Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Are racing bikes involved in the most deaths?
73 views
Skip to first unread message
ben.darling
Aug 6, 2014, 6:36:35 AM8/6/14
to
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 09:26:39 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/elderly-cyclist-who-died-after-smashing-into-a-wall-in-south
>-cumbria-named-1.1152936?cache=cachehiguain%252frk%253d0%252frs%253dotuo.36vy2tp%253f
No.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/11/06/Factfile_deaths_2_2011.pdf
Accidents (all) - 2% of deaths.
Travel down the branches and you can see that motor vehicles are involved in
roughly ten times number of deaths involving cyclists that year (107).
wrote:
>http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/elderly-cyclist-who-died-after-smashing-into-a-wall-in-south
>-cumbria-named-1.1152936?cache=cachehiguain%252frk%253d0%252frs%253dotuo.36vy2tp%253f
No.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/11/06/Factfile_deaths_2_2011.pdf
Accidents (all) - 2% of deaths.
Travel down the branches and you can see that motor vehicles are involved in
roughly ten times number of deaths involving cyclists that year (107).
Tarcap
Aug 6, 2014, 6:54:50 AM8/6/14
to
"Judith" wrote in message
news:ott3u9h9165t7qgfp...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 09:26:39 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/elderly-cyclist-who-died-after-smashing-into-a-wall-in-south
>-cumbria-named-1.1152936?cache=cachehiguain%252frk%253d0%252frs%253dotuo.36vy2tp%253f
"involved in a collision with a wall"
Has the guilty party been identified?
It's obviously the wall's fault. Cyclists never, ever make mistakes, do
they?
news:ott3u9h9165t7qgfp...@4ax.com...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 09:26:39 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/elderly-cyclist-who-died-after-smashing-into-a-wall-in-south
>-cumbria-named-1.1152936?cache=cachehiguain%252frk%253d0%252frs%253dotuo.36vy2tp%253f
Has the guilty party been identified?
It's obviously the wall's fault. Cyclists never, ever make mistakes, do
they?
ben.darling
Aug 6, 2014, 11:37:46 AM8/6/14
to
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:24:27 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:36:35 -0300, ben.darling <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>pedestrians are concerned. Cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per
>billion km traveled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by
>drivers.
>
>What is interesting is one zero cost way of reducing cycling
>fatalities by over 30%. All you need to do is abolish cycling clubs
>and road related cycling sports. Over 30% of cyclist fatalities
>involve (usually) men in Lycra who are racing, "time trialling"
>(racing). going out for group rides or "training" for cycling events.
>Take sports cycling off roads and you would instantly achieve far
>more than all other cycling safety measure put together but at no
>cost.
I understand what you wrote, and believe you may (though likely
unintentionally) be correct as we also know that
a) most cycle-safety measures that are actually effected consist of
cycle-lanes and/or helmet laws;
b we know that the former are on average more dangerous than using the road;
c) we know that the latter reduces cycling levels; and
d) we know that lower fitness levels due to (c) have mugh higher overall
health disbenefits than anything gained via the latter;
hence yes, eliminating at one swoop 30% of the benefit due to fitness may well
be more fell than previous measures.
>On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:36:35 -0300, ben.darling <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Travel down the branches and you can see that motor vehicles are involved in
>>roughly ten times number of deaths involving cyclists that year (107).
>
>Per mile traveled bikes and cars are equally dangerous as far as
>
>>Travel down the branches and you can see that motor vehicles are involved in
>>roughly ten times number of deaths involving cyclists that year (107).
>
>pedestrians are concerned. Cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per
>billion km traveled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by
>drivers.
>
>What is interesting is one zero cost way of reducing cycling
>fatalities by over 30%. All you need to do is abolish cycling clubs
>and road related cycling sports. Over 30% of cyclist fatalities
>involve (usually) men in Lycra who are racing, "time trialling"
>(racing). going out for group rides or "training" for cycling events.
>Take sports cycling off roads and you would instantly achieve far
>more than all other cycling safety measure put together but at no
>cost.
I understand what you wrote, and believe you may (though likely
unintentionally) be correct as we also know that
a) most cycle-safety measures that are actually effected consist of
cycle-lanes and/or helmet laws;
b we know that the former are on average more dangerous than using the road;
c) we know that the latter reduces cycling levels; and
d) we know that lower fitness levels due to (c) have mugh higher overall
health disbenefits than anything gained via the latter;
hence yes, eliminating at one swoop 30% of the benefit due to fitness may well
be more fell than previous measures.
JNugent
Aug 6, 2014, 11:55:35 AM8/6/14
to
That's an odd way of compiling statistics.
One would have thought that the number of motor vehicles involved in
fatal accidents in which cyclists die was about the same as the number
of bicycles involved in fatal accidents in which cyclists die.
But if there are more motor vehicles involved, each fatal accident in
which a cyclist dies must involve an average of more than one motor vehicle.
Perhaps your statistics are not relevant to the UK.
Judith
Aug 6, 2014, 12:16:17 PM8/6/14
to
(aka Guy Chapman) recently?
Mrcheerful
Aug 6, 2014, 1:32:55 PM8/6/14
to
On 06/08/2014 11:36, ben.darling wrote:
Mrcheerful
Aug 6, 2014, 6:24:45 PM8/6/14
to
On 06/08/2014 11:36, ben.darling wrote:
In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
ridden?
Frank Krygowski
Aug 6, 2014, 6:51:58 PM8/6/14
to
On 8/6/2014 6:24 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> I'll put the question more simply for the hard of thinking.
>
> In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
> bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
> ridden?
I think you need to carefully define "racing bicycle." I say that
>
> I'll put the question more simply for the hard of thinking.
>
> In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
> bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
> ridden?
because there are many people (west of the Atlantic, anyway) who think
that any bike with drop bars is a "racing bicycle." Of course, that's
their mistake.
In any case, I believe the answer to your question is: No, at least over
here.
Consider that one quarter of fatally injured cyclists in America are
drunk, or nearly so. I doubt that many racers consider alcohol to be a
performance-enhancing drug. At least, for bicycling.
--
- Frank Krygowski
sloc...@invalid.com
Aug 6, 2014, 10:38:30 PM8/6/14
to
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 18:51:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 8/6/2014 6:24 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> I'll put the question more simply for the hard of thinking.
>>
>> In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
>> bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
>> ridden?
>
>I think you need to carefully define "racing bicycle." I say that
>because there are many people (west of the Atlantic, anyway) who think
>that any bike with drop bars is a "racing bicycle." Of course, that's
>their mistake.
>
And some of the guys with the funny handle bars think that the guys
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 8/6/2014 6:24 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> I'll put the question more simply for the hard of thinking.
>>
>> In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
>> bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
>> ridden?
>
>I think you need to carefully define "racing bicycle." I say that
>because there are many people (west of the Atlantic, anyway) who think
>that any bike with drop bars is a "racing bicycle." Of course, that's
>their mistake.
>
with the drop bars and all the gears aren't really on "racing bikes"
:-)
>In any case, I believe the answer to your question is: No, at least over
>here.
>
>Consider that one quarter of fatally injured cyclists in America are
>drunk, or nearly so. I doubt that many racers consider alcohol to be a
>performance-enhancing drug. At least, for bicycling.
--
John B.
Mrcheerful
Aug 7, 2014, 3:17:31 AM8/7/14
to
its nature is ridden head down. A large number of bicycles in crashes
are described as racing bicycles, and it seems that the largest number
of dead cyclist crashes involve a racing bike. I wonder if any one has
counted the numbers, if a particular genre of bike has the most
fatalities then its road use needs to be examined.
Peter Keller
Aug 7, 2014, 5:24:16 AM8/7/14
to
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:16:17 +0100, Judith wrote:
> The Porker (aka Guy Chapman)
Judith is widely considered the most disgusting animal in the ocean, if
> The Porker (aka Guy Chapman)
not on earth. The eel-shaped creature use four pairs of thin sensory
tentacles surrounding her mouth to find food—including carcasses of much
larger animals. Once she finds her meal, she buries into it face-first to
bore a tunnel deep into its flesh.
Peter Keller
Aug 7, 2014, 5:27:34 AM8/7/14
to
It seems to take ten motorists to kill one bicyclist.
Peter Keller
Aug 7, 2014, 5:29:51 AM8/7/14
to
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:17:31 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
> Anything with dropped bars would appear to be a racing bicycle and by
> its nature is ridden head down.
Not necessarily.
> Anything with dropped bars would appear to be a racing bicycle and by
> its nature is ridden head down.
One can ride reasonably upright by placing one's hands above the brake
levers or near the handlebar stem.
Mentalguy2k8
Aug 7, 2014, 5:39:40 AM8/7/14
to
"ben.darling" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34i4u95mh3f52qvsq...@4ax.com...
> c) we know that the latter reduces cycling levels; and
>
> d) we know that lower fitness levels due to (c) have mugh higher overall
> health disbenefits than anything gained via the latter;
>
> hence yes, eliminating at one swoop 30% of the benefit due to fitness may
> well
> be more fell than previous measures.
illegal. I'd wager that if a poll were taken of all the people who exercise
on a regular basis, cycling wouldn't be the most popular form of exercise.
Therefore, it isn't a choice between cycling & being fit, and not cycling
and being unhealthy. It's not either/or. If cycling was made illegal
tomorrow, I think that even a handful of cyclists would have enough
intelligence to work out that they could stay [allegedly] "fit and healthy"
in a huge number of alternative ways. I don't think all of them would
congregate in a muddy field suddenly eating burgers and smoking.
Tarcap
Aug 7, 2014, 5:48:27 AM8/7/14
to
"Peter Keller" wrote in message news:lrvgjv$tvb$2...@dont-email.me...
People who are angry insult people because in their anger they cannot
think of a better way to handle it, except to start a fight and make the
other person feel bad. People who insult can feel backed in, threatened
and fearful, making them lash out because they know no other way to
handle themselves in every situation or conversation. It is always
someone else’s fault.
TMS320
Aug 7, 2014, 6:31:13 AM8/7/14
to
"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CKFEv.117937$bB3....@fx33.am4...
> On 06/08/2014 23:51, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/6/2014 6:24 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll put the question more simply for the hard of thinking.
>>>
>>> In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
>>> bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
>>> ridden?
>>
>> I think you need to carefully define "racing bicycle." I say that
>> because there are many people (west of the Atlantic, anyway) who think
>> that any bike with drop bars is a "racing bicycle." Of course, that's
>> their mistake.
>>
>> In any case, I believe the answer to your question is: No, at least over
>> here.
>>
>> Consider that one quarter of fatally injured cyclists in America are
>> drunk, or nearly so. I doubt that many racers consider alcohol to be a
>> performance-enhancing drug. At least, for bicycling.
> Anything with dropped bars would appear to be a racing bicycle and by its
> nature is ridden head down.
I'm not a fan of drop bars except for hill climbing. But any observation of
>> On 8/6/2014 6:24 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll put the question more simply for the hard of thinking.
>>>
>>> In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
>>> bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
>>> ridden?
>>
>> I think you need to carefully define "racing bicycle." I say that
>> because there are many people (west of the Atlantic, anyway) who think
>> that any bike with drop bars is a "racing bicycle." Of course, that's
>> their mistake.
>>
>> In any case, I believe the answer to your question is: No, at least over
>> here.
>>
>> Consider that one quarter of fatally injured cyclists in America are
>> drunk, or nearly so. I doubt that many racers consider alcohol to be a
>> performance-enhancing drug. At least, for bicycling.
> Anything with dropped bars would appear to be a racing bicycle and by its
> nature is ridden head down.
photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most time on
the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have more
than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings than a
driver of a modern car. It has to be wondered how many casualties
(particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This needs
urgent examination.
> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing bicycles,
> and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist crashes involve a
> racing bike.
Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you factored
distance into it?
Mrcheerful
Aug 7, 2014, 6:40:47 AM8/7/14
to
seems unlikely to be very relevant.
Judith
Aug 7, 2014, 7:25:02 AM8/7/14
to
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:24:16 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk>
wrote:
Excellent: I just love it when you retain my comments: eg Guy Chapman is also
The Porker (not because he fucks pigs - I don't know about that: but because
he is renowned for telling porkies)
Many thanks: keep up the good work.
--
Porky Chapman bragged about the fact that he was taking someone he
had accused of harassing him through the court system.
All of a sudden his court case is off. Was it because Porky was scared of
being cross-examined and having to answer questions under oath?
Or did the CPS sling the case out because of Porky's "evidence"?
Why won't he tell us?
wrote:
The Porker (not because he fucks pigs - I don't know about that: but because
he is renowned for telling porkies)
Many thanks: keep up the good work.
--
Porky Chapman bragged about the fact that he was taking someone he
had accused of harassing him through the court system.
All of a sudden his court case is off. Was it because Porky was scared of
being cross-examined and having to answer questions under oath?
Or did the CPS sling the case out because of Porky's "evidence"?
Why won't he tell us?
Frank Krygowski
Aug 7, 2014, 8:34:39 AM8/7/14
to
occasionally and briefly in sprints, but that's about it.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Mrcheerful
Aug 7, 2014, 9:25:03 AM8/7/14
to
braking, perhaps that is one of the problems. There is a definite
problem with cyclists riding head down though, or they would not crash
into so many stationary objects, such as cars, lorries, caravans, walls,
trains and even steam rollers ! Almost invariably those happen to
'racing bikes'
Frank Krygowski
Aug 7, 2014, 1:54:26 PM8/7/14
to
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 9:25:03 AM UTC-4, Mrcheerful wrote:
> There is a definite
> problem with cyclists riding head down though, or they would not crash
> into so many stationary objects, such as cars, lorries, caravans, walls,
> trains and even steam rollers ! Almost invariably those happen to
> 'racing bikes'
Got data?
> There is a definite
> problem with cyclists riding head down though, or they would not crash
> into so many stationary objects, such as cars, lorries, caravans, walls,
> trains and even steam rollers ! Almost invariably those happen to
> 'racing bikes'
- Frank Krygowski
Judith
Aug 7, 2014, 2:09:14 PM8/7/14
to
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:25:03 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Don't forget "pedestrians"
wrote:
JNugent
Aug 7, 2014, 2:32:32 PM8/7/14
to
Perhaps they're not as "cool".
JNugent
Aug 7, 2014, 2:37:30 PM8/7/14
to
On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
> I'm not a fan of drop bars except for hill climbing. But any observation of
> photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most time on
> the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have more
> than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
> A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings than a
> driver of a modern car.
Instinctively, one guesses that that must be true, but you would never
> photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most time on
> the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have more
> than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
> A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings than a
> driver of a modern car.
know it from the number of "not looking ahead at the time" cyclist
accidents, though. Would you?
> It has to be wondered how many casualties
> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This needs
> urgent examination.
Modern cars have excellent all-round vision. Vans, etc, not so much, but
no worse than they have always been, and probably better with modern
mirrors and placement.
>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing bicycles,
>> and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist crashes involve a
>> racing bike.
>
> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you factored
> distance into it?
(relatively) high speed?
JNugent
Aug 7, 2014, 2:38:15 PM8/7/14
to
Mrcheerful
Aug 7, 2014, 3:27:53 PM8/7/14
to
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:54:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I done counted one day.
Besides, s'obvious, innit?
wrote:
Besides, s'obvious, innit?
Mrcheerful
Aug 7, 2014, 3:55:25 PM8/7/14
to
a pedestrian, all the ones I mentioned were completely immobile, easily
seen and in most cases killed or permanently/severely injured the
cyclist ! This one from a couple of days ago didn't ride away, she died
of head injuries (no helmet at a guess) :
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/278287-cyclist-63-dies-after-crashing-into-pedestrian-and-falling/
TMS320
Aug 7, 2014, 4:40:00 PM8/7/14
to
Mrcheerful
Aug 7, 2014, 5:21:42 PM8/7/14
to
would increase the likelihood of running into a stationary object?
TMS320
Aug 7, 2014, 5:59:52 PM8/7/14
to
"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:c4hvbt...@mid.individual.net...
> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> I'm not a fan of drop bars except for hill climbing. But any observation
>> of
>> photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most time
>> on
>> the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have more
>> than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
>
>> A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings than
>> a driver of a modern car.
>
> Instinctively, one guesses that that must be true,
It does not need instinct to know it to be true.
>
>> I'm not a fan of drop bars except for hill climbing. But any observation
>> of
>> photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most time
>> on
>> the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have more
>> than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
>
>> A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings than
>> a driver of a modern car.
>
> Instinctively, one guesses that that must be true,
> but you would never
> know it from the number of "not looking ahead at the time" cyclist
> accidents, though. Would you?
>> It has to be wondered how many casualties
>> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This needs
>> urgent examination.
>
> "Current design" of what?
> Modern cars have excellent all-round vision.
> Vans, etc, not so much, but no worse than they have always been, and
> probably better with modern mirrors and placement.
first hand knowledge of cars? It is not possible to thicken up pillars,
reduce window aperture and raise the dashboard and claim the result to be
"excellent". Mirrors do not assist forward vision. Van backs don't obstruct
forward vision.
>>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing bicycles,
>>> and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist crashes involve a
>>> racing bike.
>>
>> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
>
> Is that relevant?
then it is none of your business.
>> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you factored
>> distance into it?
>
> Are you using the term "long distance" as a euphemistic proxy for
> (relatively) high speed?
TMS320
Aug 7, 2014, 6:07:07 PM8/7/14
to
news:26SEv.93845$Cd5....@fx03.am4...
I can't be bothered. You don't even understand your own question.
JNugent
Aug 7, 2014, 6:47:38 PM8/7/14
to
On 07/08/2014 22:59, TMS320 wrote:
> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:c4hvbt...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a fan of drop bars except for hill climbing. But any observation
>>> of
>>> photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most time
>>> on
>>> the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have more
>>> than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
>>
>>> A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings than
>>> a driver of a modern car.
>>
>> Instinctively, one guesses that that must be true,
>
> It does not need instinct to know it to be true.
>
>> but you would never
>> know it from the number of "not looking ahead at the time" cyclist
>> accidents, though. Would you?
>
> So how many is it?
Greater than zero.
> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:c4hvbt...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a fan of drop bars except for hill climbing. But any observation
>>> of
>>> photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most time
>>> on
>>> the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have more
>>> than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
>>
>>> A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings than
>>> a driver of a modern car.
>>
>> Instinctively, one guesses that that must be true,
>
> It does not need instinct to know it to be true.
>
>> but you would never
>> know it from the number of "not looking ahead at the time" cyclist
>> accidents, though. Would you?
>
> So how many is it?
And it ought to be zero.
I have never either cycled or driven into a fixed stationary object
which was all the time there to be seen.
Have you?
>>> It has to be wondered how many casualties
>>> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This needs
>>> urgent examination.
>>
>> "Current design" of what?
> ...of cars
>
>> Modern cars have excellent all-round vision.
>> Vans, etc, not so much, but no worse than they have always been, and
>> probably better with modern mirrors and placement.
>
> Because I like to ride a bike are you trying to imagine that I don't have
> first hand knowledge of cars? It is not possible to thicken up pillars,
> reduce window aperture and raise the dashboard and claim the result to be
> "excellent". Mirrors do not assist forward vision. Van backs don't obstruct
> forward vision.
I am sure that you will agree that all motor cars of "current design"
comply with all legal requirements for unobstructed forward vision.
>>>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing bicycles,
>>>> and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist crashes involve a
>>>> racing bike.
>>>
>>> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
>
>> Is that relevant?
>
> Of course it is. If someone makes a choice which doesn't harm anyone else
> then it is none of your business.
failing to keep a proper look-out?
Or even your car?
>>> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you factored
>>> distance into it?
>
>> Are you using the term "long distance" as a euphemistic proxy for
>> (relatively) high speed?
>
> No
the journey?
Peter Keller
Aug 8, 2014, 4:09:22 AM8/8/14
to
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 12:25:02 +0100, Judith wrote:
> The Porker
Judith,, like the lamprey, lacks paired fins and fin rays. Its skeleton
> The Porker
is wholly cartilaginous, without bones, its mouth is jawless; and its
skin is scaleless. It is easily recognized by its eel-like form; by its
single finfold (a fold of skin, not a true fin) running right around the
tail and forward on the lower surface of the body with no division into
dorsal, caudal, and anal fins; by the single gill pore on each side, just
forward of the origin of the ventral finfold; by its lipless mouth, star-
shaped in outline when closed; by the single nasal aperture at the tip of
the snout; by its peculiar barbels or "tentacles," two flanking the mouth
on either side and four surrounding the nostril; and by the evertible
tongue studded with rows of horny rasplike "teeth."
Peter Keller
Aug 8, 2014, 4:11:57 AM8/8/14
to
thinks of me.
Actually, I do give a fuck. The worse it thinks of me, the better.
For it I will become a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth, a
technicolor yawn, and smelly.
Peter Keller
Aug 8, 2014, 4:14:24 AM8/8/14
to
any other reason.
Peter Keller
Aug 8, 2014, 4:17:37 AM8/8/14
to
But they also take away the option of riding head down to reduce air
resistance.
(with care of course. One should also be aware of what is in front of
oneself)
Peter Keller
Aug 8, 2014, 4:18:55 AM8/8/14
to
levers pretty well.
Tarcap
Aug 8, 2014, 7:20:46 AM8/8/14
to
"Peter Keller" wrote in message news:ls20oc$f40$2...@dont-email.me...
Tarcap
Aug 8, 2014, 7:20:58 AM8/8/14
to
"Peter Keller" wrote in message news:ls20ji$f40$1...@dont-email.me...
TMS320
Aug 8, 2014, 9:06:30 AM8/8/14
to
"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
enormous impact absorbing buffer? It not I suggest you familiarise yourself
with the significance. (Here is a clue, the buffer is much bigger than
anything a cyclist would need.) And if you haven't noticed, perhaps luck has
been on your side so far.
I suggest people stop putting demands onto the people that ride bicycles
which people that drive motor vehicles clearly fail to achieve. Particularly
when the latter have the capacity and proven record of imposing so much
physical harm
on others.
>>>> It has to be wondered how many casualties
>>>> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This
>>>> needs
>>>> urgent examination.
>>>
>>> "Current design" of what?
>
>> ...of cars
>>
>>> Modern cars have excellent all-round vision.
>>> Vans, etc, not so much, but no worse than they have always been, and
>>> probably better with modern mirrors and placement.
>>
>> Because I like to ride a bike are you trying to imagine that I don't have
>> first hand knowledge of cars? It is not possible to thicken up pillars,
>> reduce window aperture and raise the dashboard and claim the result to be
>> "excellent". Mirrors do not assist forward vision. Van backs don't
>> obstruct
>> forward vision.
>
> The *windscreen* is for forward vision.
It is only sufficient for sight along the car's horizontal and longitudinal
axis. Many (or even most) events that a road user needs to be aware of occur
a few degrees away. This sight is inadequate.
> I am sure that you will agree that all motor cars of "current design"
> comply with all legal requirements for unobstructed forward vision.
>
>>>>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing
>>>>> bicycles,
>>>>> and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist crashes involve a
>>>>> racing bike.
>>>>
>>>> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
>>
>>> Is that relevant?
>>
>> Of course it is. If someone makes a choice which doesn't harm anyone else
>> then it is none of your business.
>
> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
> failing to keep a proper look-out?
You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the bicycle in
the same way as you would claim off the operator of a motor vehicle.
Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by a
motor vehicle.
> Or even your car?
I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I would
about being hit by a motor vehicle.
>>>> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you factored
>>>> distance into it?
>>
>>> Are you using the term "long distance" as a euphemistic proxy for
>>> (relatively) high speed?
>>
>> No
>
> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of the
> journey?
Sigh.
Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile journeys
and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which one
has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The answer, which
I think should be obvious, is B.
Now, let's say that A crashes after doing a million journeys and B crashes
after doing half a million journeys, what does that tell us? Only that the
downfall of B is more likely to be reported in the press (probably because
it happened during an "event" that the press was aware of) and that it will
cause a number of ignorant people to come on to urc and offer their "wisdom"
about how awful it is that type B cyclists have such poor skill or
equipment. And the ever present "I'm quaking in my boots over the thought of
a cyclist putting a
scratch on my worthless paintwork".
Now, if one of these aforementioned ignorant people claims that drop bars
(or anything else) are dangerous, they can either make a reasonable attempt
to find some data to assist their hypothesis or they should go away.
>>> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not a fan of drop bars except for hill climbing. But any
>>>> observation
>>>> of
>>>> photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most
>>>> time
>>>> on
>>>> the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have
>>>> more
>>>> than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
>>>
>>>> A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings
>>>> than
>>>> a driver of a modern car.
>>>
>>> Instinctively, one guesses that that must be true,
>>
>> It does not need instinct to know it to be true.
>>
>>> but you would never
>>> know it from the number of "not looking ahead at the time" cyclist
>>> accidents, though. Would you?
>>
>> So how many is it?
>
> Greater than zero.
>
> And it ought to be zero.
>
> I have never either cycled or driven into a fixed stationary object which
> was all the time there to be seen.
>
> Have you?
Have you ever seen a Highways Agency vehicle with big flashing arrows and an
>>>
>>>> I'm not a fan of drop bars except for hill climbing. But any
>>>> observation
>>>> of
>>>> photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most
>>>> time
>>>> on
>>>> the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have
>>>> more
>>>> than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
>>>
>>>> A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings
>>>> than
>>>> a driver of a modern car.
>>>
>>> Instinctively, one guesses that that must be true,
>>
>> It does not need instinct to know it to be true.
>>
>>> but you would never
>>> know it from the number of "not looking ahead at the time" cyclist
>>> accidents, though. Would you?
>>
>> So how many is it?
>
> Greater than zero.
>
> And it ought to be zero.
>
> I have never either cycled or driven into a fixed stationary object which
> was all the time there to be seen.
>
> Have you?
enormous impact absorbing buffer? It not I suggest you familiarise yourself
with the significance. (Here is a clue, the buffer is much bigger than
anything a cyclist would need.) And if you haven't noticed, perhaps luck has
been on your side so far.
I suggest people stop putting demands onto the people that ride bicycles
which people that drive motor vehicles clearly fail to achieve. Particularly
when the latter have the capacity and proven record of imposing so much
physical harm
on others.
>>>> It has to be wondered how many casualties
>>>> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This
>>>> needs
>>>> urgent examination.
>>>
>>> "Current design" of what?
>
>> ...of cars
>>
>>> Modern cars have excellent all-round vision.
>>> Vans, etc, not so much, but no worse than they have always been, and
>>> probably better with modern mirrors and placement.
>>
>> Because I like to ride a bike are you trying to imagine that I don't have
>> first hand knowledge of cars? It is not possible to thicken up pillars,
>> reduce window aperture and raise the dashboard and claim the result to be
>> "excellent". Mirrors do not assist forward vision. Van backs don't
>> obstruct
>> forward vision.
>
> The *windscreen* is for forward vision.
axis. Many (or even most) events that a road user needs to be aware of occur
a few degrees away. This sight is inadequate.
> I am sure that you will agree that all motor cars of "current design"
> comply with all legal requirements for unobstructed forward vision.
>
>>>>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing
>>>>> bicycles,
>>>>> and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist crashes involve a
>>>>> racing bike.
>>>>
>>>> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
>>
>>> Is that relevant?
>>
>> Of course it is. If someone makes a choice which doesn't harm anyone else
>> then it is none of your business.
>
> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
> failing to keep a proper look-out?
the same way as you would claim off the operator of a motor vehicle.
Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by a
motor vehicle.
> Or even your car?
I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I would
about being hit by a motor vehicle.
>>>> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you factored
>>>> distance into it?
>>
>>> Are you using the term "long distance" as a euphemistic proxy for
>>> (relatively) high speed?
>>
>> No
>
> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of the
> journey?
Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile journeys
and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which one
has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The answer, which
I think should be obvious, is B.
Now, let's say that A crashes after doing a million journeys and B crashes
after doing half a million journeys, what does that tell us? Only that the
downfall of B is more likely to be reported in the press (probably because
it happened during an "event" that the press was aware of) and that it will
cause a number of ignorant people to come on to urc and offer their "wisdom"
about how awful it is that type B cyclists have such poor skill or
equipment. And the ever present "I'm quaking in my boots over the thought of
a cyclist putting a
scratch on my worthless paintwork".
Now, if one of these aforementioned ignorant people claims that drop bars
(or anything else) are dangerous, they can either make a reasonable attempt
to find some data to assist their hypothesis or they should go away.
Mrcheerful
Aug 8, 2014, 9:28:03 AM8/8/14
to
On 08/08/2014 14:06, TMS320 wrote:
>
> Now, if one of these aforementioned ignorant people claims that drop bars
> (or anything else) are dangerous, they can either make a reasonable attempt
> to find some data to assist their hypothesis or they should go away.
>
A large number of crash reports specifically mention racing bikes, so it
>
> Now, if one of these aforementioned ignorant people claims that drop bars
> (or anything else) are dangerous, they can either make a reasonable attempt
> to find some data to assist their hypothesis or they should go away.
>
is reasonable to assume that there is something about that type of bike,
and or the riding position, or it may be the type of person/mentality
attracted to that type of bicycle.
Dr. Sandringham
Aug 8, 2014, 11:03:07 AM8/8/14
to
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:28:03 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Well, no.
The number of crash reports that mention bicycles at all is small. Most crash
reports mention moton-vehicles.
wrote:
The number of crash reports that mention bicycles at all is small. Most crash
reports mention moton-vehicles.
Mrcheerful
Aug 8, 2014, 11:09:08 AM8/8/14
to
Frank Krygowski
Aug 8, 2014, 12:15:41 PM8/8/14
to
On 8/8/2014 9:28 AM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> A large number of crash reports specifically mention racing bikes...
Got examples?
--
- Frank Krygowski
>
> A large number of crash reports specifically mention racing bikes...
Got examples?
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
Aug 8, 2014, 12:34:18 PM8/8/14
to
On 8/8/2014 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/8/2014 9:28 AM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> A large number of crash reports specifically mention
>> racing bikes...
>
> Got examples?
>
>
Hard to tell what 'bike' means in a report. These things:
> On 8/8/2014 9:28 AM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> A large number of crash reports specifically mention
>> racing bikes...
>
> Got examples?
>
>
http://www.wiba.com/articles/madison-news-118857/motorcycle-crash-near-belleville-during-police-12650211
Are often called 'bikes'. If you're looking at aggregate
data there will be some overlap I'm sure.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Mrcheerful
Aug 8, 2014, 12:38:52 PM8/8/14
to
On 08/08/2014 17:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/8/2014 9:28 AM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> A large number of crash reports specifically mention racing bikes...
>
> Got examples?
>
>
Looking at road bicycles seem to show that flat bars are the most
> On 8/8/2014 9:28 AM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> A large number of crash reports specifically mention racing bikes...
>
> Got examples?
>
>
common, yet many reports of bicycle crashes mention that it was a racing
type bicycle:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Cyclist-killed-A63-time-trial-named-Christopher/story-18596786-detail/story.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-28670953
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/elderly-cyclist-who-died-after-smashing-into-a-wall-in-south-cumbria-named-1.1152936?cache=cachehiguain%252525252Frk%252525253D%252525252Frk
Mrcheerful
Aug 8, 2014, 12:40:08 PM8/8/14
to
On 08/08/2014 17:34, AMuzi wrote:
> On 8/8/2014 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/8/2014 9:28 AM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>> A large number of crash reports specifically mention
>>> racing bikes...
>>
>> Got examples?
>>
>>
>
> Hard to tell what 'bike' means in a report. These things:
>
> http://www.wiba.com/articles/madison-news-118857/motorcycle-crash-near-belleville-during-police-12650211
>
>
> Are often called 'bikes'. If you're looking at aggregate data there will
> be some overlap I'm sure.
>
The reports I read and reference are specifically bicycles rather than
> On 8/8/2014 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/8/2014 9:28 AM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>> A large number of crash reports specifically mention
>>> racing bikes...
>>
>> Got examples?
>>
>>
>
> Hard to tell what 'bike' means in a report. These things:
>
> http://www.wiba.com/articles/madison-news-118857/motorcycle-crash-near-belleville-during-police-12650211
>
>
> Are often called 'bikes'. If you're looking at aggregate data there will
> be some overlap I'm sure.
>
motorcycles.
JNugent
Aug 8, 2014, 12:55:46 PM8/8/14
to
such a thing (and by extension, of what relevance would my answer have,
either way)?
Let me remind you of my statement and my question:
I have never either cycled or driven into a fixed stationary object
which was all the time there to be seen.
> It not I suggest you familiarise yourself
> with the significance. (Here is a clue, the buffer is much bigger than
> anything a cyclist would need.) And if you haven't noticed, perhaps luck has
> been on your side so far.
It's silly.
The reason I haven't ridden or driven into a large stationary object
(still less one that never moves, like a wall) is that I watch where I'm
going.
I assume you do the same (but I'm prepared to be corrected if my
assumption is misplaced).
Watch where you're going and there's no luck involved.
> I suggest people stop putting demands onto the people that ride bicycles
> which people that drive motor vehicles clearly fail to achieve. Particularly
> when the latter have the capacity and proven record of imposing so much
> physical harm on others.
I expect every road user to watch where they're going.
Don't you?
>>>>> It has to be wondered how many casualties
>>>>> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This
>>>>> needs urgent examination.
>
>>>> "Current design" of what?
>
>>> ...of cars
>>
>>>> Modern cars have excellent all-round vision.
>>>> Vans, etc, not so much, but no worse than they have always been, and
>>>> probably better with modern mirrors and placement.
>
>>> Because I like to ride a bike are you trying to imagine that I don't have
>>> first hand knowledge of cars? It is not possible to thicken up pillars,
>>> reduce window aperture and raise the dashboard and claim the result to be
>>> "excellent". Mirrors do not assist forward vision. Van backs don't
>>> obstruct forward vision.
>
>> The *windscreen* is for forward vision.
>
> It is only sufficient for sight along the car's horizontal and longitudinal
> axis. Many (or even most) events that a road user needs to be aware of occur
> a few degrees away. This sight is inadequate.
Perhaps you ought to take it up with the Parliamentary draftsmen who
drew up the Construction & Use regulations.
In the meantime, is it your proposition that drivers drive headlong into
walls and similar structures because of the width of the A-post pillars
in the vehicles they are driving?
It seems to be what you're saying.
>> I am sure that you will agree that all motor cars of "current design"
>> comply with all legal requirements for unobstructed forward vision.
>
>>>>>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing
>>>>>> bicycles, and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist
>>>>>> crashes involve a racing bike.
>
>>>>> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
>
>>>> Is that relevant?
>
>>> Of course it is. If someone makes a choice which doesn't harm anyone else
>>> then it is none of your business.
>
>> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
>> failing to keep a proper look-out?
>
> You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the bicycle in
> the same way as you would claim off the operator of a motor vehicle.
> Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by a
> motor vehicle.
>
>> Or even your car?
>
> I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I would
> about being hit by a motor vehicle.
at high speed (FSVO "high") without watching where they are going?
For the avoidance of doubt, *I* certainly do not believe or accept that.
But it seems that you do.
>>>>> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you factored
>>>>> distance into it?
>
>>>> Are you using the term "long distance" as a euphemistic proxy for
>>>> (relatively) high speed?
>
>>> No
>
>> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of the
>> journey?
>
> Sigh.
> Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile journeys
> and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which one
> has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The answer, which
> I think should be obvious, is B.
> Now, let's say that A crashes after doing a million journeys and B crashes
> after doing half a million journeys, what does that tell us? Only that the
> downfall of B is more likely to be reported in the press (probably because
> it happened during an "event" that the press was aware of) and that it will
> cause a number of ignorant people to come on to urc and offer their "wisdom"
> about how awful it is that type B cyclists have such poor skill or
> equipment. And the ever present "I'm quaking in my boots over the thought of
> a cyclist putting a scratch on my worthless paintwork".
> Now, if one of these aforementioned ignorant people claims that drop bars
> (or anything else) are dangerous, they can either make a reasonable attempt
> to find some data to assist their hypothesis or they should go away.
Other than in your purely-imaginary scenario involving cyclists A and B,
I mean.
Dr. Sandringham
Aug 8, 2014, 1:52:21 PM8/8/14
to
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:38:52 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
This rather looks as though the poster thinks that three is a large number,
possibly because he is counting like this - "one, two, many".
In which case it's very naughty of Frank to encourage him.
wrote:
possibly because he is counting like this - "one, two, many".
In which case it's very naughty of Frank to encourage him.
Mrcheerful
Aug 8, 2014, 2:18:06 PM8/8/14
to
AMuzi
Aug 8, 2014, 3:36:32 PM8/8/14
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=andrew+muzi&go=Go
I can't say I felt any need.
TMS320
Aug 8, 2014, 3:45:33 PM8/8/14
to
news:%f4Fv.144224$wq1....@fx20.am4...
wonder how many non-reports there are of drivers going into large stationary
objects.
> so it is reasonable to assume that there is something about that type of
> bike, and or the riding position,
> or it may be the type of person/mentality attracted to that type of
> bicycle.
Some people have a flat bar bike utility bike and a "racing bike". And
possibly other bikes of varying description. And several cars... and
motorbikes... What then? I can only assume you think they must be too close
to the action to be able to make an informed opinion.
If the subject bothers you, you should do the research instead of whittering
on about press reports so that when you are in the market to buy a bike you
don't come home with the wrong configuration. Otherwise, whatever type of
bike other people choose, it is not your funeral.
> On 08/08/2014 14:06, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> Now, if one of these aforementioned ignorant people claims that drop bars
>> (or anything else) are dangerous, they can either make a reasonable
>> attempt
>> to find some data to assist their hypothesis or they should go away.
>
> A large number of crash reports specifically mention racing bikes,
Meanwhile, most of the 80-100 KSIs on the road *per day* pass unreported. I
>
>> Now, if one of these aforementioned ignorant people claims that drop bars
>> (or anything else) are dangerous, they can either make a reasonable
>> attempt
>> to find some data to assist their hypothesis or they should go away.
>
> A large number of crash reports specifically mention racing bikes,
wonder how many non-reports there are of drivers going into large stationary
objects.
> so it is reasonable to assume that there is something about that type of
> bike, and or the riding position,
> or it may be the type of person/mentality attracted to that type of
> bicycle.
possibly other bikes of varying description. And several cars... and
motorbikes... What then? I can only assume you think they must be too close
to the action to be able to make an informed opinion.
If the subject bothers you, you should do the research instead of whittering
on about press reports so that when you are in the market to buy a bike you
don't come home with the wrong configuration. Otherwise, whatever type of
bike other people choose, it is not your funeral.
TMS320
Aug 8, 2014, 3:47:54 PM8/8/14
to
news:c4kdp5...@mid.individual.net...
So just because you have never driven into the back of a Highways Agency
lorry they're obviously wasting their time.
> I assume you do the same (but I'm prepared to be corrected if my
> assumption is misplaced).
>
> Watch where you're going and there's no luck involved.
>
>> I suggest people stop putting demands onto the people that ride bicycles
>> which people that drive motor vehicles clearly fail to achieve.
>> Particularly
>> when the latter have the capacity and proven record of imposing so much
>> physical harm on others.
>
> What are you talking about now?
If you're concerned about people not looking, worry more about the occasions
when they're operating a motor vehicle.
> I expect every road user to watch where they're going.
>
> Don't you?
Of course. But there is a big difference between expectation and reality.
>>>>>> It has to be wondered how many casualties
>>>>>> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This
>>>>>> needs urgent examination.
>>
>>>>> "Current design" of what?
>>
>>>> ...of cars
>>>
>>>>> Modern cars have excellent all-round vision.
>>>>> Vans, etc, not so much, but no worse than they have always been, and
>>>>> probably better with modern mirrors and placement.
>>
>>>> Because I like to ride a bike are you trying to imagine that I don't
>>>> have
>>>> first hand knowledge of cars? It is not possible to thicken up pillars,
>>>> reduce window aperture and raise the dashboard and claim the result to
>>>> be
>>>> "excellent". Mirrors do not assist forward vision. Van backs don't
>>>> obstruct forward vision.
>>
>>> The *windscreen* is for forward vision.
>>
>> It is only sufficient for sight along the car's horizontal and
>> longitudinal
>> axis. Many (or even most) events that a road user needs to be aware of
>> occur
>> a few degrees away. This sight is inadequate.
>
> I see. So you say, at any rate.
>
> Perhaps you ought to take it up with the Parliamentary draftsmen who drew
> up the Construction & Use regulations.
It has been raised as a concern. Not by me. So my opinion is not a singular
one.
> In the meantime, is it your proposition that drivers drive headlong into
> walls and similar structures because of the width of the A-post pillars in
> the vehicles they are driving?
>
> It seems to be what you're saying.
See above.
>>> I am sure that you will agree that all motor cars of "current design"
>>> comply with all legal requirements for unobstructed forward vision.
>>
>>>>>>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing
>>>>>>> bicycles, and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist
>>>>>>> crashes involve a racing bike.
>>
>>>>>> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
>>
>>>>> Is that relevant?
>>
>>>> Of course it is. If someone makes a choice which doesn't harm anyone
>>>> else
>>>> then it is none of your business.
>>
>>> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
>>> failing to keep a proper look-out?
>>
>> You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the bicycle
>> in
>> the same way as you would claim off the operator of a motor vehicle.
>> Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by a
>> motor vehicle.
>>
>>> Or even your car?
>>
>> I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I would
>> about being hit by a motor vehicle.
>
> Does that mean that you "think" it's acceptable for cyclists to travel at
> high speed (FSVO "high") without watching where they are going?
It says what it says.
> For the avoidance of doubt, *I* certainly do not believe or accept that.
>
> But it seems that you do.
>
>>>>>> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you
>>>>>> factored
>>>>>> distance into it?
>>
>>>>> Are you using the term "long distance" as a euphemistic proxy for
>>>>> (relatively) high speed?
>>
>>>> No
>>
>>> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of
>>> the
>>> journey?
>>
>> Sigh.
>> Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile journeys
>> and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which
>> one
>> has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The answer,
>> which
>> I think should be obvious, is B.
>
> And what if Type A does 50 miles and type B does 5?
And what if they do? It happens but it won't be such a good reflection of
typical usage.
<...>
After you came back off line recently, I thought the upgrade was quite a
marked improvement; there seem to be fewer forced reboots and the faux
telepathy appers to have reduced emphasis. There are still a few tell tale
features that don't gel properly.
lorry they're obviously wasting their time.
> I assume you do the same (but I'm prepared to be corrected if my
> assumption is misplaced).
>
> Watch where you're going and there's no luck involved.
>
>> I suggest people stop putting demands onto the people that ride bicycles
>> which people that drive motor vehicles clearly fail to achieve.
>> Particularly
>> when the latter have the capacity and proven record of imposing so much
>> physical harm on others.
>
> What are you talking about now?
when they're operating a motor vehicle.
> I expect every road user to watch where they're going.
>
> Don't you?
>>>>>> It has to be wondered how many casualties
>>>>>> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This
>>>>>> needs urgent examination.
>>
>>>>> "Current design" of what?
>>
>>>> ...of cars
>>>
>>>>> Modern cars have excellent all-round vision.
>>>>> Vans, etc, not so much, but no worse than they have always been, and
>>>>> probably better with modern mirrors and placement.
>>
>>>> Because I like to ride a bike are you trying to imagine that I don't
>>>> have
>>>> first hand knowledge of cars? It is not possible to thicken up pillars,
>>>> reduce window aperture and raise the dashboard and claim the result to
>>>> be
>>>> "excellent". Mirrors do not assist forward vision. Van backs don't
>>>> obstruct forward vision.
>>
>>> The *windscreen* is for forward vision.
>>
>> It is only sufficient for sight along the car's horizontal and
>> longitudinal
>> axis. Many (or even most) events that a road user needs to be aware of
>> occur
>> a few degrees away. This sight is inadequate.
>
> I see. So you say, at any rate.
>
> Perhaps you ought to take it up with the Parliamentary draftsmen who drew
> up the Construction & Use regulations.
one.
> In the meantime, is it your proposition that drivers drive headlong into
> walls and similar structures because of the width of the A-post pillars in
> the vehicles they are driving?
>
> It seems to be what you're saying.
>>> I am sure that you will agree that all motor cars of "current design"
>>> comply with all legal requirements for unobstructed forward vision.
>>
>>>>>>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing
>>>>>>> bicycles, and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist
>>>>>>> crashes involve a racing bike.
>>
>>>>>> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
>>
>>>>> Is that relevant?
>>
>>>> Of course it is. If someone makes a choice which doesn't harm anyone
>>>> else
>>>> then it is none of your business.
>>
>>> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
>>> failing to keep a proper look-out?
>>
>> You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the bicycle
>> in
>> the same way as you would claim off the operator of a motor vehicle.
>> Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by a
>> motor vehicle.
>>
>>> Or even your car?
>>
>> I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I would
>> about being hit by a motor vehicle.
>
> Does that mean that you "think" it's acceptable for cyclists to travel at
> high speed (FSVO "high") without watching where they are going?
> For the avoidance of doubt, *I* certainly do not believe or accept that.
>
> But it seems that you do.
>
>>>>>> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you
>>>>>> factored
>>>>>> distance into it?
>>
>>>>> Are you using the term "long distance" as a euphemistic proxy for
>>>>> (relatively) high speed?
>>
>>>> No
>>
>>> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of
>>> the
>>> journey?
>>
>> Sigh.
>> Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile journeys
>> and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which
>> one
>> has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The answer,
>> which
>> I think should be obvious, is B.
>
> And what if Type A does 50 miles and type B does 5?
typical usage.
<...>
After you came back off line recently, I thought the upgrade was quite a
marked improvement; there seem to be fewer forced reboots and the faux
telepathy appers to have reduced emphasis. There are still a few tell tale
features that don't gel properly.
Frank Krygowski
Aug 8, 2014, 4:14:42 PM8/8/14
to
On 8/8/2014 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Hard to tell what 'bike' means in a report. These things:
>
> http://www.wiba.com/articles/madison-news-118857/motorcycle-crash-near-belleville-during-police-12650211
>
>
> Are often called 'bikes'. If you're looking at aggregate data there will
> be some overlap I'm sure.
Related: Our metro area newspaper - which is usually pretty good, IMO -
>
> Hard to tell what 'bike' means in a report. These things:
>
> http://www.wiba.com/articles/madison-news-118857/motorcycle-crash-near-belleville-during-police-12650211
>
>
> Are often called 'bikes'. If you're looking at aggregate data there will
> be some overlap I'm sure.
obviously has people who write the articles, and different people who
write the headlines - perhaps working at 2 AM for the morning edition.
I say that because one headline last week talked about some bicycle
crash. But when I read the article, it was instead about a motorcycle
crash, with no mention of bicycles. To a bleary-eyed headline writer, a
bike is a bike is a bike, I guess.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Aug 8, 2014, 4:26:14 PM8/8/14
to
style bicycles." Your middle example above seems to be one where a
cyclist was hit by a car, so not the same thing at all.
I think you're overreacting to one incident you read about. While some
searching has allowed you to find another, two reports is a long way
from "many reports."
If you want to really examine whether you're correct, you'll need some
actual data. And it would help if you properly define "racing style
bicycle" first.
--
- Frank Krygowski
JNugent
Aug 8, 2014, 5:30:43 PM8/8/14
to
On 08/08/2014 20:47, TMS320 wrote:
> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
Do you *really* not understand?
I *see* your tactic and it's silly.
The reason I haven't ridden or driven into a large stationary object
(still less one that never moves, like a wall) is that I watch where I'm
going.
Don't you?
>> I assume you do the same (but I'm prepared to be corrected if my
>> assumption is misplaced).
>> Watch where you're going and there's no luck involved.
>
Oh... how disappointing... you can think of no "smart" responses.
>>> I suggest people stop putting demands onto the people that ride bicycles
>>> which people that drive motor vehicles clearly fail to achieve.
>>> Particularly when the latter have the capacity and proven record of
>>> imposing so much physical harm on others.
>
>> What are you talking about now?
> If you're concerned about people not looking, worry more about the occasions
> when they're operating a motor vehicle.
Why not worry equally about all of them?
>> I expect every road user to watch where they're going.
>> Don't you?
>
> Of course.
I'm glad to see you say so.
For a moment, it looked as though you didn't expect it.
> But there is a big difference between expectation and reality.
There must be an attempt at wit buried (deep) within that, somewhere, I
expect.
>>>>>>> It has to be wondered how many casualties
>>>>>>> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This
>>>>>>> needs urgent examination.
>
>>>>>> "Current design" of what?
>
>>>>> ...of cars
>
>>>>>> Modern cars have excellent all-round vision.
>>>>>> Vans, etc, not so much, but no worse than they have always been, and
>>>>>> probably better with modern mirrors and placement.
>
>>>>> Because I like to ride a bike are you trying to imagine that I don't
>>>>> have first hand knowledge of cars? It is not possible to thicken up
>>>>> pillars, reduce window aperture and raise the dashboard and claim
>>>>> the result to be "excellent". Mirrors do not assist forward vision.
> >>>> Van backs don't obstruct forward vision.
>
>>>> The *windscreen* is for forward vision.
>
>>> It is only sufficient for sight along the car's horizontal and
>>> longitudinal axis. Many (or even most) events that a road user needs
>>> to be aware of occur a few degrees away. This sight is inadequate.
>
>> I see. So you say, at any rate.
>> Perhaps you ought to take it up with the Parliamentary draftsmen who drew
>> up the Construction & Use regulations.
> It has been raised as a concern. Not by me. So my opinion is not a singular
> one.
So you say.
>> In the meantime, is it your proposition that drivers drive headlong into
>> walls and similar structures because of the width of the A-post pillars in
>> the vehicles they are driving?
>> It seems to be what you're saying.
> See above.
Why? Very little of your writing "above" makes much sense if it is aimed
at "proving" that it is alright for cyclists not to watch they're going
all the time they're cycling.
>>>> I am sure that you will agree that all motor cars of "current design"
>>>> comply with all legal requirements for unobstructed forward vision.
>
>>>>>>>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing
>>>>>>>> bicycles, and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist
>>>>>>>> crashes involve a racing bike.
>
>>>>>>> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
>
>>>>>> Is that relevant?
>
>>>>> Of course it is. If someone makes a choice which doesn't harm anyone
>>>>> else then it is none of your business.
>
>>>> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
>>>> failing to keep a proper look-out?
>
>>> You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the bicycle
>>> in the same way as you would claim off the operator of a motor vehicle.
Not *quite* in the same way, for a variety of reasons I don't need to
spell out to you (I hope).
>>> Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by a
>>> motor vehicle.
>
>>>> Or even your car?
>
>>> I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I would
>>> about being hit by a motor vehicle.
>
>> Does that mean that you "think" it's acceptable for cyclists to travel at
>> high speed (FSVO "high") without watching where they are going?
>
> It says what it says.
OK, so you don't think cyclists need to watch where they're going.
Thanks for admitting it, weird as it is.
>> For the avoidance of doubt, *I* certainly do not believe or accept that.
>> But it seems that you do.
>
>>>>>>> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you
>>>>>>> factored distance into it?
>>
>>>>>> Are you using the term "long distance" as a euphemistic proxy for
>>>>>> (relatively) high speed?
>
>>>>> No
>
>>>> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of
>>>> the journey?
>
>>> Sigh.
>>> Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile journeys
>>> and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which
>>> one has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The answer,
>>> which I think should be obvious, is B.
>
>> And what if Type A does 50 miles and type B does 5?
>
> And what if they do? It happens but it won't be such a good reflection of
> typical usage.
So you say.
> <...>
>
> After you came back off line recently, I thought the upgrade was quite a
> marked improvement; there seem to be fewer forced reboots and the faux
> telepathy appers to have reduced emphasis. There are still a few tell tale
> features that don't gel properly.
Again, in English?
> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
I *see* your tactic and it's silly.
The reason I haven't ridden or driven into a large stationary object
(still less one that never moves, like a wall) is that I watch where I'm
going.
>> I assume you do the same (but I'm prepared to be corrected if my
>> assumption is misplaced).
>> Watch where you're going and there's no luck involved.
>
>>> I suggest people stop putting demands onto the people that ride bicycles
>>> which people that drive motor vehicles clearly fail to achieve.
>>> Particularly when the latter have the capacity and proven record of
>>> imposing so much physical harm on others.
>
>> What are you talking about now?
> If you're concerned about people not looking, worry more about the occasions
> when they're operating a motor vehicle.
>> I expect every road user to watch where they're going.
>> Don't you?
>
> Of course.
For a moment, it looked as though you didn't expect it.
> But there is a big difference between expectation and reality.
expect.
>>>>>>> It has to be wondered how many casualties
>>>>>>> (particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This
>>>>>>> needs urgent examination.
>
>>>>>> "Current design" of what?
>
>>>>> ...of cars
>
>>>>>> Modern cars have excellent all-round vision.
>>>>>> Vans, etc, not so much, but no worse than they have always been, and
>>>>>> probably better with modern mirrors and placement.
>
>>>>> Because I like to ride a bike are you trying to imagine that I don't
>>>>> have first hand knowledge of cars? It is not possible to thicken up
>>>>> pillars, reduce window aperture and raise the dashboard and claim
>>>>> the result to be "excellent". Mirrors do not assist forward vision.
> >>>> Van backs don't obstruct forward vision.
>
>>>> The *windscreen* is for forward vision.
>
>>> It is only sufficient for sight along the car's horizontal and
>>> longitudinal axis. Many (or even most) events that a road user needs
>>> to be aware of occur a few degrees away. This sight is inadequate.
>
>> I see. So you say, at any rate.
>> Perhaps you ought to take it up with the Parliamentary draftsmen who drew
>> up the Construction & Use regulations.
> It has been raised as a concern. Not by me. So my opinion is not a singular
> one.
>> In the meantime, is it your proposition that drivers drive headlong into
>> walls and similar structures because of the width of the A-post pillars in
>> the vehicles they are driving?
>> It seems to be what you're saying.
> See above.
at "proving" that it is alright for cyclists not to watch they're going
all the time they're cycling.
>>>> I am sure that you will agree that all motor cars of "current design"
>>>> comply with all legal requirements for unobstructed forward vision.
>
>>>>>>>> A large number of bicycles in crashes are described as racing
>>>>>>>> bicycles, and it seems that the largest number of dead cyclist
>>>>>>>> crashes involve a racing bike.
>
>>>>>>> Are they out riding the bike against their will?
>
>>>>>> Is that relevant?
>
>>>>> Of course it is. If someone makes a choice which doesn't harm anyone
>>>>> else then it is none of your business.
>
>>>> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
>>>> failing to keep a proper look-out?
>
>>> You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the bicycle
>>> in the same way as you would claim off the operator of a motor vehicle.
spell out to you (I hope).
>>> Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by a
>>> motor vehicle.
>
>>>> Or even your car?
>
>>> I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I would
>>> about being hit by a motor vehicle.
>
>> Does that mean that you "think" it's acceptable for cyclists to travel at
>> high speed (FSVO "high") without watching where they are going?
>
> It says what it says.
Thanks for admitting it, weird as it is.
>> For the avoidance of doubt, *I* certainly do not believe or accept that.
>> But it seems that you do.
>
>>>>>>> Drop bars are popular for travelling long distances. Have you
>>>>>>> factored distance into it?
>>
>>>>>> Are you using the term "long distance" as a euphemistic proxy for
>>>>>> (relatively) high speed?
>
>>>>> No
>
>>>> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of
>>>> the journey?
>
>>> Sigh.
>>> Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile journeys
>>> and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which
>>> one has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The answer,
>>> which I think should be obvious, is B.
>
>> And what if Type A does 50 miles and type B does 5?
>
> And what if they do? It happens but it won't be such a good reflection of
> typical usage.
> <...>
>
> After you came back off line recently, I thought the upgrade was quite a
> marked improvement; there seem to be fewer forced reboots and the faux
> telepathy appers to have reduced emphasis. There are still a few tell tale
> features that don't gel properly.
Mrcheerful
Aug 8, 2014, 7:13:48 PM8/8/14
to
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:26:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>On 8/8/2014 12:38 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 08/08/2014 17:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2014 9:28 AM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A large number of crash reports specifically mention racing bikes...
>>>
>>> Got examples?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Looking at road bicycles seem to show that flat bars are the most
>> common, yet many reports of bicycle crashes mention that it was a racing
>> type bicycle:
crash.
Your just trying to move the goal posts to suit your agenda.
wrote:
>On 8/8/2014 12:38 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 08/08/2014 17:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2014 9:28 AM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A large number of crash reports specifically mention racing bikes...
>>>
>>> Got examples?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Looking at road bicycles seem to show that flat bars are the most
>> common, yet many reports of bicycle crashes mention that it was a racing
>> type bicycle:
>> http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Cyclist-killed-A63-time-trial-named-Christopher
>> /story-18596786-detail/story.html
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-28670953
>> http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/elderly-cyclist-who-died-after-smashing-into
>> -a-wall-in-south-cumbria-named-1.1152936?cache=cachehiguain%252525252Frk%252525253D%252525252Frk
>>
>>
>> /story-18596786-detail/story.html
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-28670953
>> http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/elderly-cyclist-who-died-after-smashing-into
>> -a-wall-in-south-cumbria-named-1.1152936?cache=cachehiguain%252525252Frk%252525253D%252525252Frk
>>
>>
>Hmm. You've given two examples of cyclists hitting things on "racing
>style bicycles." Your middle example above seems to be one where a
>cyclist was hit by a car, so not the same thing at all.
>
Of course it's the same thing - he was on a racing bicycle, and involved in a
>style bicycles." Your middle example above seems to be one where a
>cyclist was hit by a car, so not the same thing at all.
>
crash.
Your just trying to move the goal posts to suit your agenda.
Peter Keller
Aug 9, 2014, 4:15:14 AM8/9/14
to
Peter Keller
Aug 9, 2014, 4:15:58 AM8/9/14
to
Tarcap
Aug 9, 2014, 6:11:32 AM8/9/14
to
"Peter Keller" wrote in message news:ls4lah$bun$1...@dont-email.me...
They can't help it.
Cassandra
Aug 9, 2014, 6:12:53 AM8/9/14
to
You lose most of the mechanical advantage of the brake lever and the
power of your hand.
Its like claiming pliars work pretty well if you hold them at the jaws
Cassandra
Aug 9, 2014, 6:22:57 AM8/9/14
to
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 11:31:13 +0100, "TMS320" <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:CKFEv.117937$bB3....@fx33.am4...
>
>"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> On 06/08/2014 23:51, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2014 6:24 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'll put the question more simply for the hard of thinking.
>>>>
>>>> In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
>>>> bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
>>>> ridden?
>>>
>>> I think you need to carefully define "racing bicycle." I say that
>>> because there are many people (west of the Atlantic, anyway) who think
>>> that any bike with drop bars is a "racing bicycle." Of course, that's
>>> their mistake.
>>>
>>> In any case, I believe the answer to your question is: No, at least over
>>> here.
>>>
>>> Consider that one quarter of fatally injured cyclists in America are
>>> drunk, or nearly so. I doubt that many racers consider alcohol to be a
>>> performance-enhancing drug. At least, for bicycling.
>
>> Anything with dropped bars would appear to be a racing bicycle and by its
>> nature is ridden head down.
>
>> Anything with dropped bars would appear to be a racing bicycle and by its
>> nature is ridden head down.
>
>I'm not a fan of drop bars except for hill climbing. But any observation of
>photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most time on
>the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have more
>than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
>
>A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings than a
>driver of a modern car. It has to be wondered how many casualties
>photos readily available shows that riders with drop bars spend most time on
>the tops. In any case, when the drop is used, the neck and eyes have more
>than enough flexibility to give proper forward scan.
>
>A cyclist still has a much better view of the road and surroundings than a
>(particularly to third parties) typical current designs cause. This needs
>urgent examination.
>
You seem to have forgotten an entire tank division could be behind a
>urgent examination.
>
cyclist and he wouldn't see them.
TMS320
Aug 9, 2014, 6:57:34 AM8/9/14
to
news:c4ktsn...@mid.individual.net...
<...>
>> But there is a big difference between expectation and reality.
>
> There must be an attempt at wit buried (deep) within that, somewhere, I
> expect.
Your telepathy app really doesn't work. Your handler should delete it
completely.
<...>
> Why? Very little of your writing "above" makes much sense if it is aimed
> at "proving" that it is alright for cyclists not to watch they're going
> all the time they're cycling.
I have not been attempting to "prove" that it is "alright".
The fact is that running into things is not a behaviour to peculiar to
bicycle riders. Stop behaving as though it is.
>>>>> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
>>>>> failing to keep a proper look-out?
>>
>>>> You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the
>>>> bicycle
>>>> in the same way as you would claim off the operator of a motor vehicle.
>
> Not *quite* in the same way, for a variety of reasons I don't need to
> spell out to you (I hope).
Please don't bother because we know that your opinions are nonsense.
>>>> Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by
>>>> a
>>>> motor vehicle.
>>
>>>>> Or even your car?
>>
>>>> I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I
>>>> would
>>>> about being hit by a motor vehicle.
>>
>>> Does that mean that you "think" it's acceptable for cyclists to travel
>>> at
>>> high speed (FSVO "high") without watching where they are going?
Bicycle riders do not routinely travel at high speed (FSVO "high") without
watching where they are going. The clear evidence is that most journeys are
completed.
>> It says what it says.
>
> OK, so you don't think cyclists need to watch where they're going.
>
> Thanks for admitting it, weird as it is.
And you're saying you're a fool. Thanks for admitting it, weird as it is.
>>>>> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of
>>>>> the journey?
>>
>>>> Sigh.
>>>> Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile
>>>> journeys
>>>> and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which
>>>> one has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The
>>>> answer,
>>>> which I think should be obvious, is B.
>>
>>> And what if Type A does 50 miles and type B does 5?
>>
>> And what if they do? It happens but it won't be such a good reflection of
>> typical usage.
>
> So you say.
Well, maybe that is the way on your planet.
> On 08/08/2014 20:47, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> On 08/08/2014 14:06, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>> On 07/08/2014 22:59, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> So just because you have never driven into the back of a Highways Agency
>> lorry they're obviously wasting their time.
[in fitting buffers]
>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> On 08/08/2014 14:06, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>> On 07/08/2014 22:59, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> So just because you have never driven into the back of a Highways Agency
>> lorry they're obviously wasting their time.
>
> Do you *really* not understand?
>
> I *see* your tactic and it's silly.
>
> The reason I haven't ridden or driven into a large stationary object
> (still less one that never moves, like a wall) is that I watch where I'm
> going.
>
> Don't you?
Stop dodging the fact that *people* run into things. It happens.
> Do you *really* not understand?
>
> I *see* your tactic and it's silly.
>
> The reason I haven't ridden or driven into a large stationary object
> (still less one that never moves, like a wall) is that I watch where I'm
> going.
>
> Don't you?
<...>
>> But there is a big difference between expectation and reality.
>
> There must be an attempt at wit buried (deep) within that, somewhere, I
> expect.
completely.
<...>
> Why? Very little of your writing "above" makes much sense if it is aimed
> at "proving" that it is alright for cyclists not to watch they're going
> all the time they're cycling.
The fact is that running into things is not a behaviour to peculiar to
bicycle riders. Stop behaving as though it is.
>>>>> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
>>>>> failing to keep a proper look-out?
>>
>>>> You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the
>>>> bicycle
>>>> in the same way as you would claim off the operator of a motor vehicle.
>
> Not *quite* in the same way, for a variety of reasons I don't need to
> spell out to you (I hope).
>>>> Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by
>>>> a
>>>> motor vehicle.
>>
>>>>> Or even your car?
>>
>>>> I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I
>>>> would
>>>> about being hit by a motor vehicle.
>>
>>> Does that mean that you "think" it's acceptable for cyclists to travel
>>> at
>>> high speed (FSVO "high") without watching where they are going?
watching where they are going. The clear evidence is that most journeys are
completed.
>> It says what it says.
>
> OK, so you don't think cyclists need to watch where they're going.
>
> Thanks for admitting it, weird as it is.
>>>>> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of
>>>>> the journey?
>>
>>>> Sigh.
>>>> Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile
>>>> journeys
>>>> and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which
>>>> one has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The
>>>> answer,
>>>> which I think should be obvious, is B.
>>
>>> And what if Type A does 50 miles and type B does 5?
>>
>> And what if they do? It happens but it won't be such a good reflection of
>> typical usage.
>
> So you say.
JNugent
Aug 9, 2014, 7:27:56 AM8/9/14
to
On 09/08/2014 11:57, TMS320 wrote:
> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>> On 08/08/2014 20:47, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>> On 08/08/2014 14:06, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 22:59, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>> So just because you have never driven into the back of a Highways Agency
>>> lorry they're obviously wasting their time.
>> [in fitting buffers]
>
>> Do you *really* not understand?
>> I *see* your tactic and it's silly.
>> The reason I haven't ridden or driven into a large stationary object
>> (still less one that never moves, like a wall) is that I watch where I'm
>> going.
>> Don't you?
> Stop dodging the fact that *people* run into things. It happens.
You are trying to pretend that the design of "racing handlebars" somehow
> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>> On 08/08/2014 20:47, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>> On 08/08/2014 14:06, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 22:59, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>> So just because you have never driven into the back of a Highways Agency
>>> lorry they're obviously wasting their time.
>> [in fitting buffers]
>
>> Do you *really* not understand?
>> I *see* your tactic and it's silly.
>> The reason I haven't ridden or driven into a large stationary object
>> (still less one that never moves, like a wall) is that I watch where I'm
>> going.
>> Don't you?
> Stop dodging the fact that *people* run into things. It happens.
doesn't tempt some cyclists to travel "head down", failing to watch
where they're going.
There is no motor vehicle designed like that. Not even - and tellingly -
a road-going motor-cycle.
> <...>
>>> But there is a big difference between expectation and reality.
>
>> There must be an attempt at wit buried (deep) within that, somewhere, I
>> expect.
>
> Your telepathy app really doesn't work. Your handler should delete it
> completely.
>
It doesn't work, of course.
But you'd rather talk about anything other than the OP's proposition,
that some bicycle features are effectively dangerous.
<...>
>
>> Why? Very little of your writing "above" makes much sense if it is aimed
>> at "proving" that it is alright for cyclists not to watch they're going
>> all the time they're cycling.
>
> I have not been attempting to "prove" that it is "alright".
undesirable and to be condemned?
> The fact is that running into things is not a behaviour to peculiar to
> bicycle riders. Stop behaving as though it is.
which facilitates and tempts the user to stare at the ground beneath the
front wheel - *is* peculiar to bicycle riders. Stop pretending that it
isn't.
>
>>>>>> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
>>>>>> failing to keep a proper look-out?
>
>>>>> You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the
>>>>> bicycle in the same way as you would claim off the operator of a
>>>>> motor vehicle.
>
>> Not *quite* in the same way, for a variety of reasons I don't need to
>> spell out to you (I hope).
> Please don't bother because we know that your opinions are nonsense.
It is certainly not only my opinion that cyclists are likely to be
>>>>>> What if they hit my car whilst cycling furiously with head down and
>>>>>> failing to keep a proper look-out?
>
>>>>> You claim for repairs off the operator (or his/her family) of the
>>>>> bicycle in the same way as you would claim off the operator of a
>>>>> motor vehicle.
>
>> Not *quite* in the same way, for a variety of reasons I don't need to
>> spell out to you (I hope).
> Please don't bother because we know that your opinions are nonsense.
uninsured and to scarper after causing damage or injury.
>>>>> Obviously, this assumes you are fit enough to claim after being hit by
>>>>> a motor vehicle.
>
>>>>>> Or even your car?
>
>>>>> I won't be as concerned about my own or my passengers' welfare as I
>>>>> would about being hit by a motor vehicle.
>
>>>> Does that mean that you "think" it's acceptable for cyclists to travel
>>>> at high speed (FSVO "high") without watching where they are going?
>
> Bicycle riders do not routinely travel at high speed (FSVO "high") without
> watching where they are going. The clear evidence is that most journeys are
> completed.
most of such journeys would be completed without incident.
>>> It says what it says.
>
>> OK, so you don't think cyclists need to watch where they're going.
>> Thanks for admitting it, weird as it is.
>
> And you're saying you're a fool. Thanks for admitting it, weird as it is.
self-evident, proposition ("it's dangerous to cycle without watching
where you're going") simply because it does not sort with your prejudices.
>>>>>> Then of what possible relevance is the length (or intended length) of
>>>>>> the journey?
>
>>>>> Sigh.
>>>>> Let's imagine a type A rider using a flat bar bicycle for 5 mile
>>>>> journeys
>>>>> and a type B rider using a drop bar bicycle for 50 mile journeys. Which
>>>>> one has more exposure to mistakes and hazards on each journey? The
>>>>> answer, which I think should be obvious, is B.
>
>>>> And what if Type A does 50 miles and type B does 5?
>
>>> And what if they do? It happens but it won't be such a good reflection of
>>> typical usage.
>
>> So you say.
>
> Well, maybe that is the way on your planet.
dangerous not to watch where you're going when cycling") but expect your
own sweeping and unsupported assertions to be accepted without demur?
Is that what happens on your planet?
Tarcap
Aug 9, 2014, 11:58:09 AM8/9/14
to
"JNugent" wrote in message news:c4ktsn...@mid.individual.net...
TMS320
Aug 9, 2014, 7:50:05 PM8/9/14
to
news:c4meuh...@mid.individual.net...
"racing bicycles" don't count. YOU (and Cheerful) have the hypothesis so if
you want to make anything of it, it is up to YOU to produce evidence in
support, ranking it relative to *all* crashes. Better still, to rank it
according to harm done to the person (not property) of third parties.
> On 09/08/2014 11:57, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> On 08/08/2014 20:47, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>>> On 08/08/2014 14:06, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 22:59, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>>> So just because you have never driven into the back of a Highways
>>>> Agency
>>>> lorry they're obviously wasting their time.
>>> [in fitting buffers]
>>
>>> Do you *really* not understand?
>>> I *see* your tactic and it's silly.
>
>>> The reason I haven't ridden or driven into a large stationary object
>>> (still less one that never moves, like a wall) is that I watch where I'm
>>> going.
>>> Don't you?
>
>> Stop dodging the fact that *people* run into things. It happens.
>
> You are trying to pretend that the design of "racing handlebars" somehow
> doesn't tempt some cyclists to travel "head down", failing to watch where
> they're going.
YOU are trying to pretend that crashes of anything other than so-called
>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> On 08/08/2014 20:47, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>>> On 08/08/2014 14:06, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 22:59, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>>> So just because you have never driven into the back of a Highways
>>>> Agency
>>>> lorry they're obviously wasting their time.
>>> [in fitting buffers]
>>
>>> Do you *really* not understand?
>>> I *see* your tactic and it's silly.
>
>>> The reason I haven't ridden or driven into a large stationary object
>>> (still less one that never moves, like a wall) is that I watch where I'm
>>> going.
>>> Don't you?
>
>> Stop dodging the fact that *people* run into things. It happens.
>
> You are trying to pretend that the design of "racing handlebars" somehow
> doesn't tempt some cyclists to travel "head down", failing to watch where
> they're going.
"racing bicycles" don't count. YOU (and Cheerful) have the hypothesis so if
you want to make anything of it, it is up to YOU to produce evidence in
support, ranking it relative to *all* crashes. Better still, to rank it
according to harm done to the person (not property) of third parties.
avag...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2014, 7:52:10 PM8/9/14
to
before noon today before the truck screen left
http://goo.gl/pV1ZgS
3 Asians in full dress, gleaming, riding on the street left..not on the path left...quickly swung across 3 lanes into the turn lane in front of 3 pickups and me with a SUV sandwiched. no signals. just turned left in front of us.
WE slowed, one pickup playfully getting within abt 15 feet.
I had a peasant word with them. The trio was tee heeing.
http://goo.gl/pV1ZgS
3 Asians in full dress, gleaming, riding on the street left..not on the path left...quickly swung across 3 lanes into the turn lane in front of 3 pickups and me with a SUV sandwiched. no signals. just turned left in front of us.
WE slowed, one pickup playfully getting within abt 15 feet.
I had a peasant word with them. The trio was tee heeing.
Peter Keller
Aug 10, 2014, 4:09:56 AM8/10/14
to
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:11:32 +0100, Tarcap wrote:
> Fuckwit's
And thank you very much sir for that great commendation.
And now, just for you, I am working towards the high honour of big
chief spewer of skunk vomit, especially in your direction.
> Fuckwit's
And thank you very much sir for that great commendation.
And now, just for you, I am working towards the high honour of big
chief spewer of skunk vomit, especially in your direction.
Peter Keller
Aug 10, 2014, 4:15:45 AM8/10/14
to
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 10:12:53 +0000, Cassandra wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:18:55 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
> <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:25:03 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/08/2014 13:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2014 5:29 AM, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:17:31 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anything with dropped bars would appear to be a racing bicycle and
>>>>>> by its nature is ridden head down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>> One can ride reasonably upright by placing one's hands above the
>>>>> brake levers or near the handlebar stem.
>>>>
>>>> Or on the hoods, or even on the drops. The head-down thing might
>>>> happen occasionally and briefly in sprints, but that's about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If the hands are in those positions then they are not ideally placed
>>> for braking, perhaps that is one of the problems. There is a definite
>>> problem with cyclists riding head down though, or they would not crash
>>> into so many stationary objects, such as cars, lorries, caravans,
>>> walls,
>>> trains and even steam rollers ! Almost invariably those happen to
>>> 'racing bikes'
>>
>>With the hands above the brake levers one can still operate the brake
>>levers pretty well.
>
> Nonsense
Not nonsense. I could operate the brakes very well for cruising type
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:18:55 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
> <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:25:03 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/08/2014 13:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2014 5:29 AM, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:17:31 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anything with dropped bars would appear to be a racing bicycle and
>>>>>> by its nature is ridden head down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>> One can ride reasonably upright by placing one's hands above the
>>>>> brake levers or near the handlebar stem.
>>>>
>>>> Or on the hoods, or even on the drops. The head-down thing might
>>>> happen occasionally and briefly in sprints, but that's about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If the hands are in those positions then they are not ideally placed
>>> for braking, perhaps that is one of the problems. There is a definite
>>> problem with cyclists riding head down though, or they would not crash
>>> into so many stationary objects, such as cars, lorries, caravans,
>>> walls,
>>> trains and even steam rollers ! Almost invariably those happen to
>>> 'racing bikes'
>>
>>With the hands above the brake levers one can still operate the brake
>>levers pretty well.
>
> Nonsense
riding, anticipating dangers, riding according to the conditions
anticipating things which I could see from my upright position.
If an emergency braking became necessary it was a split second for my
hands to go to the drops and operate the brakes with full force.
>
> You lose some of the mechanical advantage of the brake lever and the
> power of your hand.
IFIFY
>
> Its like claiming pliars work pretty well if you hold them close to the
> jaws
IFIFY
Cassandra
Aug 10, 2014, 5:19:18 AM8/10/14
to
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 08:15:45 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
As you admit you have to change hand postion to significantly increase
braking effort you prove my point.
What you claim only takes a split second is highly dangerous in an
emergency when a second means travelling an extra 30 feet.
braking effort you prove my point.
What you claim only takes a split second is highly dangerous in an
emergency when a second means travelling an extra 30 feet.
Nick
Aug 10, 2014, 5:39:10 AM8/10/14
to
On 09/08/2014 11:12, Cassandra wrote:
>>
>> With the hands above the brake levers one can still operate the brake
>> levers pretty well.
>
> Nonsense
>
> You lose most of the mechanical advantage of the brake lever and the
> power of your hand.
>
> Its like claiming pliars work pretty well if you hold them at the jaws
>
You are making an assumption that braking efficiency is dominated by
>>
>> With the hands above the brake levers one can still operate the brake
>> levers pretty well.
>
> Nonsense
>
> You lose most of the mechanical advantage of the brake lever and the
> power of your hand.
>
> Its like claiming pliars work pretty well if you hold them at the jaws
>
pressure applied to brake levers. On my bike the limiting factor is
instead the tyre friction against the road. I can apply enough pressure
to the levers to lock the front wheel when riding on the hoods. If this
were not the case I would agree with your argument.
JNugent
Aug 10, 2014, 6:10:48 AM8/10/14
to
On 10/08/2014 10:39, Nick wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 11:12, Cassandra wrote:
>
>>> With the hands above the brake levers one can still operate the brake
>>> levers pretty well.
>> Nonsense
>> You lose most of the mechanical advantage of the brake lever and the
>> power of your hand.
>> Its like claiming pliars work pretty well if you hold them at the jaws
>
> You are making an assumption that braking efficiency is dominated by
> pressure applied to brake levers.
Surely it *is*?
> On 09/08/2014 11:12, Cassandra wrote:
>
>>> With the hands above the brake levers one can still operate the brake
>>> levers pretty well.
>> Nonsense
>> You lose most of the mechanical advantage of the brake lever and the
>> power of your hand.
>> Its like claiming pliars work pretty well if you hold them at the jaws
>
> You are making an assumption that braking efficiency is dominated by
> pressure applied to brake levers.
> On my bike the limiting factor is
> instead the tyre friction against the road.
between the braking mechanism and the wheel. But is there any serious
dispute of the proposition that the amount of that friction is related -
directly - to the force with which the brake block is applied to the
relevant surface of the wheel (ie, proportional to the effort expended
by the rider)?
> I can apply enough pressure
> to the levers to lock the front wheel when riding on the hoods. If this
> were not the case I would agree with your argument.
more quickly if they were in a position to apply (up to) maximum effort
to the mechanism, rather than only a proportion of it at best?
Nick
Aug 10, 2014, 7:44:10 AM8/10/14
to
braking. It wasn't enough to just lock the wheels, In order to stop
really quickly once you were in a skid you had to use all your strength
to push the brake pedal through the floor.
sloc...@invalid.com
Aug 10, 2014, 8:17:19 AM8/10/14
to
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:39:10 +0100, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Perhaps Cassandra has weak hands :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
--
Cheers,
John B.
JNugent
Aug 10, 2014, 8:58:15 AM8/10/14
to
that all braking takes place in the wet. Well, either that or you
believe that all braking on a bike - whetever the conditions - leads to
skidding and loss of control.
Very little real point in braking at all, then, eh?
Nick
Aug 10, 2014, 10:04:51 AM8/10/14
to
with basic logic, particularly the universal and existential quantifiers.
Sir Ridesalot
Aug 10, 2014, 11:57:42 AM8/10/14
to
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:51:58 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/6/2014 6:24 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I'll put the question more simply for the hard of thinking.
>
> >
>
> > In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
>
> > bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
>
> > ridden?
>
>
>
> I think you need to carefully define "racing bicycle." I say that
>
> because there are many people (west of the Atlantic, anyway) who think
>
> that any bike with drop bars is a "racing bicycle." Of course, that's
>
> their mistake.
>
>
>
> In any case, I believe the answer to your question is: No, at least over
>
> here.
>
>
>
> Consider that one quarter of fatally injured cyclists in America are
>
> drunk, or nearly so. I doubt that many racers consider alcohol to be a
>
> performance-enhancing drug. At least, for bicycling.
>
>
>
> --
> On 8/6/2014 6:24 PM, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I'll put the question more simply for the hard of thinking.
>
> >
>
> > In cyclist crashes leading to the death of the cyclist, are racing
>
> > bicycles the most frequent type of cycle that is likely to be being
>
> > ridden?
>
>
>
> I think you need to carefully define "racing bicycle." I say that
>
> because there are many people (west of the Atlantic, anyway) who think
>
> that any bike with drop bars is a "racing bicycle." Of course, that's
>
> their mistake.
>
>
>
> In any case, I believe the answer to your question is: No, at least over
>
> here.
>
>
>
> Consider that one quarter of fatally injured cyclists in America are
>
> drunk, or nearly so. I doubt that many racers consider alcohol to be a
>
> performance-enhancing drug. At least, for bicycling.
>
>
>
>
> - Frank Krygowski
There are also many bicycles that have drop handlebars yet are not "Racing Bicycles". Those included some single speed bicycles, some fixed gear bicycles, many touring bicycles, most cyclo-cross bicycles, MTB converted to drop bars and hybrids converted to drop bars.
Cheers
avag...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2014, 2:46:51 PM8/10/14
to
There are also many bicycles that have drop handlebars yet are not "Racing Bicycles". Those included some single speed bicycles, some fixed gear bicycles, many touring bicycles, most cyclo-cross bicycles, MTB converted to drop bars and hybrids converted to drop bars.
oooooooooooooo
no, specific forms are not the discussion. The discussion is image and perception. Further inquiry may reveal HD Mitty equipment is more on the trajectory into disaster than 'real' racers or that a glamorous equipment style does similar eg the 'asians' crossing Summerlin.
not 'asians' I'm advised.
Frank Krygowski
Aug 10, 2014, 9:02:02 PM8/10/14
to
mentioned "racing bicycle," then let his imagination run wild.
--
- Frank Krygowski
James
Aug 10, 2014, 9:32:02 PM8/10/14
to
On 11/08/14 11:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Exactly what I was thinking. I believe the OP saw one article that
> mentioned "racing bicycle," then let his imagination run wild.
>
>
Mrcheerful, g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk, has a very wild imagination, which
>
> Exactly what I was thinking. I believe the OP saw one article that
> mentioned "racing bicycle," then let his imagination run wild.
>
>
is why I added his ass to my filter.
--
JS
avag...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2014, 11:44:35 PM8/10/14
to
Frank,
No, my experience strongly suggests 'racer' perspectives, self image leads to quick and ill considered, uh impetuous, uh unprepared, madcap (!)....irrational movements in traffic. QUICK is operative. Non-racers are not QUCIK
so using the principle goof from non racers...counter steering into an accident when they could counter steer out of the way...looking backwards ? remember ?
is usually resolved by the non racers distinct lack of reflex speed.
off course there are exceptions...
No, my experience strongly suggests 'racer' perspectives, self image leads to quick and ill considered, uh impetuous, uh unprepared, madcap (!)....irrational movements in traffic. QUICK is operative. Non-racers are not QUCIK
so using the principle goof from non racers...counter steering into an accident when they could counter steer out of the way...looking backwards ? remember ?
is usually resolved by the non racers distinct lack of reflex speed.
off course there are exceptions...
TMS320
Aug 11, 2014, 4:21:37 AM8/11/14
to
"Nick" <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ls7eka$vi1$1...@dont-email.me...
> ...braking efficiency is dominated by
> pressure applied to brake levers.
...brake *force* is dominated by *force* on the brake levers. Please!
"Efficiency" is just maximum brake force/vehicle mass expressed as a
percentage.
I agree that there is a point where further force on the lever will not
produce an increase in brake force.
Peter Keller
Aug 11, 2014, 5:04:55 AM8/11/14
to
bonus I can actually see where I am going and thus react early to the
emergencies.
As has often been pointed out, ridding forever with hands on the drops
so as to be forever "instantly able to apply maximum force on the brakes"
is very tiring, leads to head drop and thus not being able to see where
one is going.
Peter Keller
Aug 11, 2014, 5:09:19 AM8/11/14
to
enough force on the brake levers to lock the wheels even with their hands
resting above the brake levers. able to apply enough force on the brake
levers .
Of course, non-serious riders, recreation riders, commuters etc should
consider using straight handlebars rather than racing drops.
Peter Keller
Aug 11, 2014, 5:11:54 AM8/11/14
to
before they actually skid.
The coefficient of dynamic friction is less than the coefficient of
static friction.
JNugent
Aug 11, 2014, 6:27:13 AM8/11/14
to
avag...@gmail.com
Aug 11, 2014, 8:44:42 AM8/11/14
to
sloc...@invalid.com
Aug 11, 2014, 9:52:37 AM8/11/14
to
And as someone else mentioned I can skid either wheel on dry pavement
on one of them.... hadn't tried it on the other two.
--
Cheers,
John B.
sloc...@invalid.com
Aug 11, 2014, 9:52:37 AM8/11/14
to
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:32:02 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I guess I'm being politically incorrect but I delete any post from
uk.rec.cycling. As far as I can tell I haven't missed a thing that was
of consequence.
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
uk.rec.cycling. As far as I can tell I haven't missed a thing that was
of consequence.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Duane
Aug 11, 2014, 10:32:06 AM8/11/14
to
end shifters and old style dia comp brake levers. The way it's set up,
it's probably more difficult to brake over the hoods or what passes for
hoods though I can lock the wheels with not too much trouble.
My other bike has shimano 105 brifters. I ride on the hoods all the
time and have no problem braking from that position. It's probably
easier than when riding in the drops.
I do a lot of group riding on this one and having my hands on the hoods
is useful to allow feathering the brakes to maintain a constant speed.
Frank Krygowski
Aug 11, 2014, 11:27:24 AM8/11/14
to
> No, my experience strongly suggests 'racer' perspectives self image leads
IIRC, the original point was about "racing bicycles," not racer
perspectives. And it's fairly common for people to think any bicycle
Raleigh utility bike and my folding touring bike. All have drop bars,
but none have pretentions about being "racing bicycles."
We could, I suppose, discuss the crash counts and crash rates of racers
(or perhaps "fast recreational riders") vs. those whose driver's
licenses were lost to DUI; or wrong-way ignoramuses; or no-lights ninja
cyclists; or all those people who think no traffic law applies to
bicyclists.
But none of those things really depend on the type of bicycle being
ridden. Even racers sometimes ride other types of bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski
to quick and ill considered, uh impetuous, uh unprepared, madcap (!)....
irrational movements in traffic....
IIRC, the original point was about "racing bicycles," not racer
perspectives. And it's fairly common for people to think any bicycle
with drop bars is a "racing bicycle."
My favorite bikes are my Cannondale loaded touring bike, my ancient
Raleigh utility bike and my folding touring bike. All have drop bars,
but none have pretentions about being "racing bicycles."
We could, I suppose, discuss the crash counts and crash rates of racers
(or perhaps "fast recreational riders") vs. those whose driver's
licenses were lost to DUI; or wrong-way ignoramuses; or no-lights ninja
cyclists; or all those people who think no traffic law applies to
bicyclists.
But none of those things really depend on the type of bicycle being
ridden. Even racers sometimes ride other types of bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Cassandra
Aug 11, 2014, 1:06:29 PM8/11/14
to
brakes properly at the lever. Which is exactly what you are doing.
Cassandra
Aug 11, 2014, 1:08:24 PM8/11/14
to
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:44:10 +0100, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Thats not how you brake in a skid.
wrote:
Rob Morley
Aug 11, 2014, 1:53:28 PM8/11/14
to
Cassandra
Aug 11, 2014, 5:02:02 PM8/11/14
to
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:53:28 +0100, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Yes, where do you find a cyclist with a sense of humour ?
wrote:
James
Aug 11, 2014, 6:00:10 PM8/11/14
to
On 11/08/14 19:11, Peter Keller wrote:
>
> You stop quickest if you can brake the wheels to the point of skidding
> before they actually skid.
> The coefficient of dynamic friction is less than the coefficient of
> static friction.
>
I've found it very hard to skid the front tyre before having the rear
>
> You stop quickest if you can brake the wheels to the point of skidding
> before they actually skid.
> The coefficient of dynamic friction is less than the coefficient of
> static friction.
>
tyre hover above the ground - on dry bitumen roads.
--
JS
James
Aug 11, 2014, 6:08:20 PM8/11/14
to
that the rear tyre levitates while I'm braking.
Really, if you can't, fine - use the damn drops!
--
JS
avag...@gmail.com
Aug 11, 2014, 8:09:13 PM8/11/14
to
Frank,
aw Frank, yawl goin to Yale Law or what ? 'racing bikes'....argueing what this means to the end is dumb...as dumb as 'racing bikes'
The promulgator adpoted an incorrect starting pint in an inanimate object.
We heave to in correction not to follow but define and lead the troop to truth and beauty.
how do you swallow the ebola/bike reality comparison. More cockpit door.
Simple minds grasp so called inanimate objects as Plato's essences...which it isnot. I deal with this all day long in Fla.
aw Frank, yawl goin to Yale Law or what ? 'racing bikes'....argueing what this means to the end is dumb...as dumb as 'racing bikes'
The promulgator adpoted an incorrect starting pint in an inanimate object.
We heave to in correction not to follow but define and lead the troop to truth and beauty.
how do you swallow the ebola/bike reality comparison. More cockpit door.
Simple minds grasp so called inanimate objects as Plato's essences...which it isnot. I deal with this all day long in Fla.
sloc...@invalid.com
Aug 11, 2014, 9:22:54 PM8/11/14
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:00:10 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I used an old aluminum "mountain bike" frame to build a knock about
bike and with the Vee brakes I can easily skid either wheel on dry
pavement. But I also have the bars set for a fairly upright, or
perhaps less aerodynamic, position which I suspect makes a difference.
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
bike and with the Vee brakes I can easily skid either wheel on dry
pavement. But I also have the bars set for a fairly upright, or
perhaps less aerodynamic, position which I suspect makes a difference.
--
Cheers,
John B.
James
Aug 11, 2014, 10:07:29 PM8/11/14
to
--
JS
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages