasher might have
>> prevented this near miss. I concluded that since I was in a pedestrian
>> facility riding at a brisk pedestrian pace that a pedestrian would
>> have been similarly imperiled -- and thus, pedestrians should also use
>> bright flashers and/or headlights, at least in intersections. They
>> can be helmet mounted.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Not sure if a pedestrian would have been as imperiled in your case.
> Drivers look for pedestrians crossing on the opposing traffic side of
> the road, but not bicycles.
Hmm. I'd think a 5 mph bicyclist would be slightly _more_ visible than
> Drivers look for pedestrians crossing on the opposing traffic side of
> the road, but not bicycles.
a 5 mph pedestrian.
Does SMS think there's something about a bicycle that makes a person
invisible? That could explain a lot of his recommendations.
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
Jun 24, 2015, 9:13:56 PM6/24/15
to
twist the throttle :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
jbeattie
Jun 24, 2015, 9:18:55 PM6/24/15
to
The upside is at the moment of near impact, the driver panic stopped and gave me that lame waive -- like they always do. I hate the waive. I want cash for my emotional distress. Cash would allow me to buy a muy macho flashero. Honestly, though, I do miss the punishment flasher on my Seca 1400 -- f*** with me, and I'll burn your retinas. I'll burn the retinas of your unborn offspring.
-- Jay Beattie.
Joe Riel
Jun 24, 2015, 11:44:41 PM6/24/15
to
--
Joe Riel
Rolf Mantel
Jun 25, 2015, 3:30:02 AM6/25/15
to
Am 25.06.2015 um 03:13 schrieb John B.:
>> Going fast on a motorcycle isn't as easy as the ads make it look. And
>> >18-year-olds prove that every day.
> Actually "going fast on a motorcycle" is a pretty simple matter - just
> twist the throttle:-)
This might be correct on a small motorbike, but once you exceed the
>> Going fast on a motorcycle isn't as easy as the ads make it look. And
>> >18-year-olds prove that every day.
> Actually "going fast on a motorcycle" is a pretty simple matter - just
> twist the throttle:-)
100hp league, you'll get a number of hairy surprises (I never drove
those beasts myself).
Who expects that the front wheel lifts if you open up quickly at 60 mph
with a passenger?
Andre Jute
Jun 25, 2015, 7:29:44 AM6/25/15
to
Andre Jute
John B.
Jun 25, 2015, 7:59:09 AM6/25/15
to
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:21:18 +0200, Rolf Mantel <Rolf....@web.de>
wrote:
100 HP? I had a 250cc Yamaha that would lift the front wheel in 1,2,3
gears if you got on it a little :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
gears if you got on it a little :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
AMuzi
Jun 25, 2015, 8:03:55 AM6/25/15
to
short and bloodless, unlike some:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ12nblSIc4
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
AMuzi
Jun 25, 2015, 8:13:15 AM6/25/15
to
On 6/25/2015 2:21 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
http://ktla.com/2015/06/24/gopro-camera-captures-head-on-collision-between-motorcycle-and-fire-truck/
(PeteCresswell)
Jun 25, 2015, 8:48:19 AM6/25/15
to
Per John B.:
--
Pete Cresswell
>100 HP? I had a 250cc Yamaha that would lift the front wheel in 1,2,3
>gears if you got on it a little :-)
YDS-6?
>gears if you got on it a little :-)
--
Pete Cresswell
sms
Jun 25, 2015, 8:58:07 AM6/25/15
to
On 6/24/2015 6:18 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> The upside is at the moment of near impact, the driver panic stopped and gave me that lame waive -- like they always do. I hate the waive. I want cash for my emotional distress. Cash would allow me to buy a muy macho flashero. Honestly, though, I do miss the punishment flasher on my Seca 1400 -- f*** with me, and I'll burn your retinas. I'll burn the retinas of your unborn offspring.
In San Francisco, the difference in driver behavior towards pedestrians
> The upside is at the moment of near impact, the driver panic stopped and gave me that lame waive -- like they always do. I hate the waive. I want cash for my emotional distress. Cash would allow me to buy a muy macho flashero. Honestly, though, I do miss the punishment flasher on my Seca 1400 -- f*** with me, and I'll burn your retinas. I'll burn the retinas of your unborn offspring.
versus cyclists is quite evident.
Drivers look for different road users in different places. Your
description is not too clear, but it sounds like you were either on a
one way street riding on the left side, or you were riding opposing
traffic, or you were in a country where they drive on the left: "I was
proceeding straight, and the car was turning to driver's left, i.e. a
left hook."
Basically try to stay out of pedestrian crosswalks while on a bicycle.
left hook."
Drivers aren't looking for bicycles in pedestrian crosswalks, even when
the cyclist is riding as slowly as a pedestrian walks. But sometimes
using a crosswalk is unavoidable.
Looking for cyclists riding opposing traffic, on a sidewalk, and
entering intersections is a real issue where I am. Some parents must
think their kids are safer on the sidewalk than in the bike lane.
Tosspot
Jun 25, 2015, 9:06:46 AM6/25/15
to
On 25/06/15 14:48, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per John B.:
>> 100 HP? I had a 250cc Yamaha that would lift the front wheel in 1,2,3
>> gears if you got on it a little :-)
>
> YDS-6?
My CBRX-1100 is pretty mental in 1-2-3 and 4. I once tried pinning the
> Per John B.:
>> 100 HP? I had a 250cc Yamaha that would lift the front wheel in 1,2,3
>> gears if you got on it a little :-)
>
> YDS-6?
throttle and short shifting on the rev-limiter. I lasted until 3rd...
Rolf Mantel
Jun 25, 2015, 9:40:02 AM6/25/15
to
not much happening. Certainly you can lift the front whell when opening
up at 10 mph.
jbeattie
Jun 25, 2015, 9:52:05 AM6/25/15
to
-- Jay Beattie.
Duane
Jun 25, 2015, 10:25:16 AM6/25/15
to
Parents preferring their children ride on sidewalks rather than in the
road? Doesn't sound surprising.
--
duane
sms
Jun 25, 2015, 12:29:26 PM6/25/15
to
On 6/25/2015 7:23 AM, Duane wrote:
<snip>
> Children here are allowed to ride on the sidewalk until the age of 12.
> Parents preferring their children ride on sidewalks rather than in the
> road? Doesn't sound surprising.
Kids zoom down the ramps on sidewalks at intersections without looking.
Many drivers don't stop behind the crosswalk and they don't expect fast
moving cyclists on the sidewalk. 12 is too old for sidewalk riding IMVAIO.
Near me an incident occurred where a vehicle hit a child who was coming
off a crosswalk. Fortunately the vehicle had high enough clearance, and
the child was small enough, that the injuries were not life threatening.
But it was traumatic to see the kid's bike under the minivan.
<snip>
> Children here are allowed to ride on the sidewalk until the age of 12.
> Parents preferring their children ride on sidewalks rather than in the
> road? Doesn't sound surprising.
Many drivers don't stop behind the crosswalk and they don't expect fast
moving cyclists on the sidewalk. 12 is too old for sidewalk riding IMVAIO.
Near me an incident occurred where a vehicle hit a child who was coming
off a crosswalk. Fortunately the vehicle had high enough clearance, and
the child was small enough, that the injuries were not life threatening.
But it was traumatic to see the kid's bike under the minivan.
Duane
Jun 25, 2015, 12:46:15 PM6/25/15
to
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/2015 7:23 AM, Duane wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Children here are allowed to ride on the sidewalk until the age of 12.
>> Parents preferring their children ride on sidewalks rather than in the
>> road? Doesn't sound surprising.
>
> Kids zoom down the ramps on sidewalks at intersections without looking.
> Many drivers don't stop behind the crosswalk and they don't expect fast
> moving cyclists on the sidewalk. 12 is too old for sidewalk riding IMVAIO.
>
Depends a lot on the kid and the sidewalk I think. At 10 my son was
> On 6/25/2015 7:23 AM, Duane wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Children here are allowed to ride on the sidewalk until the age of 12.
>> Parents preferring their children ride on sidewalks rather than in the
>> road? Doesn't sound surprising.
>
> Kids zoom down the ramps on sidewalks at intersections without looking.
> Many drivers don't stop behind the crosswalk and they don't expect fast
> moving cyclists on the sidewalk. 12 is too old for sidewalk riding IMVAIO.
>
following me on the road. But we don't really have sidewalks where I live.
I wouldn't have taken him in the city at that age. Too much traffic -
pedestrian and auto.
> Near me an incident occurred where a vehicle hit a child who was coming
> off a crosswalk. Fortunately the vehicle had high enough clearance, and
> the child was small enough, that the injuries were not life threatening.
> But it was traumatic to see the kid's bike under the minivan.
the street chasing a balloon. Luckily the driver was aware of what was
happening. This was on foot. Kids react without thinking sometime.
--
duane
(PeteCresswell)
Jun 25, 2015, 1:24:55 PM6/25/15
to
Per Duane:
maybe 3 years old, just *runs* out between my vehicle and the one next
to it into the path of parking-lot traffic - mother in hot pursuit.
If one of those 20-mph-in-parking-lots yahoos had been coming along
there would have been an awful mess.
--
Pete Cresswell
>
>My son broke out of my grip once and ran between two parked cars and into
>the street chasing a balloon. Luckily the driver was aware of what was
>happening. This was on foot. Kids react without thinking sometime.
I was putting my surf ski on top of my vehicle yesterday and this kid,
>My son broke out of my grip once and ran between two parked cars and into
>the street chasing a balloon. Luckily the driver was aware of what was
>happening. This was on foot. Kids react without thinking sometime.
maybe 3 years old, just *runs* out between my vehicle and the one next
to it into the path of parking-lot traffic - mother in hot pursuit.
If one of those 20-mph-in-parking-lots yahoos had been coming along
there would have been an awful mess.
--
Pete Cresswell
avag...@gmail.com
Jun 25, 2015, 1:30:47 PM6/25/15
to
Frank Krygowski
Jun 25, 2015, 3:20:41 PM6/25/15
to
On 6/25/2015 8:58 AM, sms wrote:
> On 6/24/2015 6:18 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>> The upside is at the moment of near impact, the driver panic stopped
>> and gave me that lame waive -- like they always do. I hate the
>> waive. I want cash for my emotional distress. Cash would allow me to
>> buy a muy macho flashero. Honestly, though, I do miss the punishment
>> flasher on my Seca 1400 -- f*** with me, and I'll burn your retinas.
>> I'll burn the retinas of your unborn offspring.
>
> In San Francisco, the difference in driver behavior towards pedestrians
> versus cyclists is quite evident.
>
> Drivers look for different road users in different places. Your
> description is not too clear, but it sounds like you were either on a
> one way street riding on the left side, or you were riding opposing
> traffic, or you were in a country where they drive on the left: "I was
> proceeding straight, and the car was turning to driver's left, i.e. a
> left hook."
That sounds perfectly clear to me. "Left hook" is well-defined in
> On 6/24/2015 6:18 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>> The upside is at the moment of near impact, the driver panic stopped
>> and gave me that lame waive -- like they always do. I hate the
>> waive. I want cash for my emotional distress. Cash would allow me to
>> buy a muy macho flashero. Honestly, though, I do miss the punishment
>> flasher on my Seca 1400 -- f*** with me, and I'll burn your retinas.
>> I'll burn the retinas of your unborn offspring.
>
> In San Francisco, the difference in driver behavior towards pedestrians
> versus cyclists is quite evident.
>
> Drivers look for different road users in different places. Your
> description is not too clear, but it sounds like you were either on a
> one way street riding on the left side, or you were riding opposing
> traffic, or you were in a country where they drive on the left: "I was
> proceeding straight, and the car was turning to driver's left, i.e. a
> left hook."
cycling. And most of us know Jay lives in Oregon, and we know which
country Oregon is in. And which side of the road Oregonians drive on.
> Basically try to stay out of pedestrian crosswalks while on a bicycle.
> Drivers aren't looking for bicycles in pedestrian crosswalks, even when
> the cyclist is riding as slowly as a pedestrian walks.
as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
same speed?
Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?
--
- Frank Krygowski
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Jun 25, 2015, 4:57:09 PM6/25/15
to
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:29:23 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:
Illegal here to ride in a crosswalk, regardless of age. You can ride
on the sidewalk - but crosswalks are for PEDESTRIANS ONLY - so you
walk the bike in the crosswalk, or ride in the traffic lane
wrote:
on the sidewalk - but crosswalks are for PEDESTRIANS ONLY - so you
walk the bike in the crosswalk, or ride in the traffic lane
jbeattie
Jun 25, 2015, 6:46:51 PM6/25/15
to
-- Jay Beattie.
Andre Jute
Jun 25, 2015, 7:32:19 PM6/25/15
to
On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 11:46:51 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> .... doubt most people use flashers strategically and then shut them off,
You don't know when the next incident in which you require extra visibility will arrive. So, if you fit them at all, you need to keep blinkies running all the time you're on the bike.
But tactical use can be as little as angling the front blinkie sideways or downwards at night so as not to blind motorists. My front blinkie has several clickstops I use for this purpose.
Andre Jute
Who knows how many times my blinkies saved my life when even my helmet wouldn't?
> .... doubt most people use flashers strategically and then shut them off,
You don't know when the next incident in which you require extra visibility will arrive. So, if you fit them at all, you need to keep blinkies running all the time you're on the bike.
But tactical use can be as little as angling the front blinkie sideways or downwards at night so as not to blind motorists. My front blinkie has several clickstops I use for this purpose.
Andre Jute
Who knows how many times my blinkies saved my life when even my helmet wouldn't?
sms
Jun 25, 2015, 7:35:38 PM6/25/15
to
On 6/25/2015 3:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> I was being snarky about pedestrians and flashers.
Don't do that. some people have a hard enough time understanding
> I was being snarky about pedestrians and flashers.
lighting technology, please don't add to their confusion.
> Flashers do increase conspicuity. I just think daytime flashers are overkill in most situations. I suppose that is why flashers come with on/off switches,
off when you reach your destination. Even dynamo lights usually have
on/off switches.
> but I doubt most people use flashers strategically and then shut them off, particularly in SF, which must be like riding through a disco at commute hour -- or a press conference.
cross traffic other than some driveways onto some of the piers. The
evening ride is not as fun but if you take route along the Embarcadero
it's not bad. You can ride on the bay side on the MUP but I choose not
to because it's pretty slow. Now you also have baseball fans at times,
like last night and many of them started drinking early. In fact today
was a game at noon and there were baseball fans on the train already
drinking at 10 a.m..
Flashers are on in the daytime. Even the bike share bicycles all have
front flashers. Few people in this area are dumb enough to not use front
and rear flashers (steady front light at night).
John B.
Jun 25, 2015, 7:40:57 PM6/25/15
to
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:48:16 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:
>Per John B.:
>>100 HP? I had a 250cc Yamaha that would lift the front wheel in 1,2,3
>>gears if you got on it a little :-)
>
>YDS-6?
It started out as a YDS-4. And than there were some modifications :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>Per John B.:
>>100 HP? I had a 250cc Yamaha that would lift the front wheel in 1,2,3
>>gears if you got on it a little :-)
>
>YDS-6?
--
cheers,
John B.
avag...@gmail.com
Jun 25, 2015, 7:50:28 PM6/25/15
to
OREGONIANS DRIVE ON YOUR SIDE OF THE ROAD
Sir Ridesalot
Jun 25, 2015, 8:13:17 PM6/25/15
to
Cheers
Sir Ridesalot
Jun 25, 2015, 8:15:42 PM6/25/15
to
On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 7:35:38 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> On 6/25/2015 3:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> > I was being snarky about pedestrians and flashers.
>
> Don't do that. some people have a hard enough time understanding
> lighting technology, please don't add to their confusion.
Gads that's rich coming from you with your overly bright Chinese flashlights or strobe-like ultra bright flashing lights. Either of those really piss off other road users who are unfortunate enough to get one shining in their face at night.
>
> > I was being snarky about pedestrians and flashers.
>
> Don't do that. some people have a hard enough time understanding
> lighting technology, please don't add to their confusion.
Cheers
Frank Krygowski
Jun 25, 2015, 10:56:47 PM6/25/15
to
On 6/25/2015 7:35 PM, sms wrote:
> On 6/25/2015 3:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>
>> Flashers do increase conspicuity. I just think daytime flashers are
>> overkill in most situations. I suppose that is why flashers come with
>> on/off switches,
>
> The reason lights have on/off switches is because you want to turn them
> off when you reach your destination. Even dynamo lights usually have
> on/off switches.
Obviously, the on-off switches are not only for when you reach your
> On 6/25/2015 3:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>
>> Flashers do increase conspicuity. I just think daytime flashers are
>> overkill in most situations. I suppose that is why flashers come with
>> on/off switches,
>
> The reason lights have on/off switches is because you want to turn them
> off when you reach your destination. Even dynamo lights usually have
> on/off switches.
destination. If that were their only purpose, they would not be present
on dynamo lights, because the dynamo lights waste no energy when
stopped. The standlights would run for a couple minutes, but that's no
problem at all.
The reason for on-off switches on dynamo lights, as on battery lights,
is that lights are usually needed only when it's dark.
And of course, there are lights with sensors that turn on automatically
in the dark. Those are intended to be off in the daytime, and there's
no great carnage because of their design.
>
>> but I doubt most people use flashers strategically and then shut them
>> off, particularly in SF, which must be like riding through a disco at
>> commute hour -- or a press conference.
>
>
> Flashers are on in the daytime. Even the bike share bicycles all have
> front flashers.
Odd. The ones we used in France did not. The ones that were
> Flashers are on in the daytime. Even the bike share bicycles all have
> front flashers.
demonstrated in the meeting at our local MPO last month did not.
> Few people in this area are dumb enough to not use front
> and rear flashers (steady front light at night).
whenever they ride is dumb?
IOW, _all_ these people? https://vimeo.com/71482086
--
- Frank Krygowski
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
jbeattie
Jun 26, 2015, 1:03:49 AM6/26/15
to
Here's a herd of stupid people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbFWEv_S5C8 I do believe, however, that flashers increase conspicutity -- along with the ghastly safety green jerseys, but where does it all end. Safety vests, flags, sirens? Groan.
-- Jay Beattie.
Rolf Mantel
Jun 26, 2015, 3:10:02 AM6/26/15
to
Am 25.06.2015 um 16:23 schrieb Duane:
on the sidewalk till age 10 (a police administered 'cycling in traffic'
course is on the school curriculum around age 10).
It's more the adults who ride on the sidewalks here.
> sms<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Looking for cyclists riding opposing traffic, on a sidewalk, and entering
>> intersections is a real issue where I am. Some parents must think their
>> kids are safer on the sidewalk than in the bike lane.
> Children here are allowed to ride on the sidewalk until the age of 12.
> Parents preferring their children ride on sidewalks rather than in the
> road? Doesn't sound surprising.
In Germany, children must ride on the sidewalk till age 8 and may ride
>> Looking for cyclists riding opposing traffic, on a sidewalk, and entering
>> intersections is a real issue where I am. Some parents must think their
>> kids are safer on the sidewalk than in the bike lane.
> Children here are allowed to ride on the sidewalk until the age of 12.
> Parents preferring their children ride on sidewalks rather than in the
> road? Doesn't sound surprising.
on the sidewalk till age 10 (a police administered 'cycling in traffic'
course is on the school curriculum around age 10).
It's more the adults who ride on the sidewalks here.
John B.
Jun 26, 2015, 7:02:29 AM6/26/15
to
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:06:35 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:13:52
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:58:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/23/2015 11:27 PM, James wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I helped drag a new looking Ducati out of a ditch on Sunday. Initially
>>>> it was pinning the rider's leg. Once we had him out, with suspected
>>>> broken or dislocated shoulder, we were able lift and untangle the bike
>>>> from a barbed wire fence and rocks to get it back to road level.
>>>
>>>It was in the mid-1980s, IIRC, that sport bikes with racing fairings
>>>first started popping up here. I liked the look of them, partly because
>>>I've always been an aerodynamics freak. But I'm certainly not a racer.
>>> On a motorcycle, I'm an extremely careful rider.
>>>
>>>Anyway, I'd ridden my old BMW to work and parked in the motorcycle lot,
>>>then looked a little jealously at a new fully-faired sport bike that
>>>appeared there for the first time. Brand new and very sexy looking.
>>>
>>>About a week later, I rode my motorcycle in again. That same bike was
>>>parked there, minus its right mirror, and with scratches and gouges all
>>>down the right side.
>It's doing it repeatedly on ordinary roads without breaking stuff or
>hurting yourself that's hard.
>
>BTDT, and came out unscathed, owing to learning my limits before
>exceeding them.
>
>But I also marshaled races for the guys who's limits are way beyond my
>comprehension - and even some of them don't come out of it all that
>well.
>
>The ability of a motorcycle to allow the inexperienced to gain access
>to more power and speed than they can cope with is well known, and
>race replica types only make that worse.
I find the little squatty bikes with the big gas tank and the clip on
bars a bit humorous. I can only assume that they don't ride them very
much. Back when I was riding I found that for trips high bars were the
ideal thing, and they worked pretty well around town too :-)
I can only imagine how stiff one would get hunched over the tank for,
say 8 or ten hours :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:13:52
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:58:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/23/2015 11:27 PM, James wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I helped drag a new looking Ducati out of a ditch on Sunday. Initially
>>>> it was pinning the rider's leg. Once we had him out, with suspected
>>>> broken or dislocated shoulder, we were able lift and untangle the bike
>>>> from a barbed wire fence and rocks to get it back to road level.
>>>
>>>It was in the mid-1980s, IIRC, that sport bikes with racing fairings
>>>first started popping up here. I liked the look of them, partly because
>>>I've always been an aerodynamics freak. But I'm certainly not a racer.
>>> On a motorcycle, I'm an extremely careful rider.
>>>
>>>Anyway, I'd ridden my old BMW to work and parked in the motorcycle lot,
>>>then looked a little jealously at a new fully-faired sport bike that
>>>appeared there for the first time. Brand new and very sexy looking.
>>>
>>>About a week later, I rode my motorcycle in again. That same bike was
>>>parked there, minus its right mirror, and with scratches and gouges all
>>>down the right side.
>>>
>>>Going fast on a motorcycle isn't as easy as the ads make it look. And
>>>18-year-olds prove that every day.
>>
>>>Going fast on a motorcycle isn't as easy as the ads make it look. And
>>>18-year-olds prove that every day.
>>
>>Actually "going fast on a motorcycle" is a pretty simple matter - just
>>twist the throttle :-)
>
>Well, yeah.
>>twist the throttle :-)
>
>It's doing it repeatedly on ordinary roads without breaking stuff or
>hurting yourself that's hard.
>
>BTDT, and came out unscathed, owing to learning my limits before
>exceeding them.
>
>But I also marshaled races for the guys who's limits are way beyond my
>comprehension - and even some of them don't come out of it all that
>well.
>
>The ability of a motorcycle to allow the inexperienced to gain access
>to more power and speed than they can cope with is well known, and
>race replica types only make that worse.
I find the little squatty bikes with the big gas tank and the clip on
bars a bit humorous. I can only assume that they don't ride them very
much. Back when I was riding I found that for trips high bars were the
ideal thing, and they worked pretty well around town too :-)
I can only imagine how stiff one would get hunched over the tank for,
say 8 or ten hours :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
Duane
Jun 26, 2015, 7:15:19 AM6/26/15
to
often enforced.
Riding against traffic is illegal as well and rarely enforced but an 18
year old cyclist is in critical condition this morning. He was riding
against traffic when the report said he hit the motorist. The driver
wasn't charged since the rider was going against traffic. Better if riders
were ticketed for this I think.
--
duane
Rolf Mantel
Jun 26, 2015, 9:00:02 AM6/26/15
to
Am 26.06.2015 um 13:02 schrieb John B.:
> I find the little squatty bikes with the big gas tank and the clip on
> bars a bit humorous. I can only assume that they don't ride them very
> much. Back when I was riding I found that for trips high bars were the
> ideal thing, and they worked pretty well around town too:-)
The use case for the 'clip on bars' does not seem to exist in the USA.
> I find the little squatty bikes with the big gas tank and the clip on
> bars a bit humorous. I can only assume that they don't ride them very
> much. Back when I was riding I found that for trips high bars were the
> ideal thing, and they worked pretty well around town too:-)
Above 80 mph, high bars make steering a little bit complicated (like
you're unable to push one side forwards and you need to pull stronger on
the opposite side instead).
Squatting low reduces air resistance significantly, allowing you to
reach a bigger max speed on a small engine.
When accelerating, it is easier to keep your front wheel on the ground
the further forwards your weight is.
Take a Harley for laid back (US) riding tours but not for fast German
motorways (I preferred the first variety as well but understood the
impacts of that decision).
sms
Jun 26, 2015, 2:12:56 PM6/26/15
to
On 6/25/2015 10:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
<snip>
> My wife? She just looked in to the garage (making sure the garage door was shut), and she says "you left your flasher on." Damn. I decided to run my flea watt flasher on the way home -- part of my conspicuity study. It really worked. Nobody hit me from any direction!
Yes, in Frank's world that would count as absolute proof. A data point
of one.
> Anyway, it was light when I came home and I forgot to turn it off. So, my wife asks me "why were you running it during the day, anyway." I answered that it made me more visible. Her response . . . "weird." Gads, my own wife. She's chiding me for using a safety device. I better check to see she hasn't upped my life insurance . . . Another 48 Hours Mystery.
Usually a spouse that questions your use of proven safety equipment is
up to something. Be careful. Check your quick-releases.
This morning someone reminded me to turn off my flasher in the bike car
on Caltrain.
I thought San Francisco would be crazy today after the SCOTUS decision
but it was very quiet.
--
"It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
you've told them about a superior alternative your responsibility is
fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace." Mark Crispin,
inventor of the IMAP protocol.
<snip>
> My wife? She just looked in to the garage (making sure the garage door was shut), and she says "you left your flasher on." Damn. I decided to run my flea watt flasher on the way home -- part of my conspicuity study. It really worked. Nobody hit me from any direction!
of one.
> Anyway, it was light when I came home and I forgot to turn it off. So, my wife asks me "why were you running it during the day, anyway." I answered that it made me more visible. Her response . . . "weird." Gads, my own wife. She's chiding me for using a safety device. I better check to see she hasn't upped my life insurance . . . Another 48 Hours Mystery.
up to something. Be careful. Check your quick-releases.
This morning someone reminded me to turn off my flasher in the bike car
on Caltrain.
I thought San Francisco would be crazy today after the SCOTUS decision
but it was very quiet.
--
"It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
you've told them about a superior alternative your responsibility is
fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace." Mark Crispin,
inventor of the IMAP protocol.
avag...@gmail.com
Jun 26, 2015, 3:42:28 PM6/26/15
to
Message has been deleted
avag...@gmail.com
Jun 26, 2015, 10:13:50 PM6/26/15
to
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 5:47:40 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
>
> --
> JS
flatness, out of date AUS stats ...... max activity since 1985...hiding ?
the potential danger rises, as previous ranted.
> <http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf>
>
> --
> JS
flatness, out of date AUS stats ...... max activity since 1985...hiding ?
the potential danger rises, as previous ranted.
Frank Krygowski
Jun 26, 2015, 11:37:34 PM6/26/15
to
On 6/26/2015 9:11 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:02:25
> If you have much wind on your chest, you really need to be leaning
> forward pretty steeply so that you don't get sore forearms from
> hanging on against the wind.
> And of course, there aren't many (if any) bikes with an 8-10 hour
> range.
> My record was on an XBR500S, which is both economical and with a large
> tank (a rare combination), which I managed to run from brim-full to
> low on reserve without putting a foot on the ground. 5 (imp)
> gallons/just under 23 litres (they only claimed 20 litres, but you
> could just get 23 in from empty if you dribbled the last couple of
> litres in to get right up to the top of the silly little tube that was
> supposed to stop the auto-shutoff filler nozzles), 5 hours, 320 miles.
> I had a sore backside and was a little stiff, but serviced myself and
> refilled the bike, then continued on my way with no problems.
> I suspect that bladder capacity may be a limit even if you extended
> the fuel range.
>
> I've never heard of anyone managing any further than 320 miles, or
> longer than 5 hours without putting a foot on the ground, so it is
> probably some kind of record.
> Even if you had the fuel (and bladder) range, there can't be many
> routes in the UK where you could achieve that, and even less so now
> that the roads are even more congested.
I don't know about records, but if you're interested in guys who ride
long distances on motorcycles, this is a place to start:
http://www.ironbutt.com
For tales of adventures,
http://www.ironbutt.com/about/ArchivedStories.cfm?GetDesiredRide=1
Here's a specific tale from a BMW site,
http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?64403-Longest-Continuous-Motorcycle-Ride
===================================================
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) June 26, 2008
San Diego BMW Motorcycles in San Diego, CA, is excited to share the
recent news of one determined man's journey, successfully accomplished.
His name is Gary Orr, and he is the co-owner of San Diego BMW
Motorcycles. For the last few months, Gary had been carefully
orchestrating a trip from California to Florida, which began June 11,
2008, and concluded June 12, 2008. He rode a BMW K 1200 LT motorcycle
equipped with SPOT GPS and XM Satellite Radio. He towed a trailer which
carried 75 gallons of gas; this amount of gasoline provided him with
enough fuel for the entire cross-country trip. Gary's incentive behind
the project was to be the first human in history to travel from
California to Florida, without stopping- for anything. This meant no
interruptions of travel for food, sleep, restroom, traffic lights,
traffic, road construction, border patrol, police, weather or any other
variable of fate.
The one man show began in a public parking lot in Ocean Beach (San
Diego) CA, and ended 35 hours later in Madison, Florida. He wore a BMW
Rally 2 Jacket that was generously packed with snacks to get him through
the trip. In order to stay hydrated, he ran a hose from his water tank
that was mounted on the trailer, to his mouth. Gary constructed a unique
gas pumping system which used a momentary action switch that transferred
the gasoline from the tank on the trailer to the motorcycle gas tank.
According to Gary and his SPOT GPS personal tracking device, he did not
stop for 2,232 miles. The interstate 10 was used almost exclusively. At
the few stop lights and signs that were encountered, Gary carefully
implemented a 'slow and roll' technique, which, at absolutely no point
in time, required him to completely stop his motorcycle; he simply just
reduced his speed until the light turned green and it was safe to pass
through.
=========================================================
As they say, nothing exceeds like excess.
--
- Frank Krygowski
> John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:02:25
> forward pretty steeply so that you don't get sore forearms from
> hanging on against the wind.
> And of course, there aren't many (if any) bikes with an 8-10 hour
> range.
> My record was on an XBR500S, which is both economical and with a large
> tank (a rare combination), which I managed to run from brim-full to
> low on reserve without putting a foot on the ground. 5 (imp)
> gallons/just under 23 litres (they only claimed 20 litres, but you
> could just get 23 in from empty if you dribbled the last couple of
> litres in to get right up to the top of the silly little tube that was
> supposed to stop the auto-shutoff filler nozzles), 5 hours, 320 miles.
> I had a sore backside and was a little stiff, but serviced myself and
> refilled the bike, then continued on my way with no problems.
> I suspect that bladder capacity may be a limit even if you extended
> the fuel range.
>
> I've never heard of anyone managing any further than 320 miles, or
> longer than 5 hours without putting a foot on the ground, so it is
> probably some kind of record.
> Even if you had the fuel (and bladder) range, there can't be many
> routes in the UK where you could achieve that, and even less so now
> that the roads are even more congested.
I don't know about records, but if you're interested in guys who ride
long distances on motorcycles, this is a place to start:
http://www.ironbutt.com
For tales of adventures,
http://www.ironbutt.com/about/ArchivedStories.cfm?GetDesiredRide=1
Here's a specific tale from a BMW site,
http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?64403-Longest-Continuous-Motorcycle-Ride
===================================================
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) June 26, 2008
San Diego BMW Motorcycles in San Diego, CA, is excited to share the
recent news of one determined man's journey, successfully accomplished.
His name is Gary Orr, and he is the co-owner of San Diego BMW
Motorcycles. For the last few months, Gary had been carefully
orchestrating a trip from California to Florida, which began June 11,
2008, and concluded June 12, 2008. He rode a BMW K 1200 LT motorcycle
equipped with SPOT GPS and XM Satellite Radio. He towed a trailer which
carried 75 gallons of gas; this amount of gasoline provided him with
enough fuel for the entire cross-country trip. Gary's incentive behind
the project was to be the first human in history to travel from
California to Florida, without stopping- for anything. This meant no
interruptions of travel for food, sleep, restroom, traffic lights,
traffic, road construction, border patrol, police, weather or any other
variable of fate.
The one man show began in a public parking lot in Ocean Beach (San
Diego) CA, and ended 35 hours later in Madison, Florida. He wore a BMW
Rally 2 Jacket that was generously packed with snacks to get him through
the trip. In order to stay hydrated, he ran a hose from his water tank
that was mounted on the trailer, to his mouth. Gary constructed a unique
gas pumping system which used a momentary action switch that transferred
the gasoline from the tank on the trailer to the motorcycle gas tank.
According to Gary and his SPOT GPS personal tracking device, he did not
stop for 2,232 miles. The interstate 10 was used almost exclusively. At
the few stop lights and signs that were encountered, Gary carefully
implemented a 'slow and roll' technique, which, at absolutely no point
in time, required him to completely stop his motorcycle; he simply just
reduced his speed until the light turned green and it was safe to pass
through.
=========================================================
As they say, nothing exceeds like excess.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Jun 27, 2015, 12:16:53 AM6/27/15
to
On 6/26/2015 3:01 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>
> In Germany, children must ride on the sidewalk till age 8 and may ride
> on the sidewalk till age 10 (a police administered 'cycling in traffic'
> course is on the school curriculum around age 10).
Sad to say, American schools usually give more attention to teaching the
>
> In Germany, children must ride on the sidewalk till age 8 and may ride
> on the sidewalk till age 10 (a police administered 'cycling in traffic'
> course is on the school curriculum around age 10).
rules of Dodge Ball than the rules of cycling. It's extremely rare for
any school to say anything about how to cycle. And it's unfortunately
not rare for a school to discourage or prohibit cycling. See
http://www.bicycling.com/culture/commuting/why-johnny-cant-ride
Furthermore, police are not likely to be competent at teaching the
rules. If a police officer did administer such a class, he'd probably
be (mis)quoting information he looked up the night before.
There are several reasons for this. For one thing, America's legal
system imposes great fears of liability. Schools and others fear
lawsuits if, say, a child should get injured in any way.
And the "Danger! Danger!" culture, and its ridiculous focus on cycling
as a supposedly super-risky activity, means that many authorities are
loathe to encourage cycling in any way. Not that anyone _here_ would
portray cycling as risky, of course! ;-)
Helping to explain all this is the fact that America never (since the
very early 20th century) had a cycling culture. Bikes were for kids;
adults drove cars. So there was never community knowledge to pass down.
There are few who are knowledgeable enough to teach, and even fewer
who are curious enough to learn.
BTW, in the past I've volunteered with friends to put on bike education
programs at schools. And I've had parents come up to me and yell at me,
telling me that I was crazy, because they would NEVER let their child
ride in the same direction as traffic!
If there's one person like that in the Parents-Teachers organization,
all bike education will grind to a halt.
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
Jun 27, 2015, 7:24:53 AM6/27/15
to
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:11:58 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
N. Carolina. Took me two days. Probably 20 hours' or so. On an 80
cubic inch Harley. ~ 1,250 Km.
>My record was on an XBR500S, which is both economical and with a large
>tank (a rare combination), which I managed to run from brim-full to
>low on reserve without putting a foot on the ground. 5 (imp)
>gallons/just under 23 litres (they only claimed 20 litres, but you
>could just get 23 in from empty if you dribbled the last couple of
>litres in to get right up to the top of the silly little tube that was
>supposed to stop the auto-shutoff filler nozzles), 5 hours, 320 miles.
>I had a sore backside and was a little stiff, but serviced myself and
>refilled the bike, then continued on my way with no problems.
>I suspect that bladder capacity may be a limit even if you extended
>the fuel range.
>
Good Lord, don't you have "petrol stations" in your neck of the woods?
>I've never heard of anyone managing any further than 320 miles, or
>longer than 5 hours without putting a foot on the ground, so it is
>probably some kind of record.
>Even if you had the fuel (and bladder) range, there can't be many
>routes in the UK where you could achieve that, and even less so now
>that the roads are even more congested.
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>If you have much wind on your chest, you really need to be leaning
>forward pretty steeply so that you don't get sore forearms from
>hanging on against the wind.
>And of course, there aren't many (if any) bikes with an 8-10 hour
>range.
Strange that. I remember a trip from Miami, Florida to Hendersonville,
>forward pretty steeply so that you don't get sore forearms from
>hanging on against the wind.
>And of course, there aren't many (if any) bikes with an 8-10 hour
>range.
N. Carolina. Took me two days. Probably 20 hours' or so. On an 80
cubic inch Harley. ~ 1,250 Km.
>My record was on an XBR500S, which is both economical and with a large
>tank (a rare combination), which I managed to run from brim-full to
>low on reserve without putting a foot on the ground. 5 (imp)
>gallons/just under 23 litres (they only claimed 20 litres, but you
>could just get 23 in from empty if you dribbled the last couple of
>litres in to get right up to the top of the silly little tube that was
>supposed to stop the auto-shutoff filler nozzles), 5 hours, 320 miles.
>I had a sore backside and was a little stiff, but serviced myself and
>refilled the bike, then continued on my way with no problems.
>I suspect that bladder capacity may be a limit even if you extended
>the fuel range.
>
>I've never heard of anyone managing any further than 320 miles, or
>longer than 5 hours without putting a foot on the ground, so it is
>probably some kind of record.
>Even if you had the fuel (and bladder) range, there can't be many
>routes in the UK where you could achieve that, and even less so now
>that the roads are even more congested.
cheers,
John B.
AMuzi
Jun 27, 2015, 8:27:16 AM6/27/15
to
discriminates against the slow and awkward.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Sir Ridesalot
Jun 27, 2015, 10:51:55 AM6/27/15
to
Cheers
Andre Jute
Jun 27, 2015, 1:43:42 PM6/27/15
to
Andre Jute
John B.
Jun 27, 2015, 11:50:03 PM6/27/15
to
Perhaps that is why the U.S. no longer ranks in the top 10 for
national education systems.
--
cheers,
John B.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
John B.
Jun 28, 2015, 8:49:39 PM6/28/15
to
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:19:02 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:24:49
>Non-stop?
>And for reasons given in another post, it was inconvenient to stop
>more than was absolutely necessary. So that single stop near Dumfries
>was the only time my feet touched the ground between Arrington, South
>Cambridgeshire, and the ferry queue at Stranraer.
Land's End to John o' Groats? A bloke did it with a wheelchair even...
no feet on the ground there :-)
On the other hand, "In June 2001, Wayne Booth made the journey by
motorcycle without stopping; the 37-year-old completed the historic
trip in 14 hours and 52 minutes, averaging 57 mph... The meticulously
researched route of 854 miles (1,374 km) passed through just two sets
of traffic lights and was completed within all highway regulations,
law and speed limits.""
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:24:49
>>
>>>My record was on an XBR500S, which is both economical and with a large
>>>tank (a rare combination), which I managed to run from brim-full to
>>>low on reserve without putting a foot on the ground. 5 (imp)
>>>gallons/just under 23 litres (they only claimed 20 litres, but you
>>>could just get 23 in from empty if you dribbled the last couple of
>>>litres in to get right up to the top of the silly little tube that was
>>>supposed to stop the auto-shutoff filler nozzles), 5 hours, 320 miles.
>>>I had a sore backside and was a little stiff, but serviced myself and
>>>refilled the bike, then continued on my way with no problems.
>>>I suspect that bladder capacity may be a limit even if you extended
>>>the fuel range.
>>>
>>
>>Good Lord, don't you have "petrol stations" in your neck of the woods?
>>
>Yes, but it's not a non-stop ride if you use one.
>>>My record was on an XBR500S, which is both economical and with a large
>>>tank (a rare combination), which I managed to run from brim-full to
>>>low on reserve without putting a foot on the ground. 5 (imp)
>>>gallons/just under 23 litres (they only claimed 20 litres, but you
>>>could just get 23 in from empty if you dribbled the last couple of
>>>litres in to get right up to the top of the silly little tube that was
>>>supposed to stop the auto-shutoff filler nozzles), 5 hours, 320 miles.
>>>I had a sore backside and was a little stiff, but serviced myself and
>>>refilled the bike, then continued on my way with no problems.
>>>I suspect that bladder capacity may be a limit even if you extended
>>>the fuel range.
>>>
>>
>>Good Lord, don't you have "petrol stations" in your neck of the woods?
>>
>And for reasons given in another post, it was inconvenient to stop
>more than was absolutely necessary. So that single stop near Dumfries
>was the only time my feet touched the ground between Arrington, South
>Cambridgeshire, and the ferry queue at Stranraer.
>
>
>>>I've never heard of anyone managing any further than 320 miles, or
>>>longer than 5 hours without putting a foot on the ground, so it is
>>>probably some kind of record.
>>>Even if you had the fuel (and bladder) range, there can't be many
>>>routes in the UK where you could achieve that, and even less so now
>>>that the roads are even more congested.
Ah yes. But isn't the usual English distance records set between
>
>>>I've never heard of anyone managing any further than 320 miles, or
>>>longer than 5 hours without putting a foot on the ground, so it is
>>>probably some kind of record.
>>>Even if you had the fuel (and bladder) range, there can't be many
>>>routes in the UK where you could achieve that, and even less so now
>>>that the roads are even more congested.
Land's End to John o' Groats? A bloke did it with a wheelchair even...
no feet on the ground there :-)
On the other hand, "In June 2001, Wayne Booth made the journey by
motorcycle without stopping; the 37-year-old completed the historic
trip in 14 hours and 52 minutes, averaging 57 mph... The meticulously
researched route of 854 miles (1,374 km) passed through just two sets
of traffic lights and was completed within all highway regulations,
law and speed limits.""
--
cheers,
John B.
Mike Causer
Jun 29, 2015, 6:56:26 AM6/29/15
to
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
> as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
> under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
> same speed?
>
> Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?
Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.
Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
they can.
A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.
Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
the road, and can completely ignored.
So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.
Mike
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
> as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
> under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
> same speed?
>
> Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?
Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.
Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
they can.
A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.
Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
the road, and can completely ignored.
So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
size, it's about expectations and attitude.
Mike
John B.
Jun 29, 2015, 7:59:43 AM6/29/15
to
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:56:02 +0100, Mike Causer
<m.r.c...@goglemail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
>Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
>> as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
>> under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
>> same speed?
>>
>> Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?
>
>Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
>they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
>When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
>dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
>cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
>vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.
>
But, that is only half the story.
<m.r.c...@goglemail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:20:36 -0400
>Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Jay talked about moving about 5 mph on his bike. That's the same speed
>> as a slowly jogging pedestrian. Why would the presence of a bicycle
>> under him make him somehow less visible than a pedestrian traveling the
>> same speed?
>>
>> Do you _really_ think bicycles make their riders invisible?
>
>Not at all, but they do behave differently. Consider that from the time
>they can walk children are taught always to defer to the motor vehicle.
>When taken out by their schools teachers (around here at least) they are
>dressed up in hi-vis, and shepherded across any roads they need to
>cross. This behaviour continues in adulthood, always deferring to motor
>vehicles even when the traffic laws give them priority or equal rights.
>
The other half is that the great majority of people, when they get
their driving license, suddenly start to believe that they are King of
the Road. "Here! Look at Me! I am driving a car!"
>Pedestrians can stop and turn very much more quickly than a cyclist, and
>this means that behaviour on roads where there is no footway is rather
>different. Every direction from my house gets me onto such a road
>between 1 and 5 minutes, so observation is easy. Normally when a
>pedestrian sees or hears a motor vehicle approaching they will stop and
>get onto the grass verge, or at least as far to the side of the road as
>they can.
>
>A cyclist will normally keep going. The time to stop, get onto the grass,
>and get started again adds a serious chunk of time to the trip,
>estimated by Chris Juden at CTC effectively to add 100m to the journey
>for each stop. There is also an awkward phase when stopping and
>dismounting when the cyclist is not well balanced, and presents a wide
>target. So cyclists keep going. This means they are much more
>dependant on the driver to give room, not left-hook, etc. In the UK the
>majority of cycle/motor vehicle incidents take place in urban areas,
>but the majority of deaths are on rural roads.
>
>Most drivers seem to regard cyclists as road-furniture that happens to
>be moving, and this is echoed by the planning authorities who use
>cyclists are mobile traffic calming (or enraging to some...). And as
>for pedestrians, well they are either on a footway if available or off
>the road, and can completely ignored.
really getting it on. Doing 20 mile an hour. Here comes a bloke in his
car, windows up, stereo blasting, air conditioned comfort, no sweat,
no mess, no bother. Doing 60 miles an hour. What is he going to think?
>So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
>size, it's about expectations and attitude.
>
>
>Mike
cheers,
John B.
Andre Jute
Jun 29, 2015, 11:01:52 AM6/29/15
to
On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 11:56:26 AM UTC+1, Mike Causer wrote:
> So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
> size, it's about expectations and attitude.
Yes. That's the best summary of the malaise that I've seen. Let's make it comprehensive:
> So my take is that it's not about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical
> size, it's about expectations and attitude.
It's not solely about lights, hi-vis, flags or even physical size, it's mainly about learned expectations and acquired attitude, both of which can be changed if the will is there.
Thanks, Mike.
Andre Jute
Frank Krygowski
Jun 29, 2015, 11:22:51 AM6/29/15
to
capabilities. That's why since roughly 1900, bicyclists have been
classed as (or with) operators of vehicles, not pedestrians.
My remarks were related to one specific point by SMS, AKA Mr. Scharf.
Regarding Jay's use of a crosswalk at super-low speed while on a bike,
SMS said "Drivers aren't looking for bicycles in pedestrian crosswalks,
even when the cyclist is riding as slowly as a pedestrian walks."
SMS has long held the opinion that one needs strobe lights and flags at
all times to be seen while riding. My contention is that if a motorist
is looking for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, he will be just as likely to
see a super-slow cyclist. The presence of a bicycle doesn't make a human
invisible.
--
- Frank Krygowski
sms
Jun 29, 2015, 1:01:11 PM6/29/15
to
In San Francisco, where you have a huge number of pedestrians and a lot
of bicyclists, you definitely see a distinct difference in driver
behavior even though both users are often at the same intersections
waiting at the same light.
Cyclists will pace themselves so they don't have to stop and dismount at
a red light and this can be disconcerting to motorists who expect to run
the red light because they will get caught in the middle of an
intersection as the cyclists enter the intersection immediately after
the light changes.
jbeattie
Jun 29, 2015, 2:11:18 PM6/29/15
to
To add to the mayhem, there is a cross-walk on the right side of the road at the exit -- so timid cyclists can pull off to the right, get off their bikes and walk across the two exiting lanes, cross a narrow median and then saddle up and drop down a curb cut into the NB bike lane. It's hard to see cyclists in the cross walk when you're getting in to traffic. This whimp does it. At 4:25, I'm in the lane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eSoEj0JA
Demonstrating a high degree of compliance, exiting cars slam on their brakes to let the cyclists qua pedestrians across. This morning, I'm sprinting across heavy traffic, getting lined up in the center lane when traffic slams to a halt because some rider has dabbed her toe into the crosswalk. I'm looking ahead because a bus has stopped just beyond the exit; I look back and see that I'm about to go over a hatch-back; I jam on the brakes and do a two wheel skid. Things start to sort out, and I'm getting back up to speed, getting back in to the bike lane when the bicycle-pedestrian drops into the bike lane right in front of me without looking. So I skid again an then sprint around her. Sprint around a bus. It's like taking off on a ski run without looking for uphill traffic. I wanted to slap her.
It is a real problem when you start mixing up facilities like that. Cyclists should just ride down the road like the UVC anticipates. The signage suggest that cyclists must walk across -- but that violates the Oregon UVC which specifically states that cyclists can take the lane under these exact circumstances (road turns right, bike lane ends). Very rarely do you get a non-cyclist pedestrian.
-- Jay Beattie.
Well, PDX in its wisdom
Andre Jute
Jun 29, 2015, 2:46:37 PM6/29/15
to
Andre Jute
Mike Causer
Jun 29, 2015, 3:09:30 PM6/29/15
to
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There's definitely a case to be made for the police shooting
> jaywalkers on sight.
First place I can find a crosswalk on the road I live on is over a
Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There's definitely a case to be made for the police shooting
> jaywalkers on sight.
kilometer away. So that's a 20 minute walk there & back to visit my
neighbours on the other side of the road. Or get to the bus-stop.
Oh, and after going over the crosswalk there's the busiest junction
in town to negotiate -- with no crosswalk. The layout, traffic volume
and speed means I would *never* try to walk across it. No lights at
all at all.
BTW the nearest traffic light is a 25 minute bicycle ride away on a
road I rarely use, so I don't shoot it on red too often.
Mike
sms
Jun 29, 2015, 3:21:21 PM6/29/15
to
On 6/29/2015 11:11 AM, jbeattie wrote:
<snip>
> BTW, I just about rear-ended a car this morning and just about whacked a cyclist because of a cyclist changing to pedestrian status. I've talked about this intersection before -- three lane road, two lanes exit to the right (middle lane can go right or straight); the bike lane ends, and to continue in to town, I have to merge into the middle lane and take the lane until the bike lane starts up again on the other side of the exit. You don't want to ride AFRAP in the middle lane because you'll get hooked by right turning cars. It's heavy, fast moving traffic and some skill is required. There is a bus stop just beyond the exit, and buses stop there frequently -- so you have to be looking down the road.
Turning from a cyclist into a pedestrian is usually a bad idea though
sometimes convenient or necessary. I do it often in one place because
it's safer in that specific situation.
<snip>
> BTW, I just about rear-ended a car this morning and just about whacked a cyclist because of a cyclist changing to pedestrian status. I've talked about this intersection before -- three lane road, two lanes exit to the right (middle lane can go right or straight); the bike lane ends, and to continue in to town, I have to merge into the middle lane and take the lane until the bike lane starts up again on the other side of the exit. You don't want to ride AFRAP in the middle lane because you'll get hooked by right turning cars. It's heavy, fast moving traffic and some skill is required. There is a bus stop just beyond the exit, and buses stop there frequently -- so you have to be looking down the road.
sometimes convenient or necessary. I do it often in one place because
it's safer in that specific situation.
Frank Krygowski
Jun 29, 2015, 5:03:09 PM6/29/15
to
On 6/29/2015 2:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> It is a real problem when you start mixing up facilities like that. Cyclists should just ride
down the road like the UVC anticipates. The signage suggest that
cyclists must walk across --
but that violates the Oregon UVC which specifically states that cyclists
can take the lane
under these exact circumstances (road turns right, bike lane ends).
Of course, I agree with you. But in the present social climate, I don't
>
> It is a real problem when you start mixing up facilities like that. Cyclists should just ride
down the road like the UVC anticipates. The signage suggest that
cyclists must walk across --
but that violates the Oregon UVC which specifically states that cyclists
can take the lane
under these exact circumstances (road turns right, bike lane ends).
see how we ever get to the point where cyclists will just ride down the
road like the UVC anticipates.
The meme being promoted is "8 to 80," meaning that if a little kid or an
(assumed) feeble old person can't handle it mindlessly, it's a bad facility.
I don't know what the "8 to 80" crowd would propose there. An overpass?
A signal that stops all traffic when a cyclist approaches? Teleportation?
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
Jun 29, 2015, 5:31:06 PM6/29/15
to
http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/mike_ivey/new-million-bike-overpass-part-of-verona-road-improvements/article_b188ec64-cd98-5362-9980-8d3455a8b7e9.html
Everyone and their friends/relatives makes a pile of money
on these contracts, taxpayer be damned.
It's a crisis which can only be cured by a large project.
Steal, repeat, on to next crisis. This is pretty much the
entire ethos of the various 'bicycle' organizations, which
do nothing for me as a cyclist.
Sir Ridesalot
Jun 29, 2015, 6:42:47 PM6/29/15
to
I was reading tthat Cambridge is going to build another bridge for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the Grand River that runs through town. That bridge is expected to cost $1,000,000.00 by completion. The weird thing is tthat the bridge just links two roads and is about 100 yards from one vehicular bridge with a bicycle lane and about 200 yards or so from another vehicular bridge that has very low traffic volume. Weird that tthe new bridge basically starts nowhere where people would want to cross the river and then dumps them on the other side where they have to go to one of the roads with a bridge in order to get anywhere to do anything. It's sure to be another white elephant. BTW, every time i gone to the Cambridge/Kitchener bicycle pedestrian bridge I've never seen anyone else using it.
That area is kinda cool because you can ride from London to Berlin (the pre-WW1 name of Kitchener) then to Cambridge and then to Paris and then back to London via Woodstock and do it all in one day.
Cheers
John B.
Jun 29, 2015, 7:34:01 PM6/29/15
to
friend? Or perhaps a number of friends? After all, they helped you
reach the high plateau of government to where you are now. Real
concrete help too. Helped with campaign expenses, organized rallies,
got the voters out on election day.
It would be a truly miserable individual (and one term politician) who
didn't show at least some gratitude.
As for million dollar projects? Inflation (some people call it
progress). They used to be thousand dollar projects and way back they
were 100 dollar jobs.
A hair cut and shave really was 25 cents :-)
--
cheers,
John B.
Frank Krygowski
Jun 29, 2015, 8:13:44 PM6/29/15
to
a bike-pedestrian bridge over it at the other end of the city. It
wasn't my normal territory, but I remember thinking that it was nice
that way back when they built the freeway, they built that, perhaps to
help kids getting to school or something. (It is true that freeways
chop neighborhoods apart and can be formidable obstacles.)
(I used that bike-ped bridge just a couple times. One time was when I
led a "Freeway Bridge Ride" for our club, in which we rode every bridge
that crossed the freeway, just to see the neighborhoods in that
non-freeway parallel universe. A fun ride.)
Anyway, that bike-ped bridge was there until about five years ago. Then
they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to tear the thing down!
I can't imagine it was very expensive to maintain such a bridge. I
suspect some brother-in-law's destruction company needed work.
--
- Frank Krygowski
jbeattie
Jun 30, 2015, 12:04:48 AM6/30/15
to
-- Jay Beattie.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Andre Jute
Jul 1, 2015, 5:45:57 PM7/1/15
to
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:30:37 PM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Mike Causer <m.r.c...@goglemail.com> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015
> It's just as well that all public highways are rights of way for
> pedestrians in the UK, and that idiots like Andre who think
> "jaywalking" is some kind of crime have the law against them.
What's worse than a liar? A dishonest polemicst, , like Phil Lee, who cuts away the context of a remark to make it seem something else.
What's worse than netjerk? A humourless netjerk like Phil Lee.
That was a joke, moron.
Andre Jute
> Mike Causer <m.r.c...@goglemail.com> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015
> pedestrians in the UK, and that idiots like Andre who think
> "jaywalking" is some kind of crime have the law against them.
What's worse than a liar? A dishonest polemicst, , like Phil Lee, who cuts away the context of a remark to make it seem something else.
What's worse than netjerk? A humourless netjerk like Phil Lee.
That was a joke, moron.
Andre Jute
James
Jul 1, 2015, 5:48:37 PM7/1/15
to
On 02/07/15 07:30, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Mike Causer <m.r.c...@goglemail.com> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015
> 20:09:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> Mike Causer <m.r.c...@goglemail.com> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015
> 20:09:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> It's just as well that all public highways are rights of way for
> pedestrians in the UK, and that idiots like Andre who think
> "jaywalking" is some kind of crime have the law against them.
>
AFAIK, "jaywalking" means crossing the road within a certain distance of
> pedestrians in the UK, and that idiots like Andre who think
> "jaywalking" is some kind of crime have the law against them.
>
a marked crossing point. I think in Australia it is something like 20m.
It doesn't prevent anyone from walking along a road, or crossing if
there are no marked crossing points in the vicinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
--
JS
Duane
Jul 1, 2015, 6:12:55 PM7/1/15
to
sure what the point of that was except that Andre did criticize some people
and that looks like some attempt at retribution.
--
duane
James
Jul 1, 2015, 8:32:45 PM7/1/15
to
unregistered pedestrians! They should be forced to wear reflectors and
bells, lights at night and a helmet for their own safety!
Andre's shooting comment was obviously over the top. Mike complained
there was no crossing within a kilometre. But he could cross anywhere
at any time (provided it was safe) near where he lives, because he's
further than 20m from the nearest crossing. Phil's comment was
obviously supposed to be inflammatory to Andre, but serves no purpose
because Mike would not be jaywalking if he crossed the road where he lives.
--
JS
Duane
Jul 1, 2015, 8:53:57 PM7/1/15
to
within a kilometre. But he could cross anywhere at any time (provided it
was safe) near where he lives, because he's further than 20m from the
nearest crossing. Phil's comment was obviously supposed to be inflammatory
to Andre, but serves no purpose because Mike would not be jaywalking if he
crossed the road where he lives.
--
duane
John B.
Jul 1, 2015, 8:55:18 PM7/1/15
to
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 22:18:02 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:49:34
>I see that bike was modified with an extra 74 litre fuel tank, the
>standard tank being 26 litres according to that article, or 25 litres
>according to Honda - as I mentioned, very few bikes have 300+ mile
>range as standard. The Honda Varadero he used only has a 180 mile
>range as standard, according to MCN, from it's average 35mpg fuel
>consumption (although that's average - he probably did better on a
>non-stop trip). I don't actually know of any that have been available
>in the UK other than the one I was on (the XBR500) that can do over
>300 miles as standard.
>Large fuel tanks don't get fitted as standard to economical bikes,
>because they don't need them. Large bikes aren't as economical so
>having a large tank is a necessity for even much more ordinary range
>(and they don't affect the handling of a large bike as much, being a
>lower proportion of the overall weight).
>The XBR was a real oddball, in that respect, as I could quite normally
>go over 250 miles between filling up, even on day-to-day commuting
>use.
>Assuming he used almost all of the total 102 litres to achieve his
>non-stop end-to-end ride (and he seems to have planned it carefully
>enough to not be carrying excess fuel), that would be no more than 225
>miles from the unmodified bike - maybe 250 if he was really working
>for it and hadn't had the weight of the additional fuel tank.
>
>So "some kind of" record may translate to "record for an unmodified
>bike on ordinary roads without an escort clearing the way".
>
>The nearest thing to "modifications" I had was the luggage, unless you
>count the fact that I preferred Metzler tyres to the original
>Bridgestones. Oh, and I think I had heated grips on that bike
>(although I didn't need to use them on that trip).
>So certainly unmodified as regards the range or ergonomics. Just
>fairly normal accessories and preferences.
But does it really matter? If one is intent on setting a record, for
an example, the longest run ever, across the U.S. (525 hr 57 min 20
sec) does it matter how many pairs of shoes one uses?
--
cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:49:34
>standard tank being 26 litres according to that article, or 25 litres
>according to Honda - as I mentioned, very few bikes have 300+ mile
>range as standard. The Honda Varadero he used only has a 180 mile
>range as standard, according to MCN, from it's average 35mpg fuel
>consumption (although that's average - he probably did better on a
>non-stop trip). I don't actually know of any that have been available
>in the UK other than the one I was on (the XBR500) that can do over
>300 miles as standard.
>Large fuel tanks don't get fitted as standard to economical bikes,
>because they don't need them. Large bikes aren't as economical so
>having a large tank is a necessity for even much more ordinary range
>(and they don't affect the handling of a large bike as much, being a
>lower proportion of the overall weight).
>The XBR was a real oddball, in that respect, as I could quite normally
>go over 250 miles between filling up, even on day-to-day commuting
>use.
>Assuming he used almost all of the total 102 litres to achieve his
>non-stop end-to-end ride (and he seems to have planned it carefully
>enough to not be carrying excess fuel), that would be no more than 225
>miles from the unmodified bike - maybe 250 if he was really working
>for it and hadn't had the weight of the additional fuel tank.
>
>So "some kind of" record may translate to "record for an unmodified
>bike on ordinary roads without an escort clearing the way".
>
>The nearest thing to "modifications" I had was the luggage, unless you
>count the fact that I preferred Metzler tyres to the original
>Bridgestones. Oh, and I think I had heated grips on that bike
>(although I didn't need to use them on that trip).
>So certainly unmodified as regards the range or ergonomics. Just
>fairly normal accessories and preferences.
But does it really matter? If one is intent on setting a record, for
an example, the longest run ever, across the U.S. (525 hr 57 min 20
sec) does it matter how many pairs of shoes one uses?
--
cheers,
John B.
jbeattie
Jul 1, 2015, 8:59:56 PM7/1/15
to
-- Jay Beattie.
Andre Jute
Jul 1, 2015, 10:07:57 PM7/1/15
to
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Jul 1, 2015, 10:12:45 PM7/1/15
to
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 1:53:57 AM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On the net nobody can see the bulge your tongue makes in your cheek. The fast way to sort out the good guys from the bad guys on the net is to watch who has a sense of humor -- they're the good guys -- and who assumes the worst about every one else -- those are invariably the bad guys.
Andre Jute
> James <> wrote:
> > On 02/07/15 08:11, Duane wrote:
> > On 02/07/15 08:11, Duane wrote:
> >> James <> wrote:
> >>> On 02/07/15 07:30, Phil W Lee wrote:
> >>>> Mike Causer <> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015
> >>> On 02/07/15 07:30, Phil W Lee wrote:
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Jul 1, 2015, 10:22:48 PM7/1/15
to
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 1:59:56 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 5:32:45 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
> > On 02/07/15 08:11, Duane wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 5:32:45 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
> > On 02/07/15 08:11, Duane wrote:
> > > James <> wrote:
> > >> On 02/07/15 07:30, Phil W Lee wrote:
> > >>> Mike Causer <> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015
> > >> On 02/07/15 07:30, Phil W Lee wrote:
I can put you next to people who take the zombie apocalypse extremely seriously, earning a living out of those who really, really believe it is imminent.
Andre Jute
Frank Krygowski
Jul 1, 2015, 11:51:22 PM7/1/15
to
On 7/1/2015 5:30 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Mike Causer <m.r.c...@goglemail.com> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015
"jaywalking." It was a term purposely coined in the early 20th century
by the motoring interests, who wanted to clear the roads of anyone not
in a motor vehicle. "Jay" was slang for an unsophisticated rural
person, like today's "hick" or "country bumpkin."
--
- Frank Krygowski
> Mike Causer <m.r.c...@goglemail.com> considered Mon, 29 Jun 2015
> 20:09:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>
> It's just as well that all public highways are rights of way for
> pedestrians in the UK, and that idiots like Andre who think
> "jaywalking" is some kind of crime have the law against them.
Peter Norton's book _Fighting Traffic_ has the history of the term
> pedestrians in the UK, and that idiots like Andre who think
> "jaywalking" is some kind of crime have the law against them.
"jaywalking." It was a term purposely coined in the early 20th century
by the motoring interests, who wanted to clear the roads of anyone not
in a motor vehicle. "Jay" was slang for an unsophisticated rural
person, like today's "hick" or "country bumpkin."
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Jul 1, 2015, 11:56:14 PM7/1/15
to
On 7/1/2015 8:32 PM, James wrote:
> On 02/07/15 08:11, Duane wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well jaywalking is illegal in most places I've been in North America...
own safety" - i.e., for protection from motorists who don't watch where
they are going.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_reflector
"In Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, pedestrians are required by
law to wear safety reflectors when walking during dark conditions."
--
- Frank Krygowski
> On 02/07/15 08:11, Duane wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well jaywalking is illegal in most places I've been in North America...
>>
>
> And it is illegal here in Australia, though rarely punished. Damn those
> unregistered pedestrians! They should be forced to wear reflectors and
> bells, lights at night and a helmet for their own safety!
In some countries, pedestrians are forced to wear reflectors "for their
>
> And it is illegal here in Australia, though rarely punished. Damn those
> unregistered pedestrians! They should be forced to wear reflectors and
> bells, lights at night and a helmet for their own safety!
own safety" - i.e., for protection from motorists who don't watch where
they are going.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_reflector
"In Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, pedestrians are required by
law to wear safety reflectors when walking during dark conditions."
--
- Frank Krygowski
Duane
Jul 2, 2015, 9:40:45 AM7/2/15
to
Montreal may be fighting for the title.
--
duane
jbeattie
Jul 2, 2015, 9:55:57 AM7/2/15
to
-- Jay Beattie.
Andre Jute
Jul 2, 2015, 1:22:38 PM7/2/15
to
Andre Jute
Sometime revolutionary
Duane
Jul 2, 2015, 3:03:36 PM7/2/15
to
when you have enough of both pedestrians and cyclists. I tend to head out
of town to do most of my non commute riding though.
--
duane
Andre Jute
Jul 2, 2015, 4:24:18 PM7/2/15
to
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 8:03:36 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 2:40:45 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
> >> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:48:37 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>>> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There's definitely a case to be made for the police shooting
> >>>>>>> jaywalkers on sight.
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 2:40:45 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
> >> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:48:37 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>>> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There's definitely a case to be made for the police shooting
> >>>>>>> jaywalkers on sight.
> >>>> AFAIK, "jaywalking" means crossing the road within a certain distance of
> >>>> a marked crossing point. I think in Australia it is something like 20m.
> >>>> It doesn't prevent anyone from walking along a road, or crossing if
> >>>> there are no marked crossing points in the vicinity.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> JS
> >>>
> >>> Cork, the city, is the jaywalking capital of the world, and proud of it...
> >>>> a marked crossing point. I think in Australia it is something like 20m.
> >>>> It doesn't prevent anyone from walking along a road, or crossing if
> >>>> there are no marked crossing points in the vicinity.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> JS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Andre Jute
> >>
> >> http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/jaywalking-in-montreal-public-scourge-or-divine-right-of-passage
> >>
> >> Montreal may be fighting for the title.
> >> --
> >> duane
> >
> > Welcome to the club! Let's hope it is the start of a worldwide movement.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Sometime revolutionary
>
> Lol. I'm sort of with Jay on this. Jaywalkers are a major pain on a bike
> when you have enough of both pedestrians and cyclists. I tend to head out
> of town to do most of my non commute riding though.
> --
> duane
A big factor in riding a bicycle that is constantly overlooked is that the driver of a car can easily get going again on a hill, but a cyclist can't. So the cyclist should have the right not to break his speed for the convenience of motorists for the maximum possible distance uphill.
> >>> Andre Jute
> >>
> >> http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/jaywalking-in-montreal-public-scourge-or-divine-right-of-passage
> >>
> >> Montreal may be fighting for the title.
> >> --
> >> duane
> >
> > Welcome to the club! Let's hope it is the start of a worldwide movement.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Sometime revolutionary
>
> Lol. I'm sort of with Jay on this. Jaywalkers are a major pain on a bike
> when you have enough of both pedestrians and cyclists. I tend to head out
> of town to do most of my non commute riding though.
> --
> duane
Andre Jute
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages