London sees a different type of cyclist
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
wrote:
> Just got back from spending a few days in London, with the following
> observations-
>
> #1: They're tough as nails. I was there during their recent ice age, with
> temps sitting right at or below freezing. I was amazed at how many cyclists
> were out on the streets, both night & day.
>
> #2: They don't run stop lights & signs. It's just plain weird; whether on a
> home-brew fixie or carbon road bike, they stop with the rest of the traffic,
> and go with the rest of the traffic. Virtually without exception. Very odd
> thing to witness!
>
> #3: London's efforts to reduce congestion in the city seem to have paid off.
> It's a lot easier to get around than last time I visited. Either that or
> everyone stayed home because of the cold.
>
> #4: Near the Gloucester tube station, you've got a Paul (French bakery
> chain) a couple doors away from a Starbucks. Paul was doing significantly
> more business and turning tables a lot more quickly. Would love to see them
> open in the US; I prefer their coffee and their baked goods are world's
> better. Of course, this has nothing to do with cycling (other than creating
> "more livable" communities?).
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
How about their drivers? My sources (secret so far) tell me they are
not as intimidating as ours besides the fact that they drive smaller
cars and tend to obey the laws such as the passing lane and no phone.
Our individualism keeps us in the cage and driving a cage, you know.
----------------------------------------------------------
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> I don't know which part of London Mike Jacoubowsky visited to see all
> those law abiding cyclists, but it's obviously nowhere I have been!
>
> Derek C
Everything is OK for a cyclist EXCEPT riding on sidewalks and pushing
around pedestrians.
That's the way it is around here.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> On Dec 11, 6:10 pm, "Mr Pounder" <MrPoun...@RationalThought.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Colin Nelson" <colin.nels...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:tmOMo.12748$N41....@newsfe23.ams2...
>
> > > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > >> Just got back from spending a few days in London, with the following
> > >> observations-
>
> > >> #1: They're tough as nails. I was there during their recent ice age,
> > >> with temps sitting right at or below freezing. I was amazed at how
> > >> many cyclists were out on the streets, both night & day.
>
> > >> #2: They don't run stop lights & signs. It's just plain weird;
> > >> whether on a home-brew fixie or carbon road bike, they stop with the
> > >> rest of the traffic, and go with the rest of the traffic. Virtually
> > >> without exception. Very odd thing to witness!
>
> > >> #3: London's efforts to reduce congestion in the city seem to have
> > >> paid off. It's a lot easier to get around than last time I visited.
> > >> Either that or everyone stayed home because of the cold.
>
> > >> #4: Near the Gloucester tube station, you've got a Paul (French
> > > bakery
> > >> chain) a couple doors away from a Starbucks. Paul was doing
> > >> significantly more business and turning tables a lot more quickly.
> > >> Would love to see them open in the US; I prefer their coffee and
> > >> their baked goods are world's better. Of course, this has nothing to
> > >> do with cycling (other than creating "more livable" communities?).
>
> > >> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > >> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> > >>www.ChainReaction.com
> > >> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
> > > --
> > > Colin N.
>
> > > Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face
>
> > Fuck off yank.
>
> Careful! Don't forget the 'special relationship' which allows the US
> to use the UK as an unpaid and unsinkable European aircraft carrier.
If it can't sail anywhere it loses its strategic importance. It would
great if the UK sat somewhere in the Middle East. It was important
when we fought the Nazis but not now.
Their diplomatic efforts are another thing though, and the
apprehension of Assange is particularly particularly appreciated in
the defense of democracy from democracy.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> On 12/11/10 2:58 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the mundane prophet
> of the last days before the end of times wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 2:16 pm, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >> On 12/11/10 12:34 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the mundane
> >> prophet of the last days before the end of times wrote:
> >> that apply to car drivers and bicycle riders), particularly with bike lanes.
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > If you make people stand 3 minutes at the light in extreme heat or
> > cold, nobody would ride.
>
> Then they don't need to ride on those days. Most stoplights are far less
> than 3 minutes. If bikers didn't go through red lights and the
> interesections so dangerously, then, I would say that should be allowed
> to proceed through a red light. But they do so in a manner dangerous to
> themselves and others.
99.99% they only endanger themselves. Let them run the lights AFTER
SLOWING DOWN, but if they hit a pedestrian be ready to pay for him.
>
> > It's better to do like the Taliban and put a ban on it.
>
> > It's good they ticket bikes on sidewalks in the meantime though.
>
> They should also ticket riders going the wrong way on streets and bike
> lanes and otherwise riding dangerously.
And so they should do with cars, which multiply the danger to all.
They should ticket them for passing on the right and talking on the
phone to begin with.
AGAIN, NO BICYCLES ON SIDEWALKS!
Mortimer
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40739d63-743b-4743...@r16g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
As one of that rare breed - a law-abiding cyclist - I'd like to see *all*
laws that apply to cars and lorries applied *and enforced equally* for
cyclists. So I'd like to see *every* cyclist punished (preferably with
points on his licence if he is also a car driver) if he goes through a red
traffic light (1), goes through a pedestrian crossing that has people
crossing on it, overtakes on the nearside a vehicle which is indicating to
turn in that direction at a junction.
I'd also like to see cycle lanes (2) discontinued for the last n yards
(maybe 50 yards) before every junction with left-turning vehicles allowed to
position themselves properly, as close to the kerb as possible, so that no
other vehicle which is going straight on can overtake them on that side,
either legally or physically. In fact I'd like to see an end to cycle
training for children which still encourages cyclists to overtake on the
nearside and teaches that this is acceptible or even preferable.
I cycle as I drive: obeying all the rules of the road and as if I were
traceable by a numberplate like a car is. I do not go through red traffic
lights. I stop at zebra crossings. I never ever ever overtake on the left:
if I come up to a queue of traffic I either get off and walk along the
pavement or I wait my turn, usually moving out from a position close to the
kerb to a position centrally behind the cars in front and behind so I'm
clearly visible; I do this while I can keep up with the traffic and then
move back to the kerb when it starts to outpace me and cars will walt to get
past.
(1) Assuming it's not permitted for other vehicles to do this when turning
to the nearside (ie left in RHD land or to the right in LHD land) - it's
illegal in the UK but allowed in some other countries.
(2) The sort which are painted on the tarmac of the road, as opposed to a
part of the pavement/sidewalk which is designated for cyclists.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That's a tough mandate for most cyclists as they sit idly in traffic
absorbing the fumes and losing the muscle temperature that keeps the
"engine" going.
I'm all for castigating bad behavior among the wild monkeys, but I'm
also for creating a smooth flow where the bicycle does not create a
problem. Hey, where they create a conflict, we can make stopping
mandatory.
Worse, it would create a situation where most cyclist will tend to
brake the law and be held in contempt such as now.
I would create the conditions where the pedestrians have more rights
than cyclists and cyclists more than cars.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
That's a tough mandate for most cyclists as they sit idly in traffic
absorbing the fumes and losing the muscle temperature that keeps the
"engine" going.
I'm all for castigating bad behavior among the wild monkeys, but I'm
also for creating a smooth flow where the bicycle does not create a
problem. Hey, where they create a conflict, we can make stopping
mandatory.
Worse, it would create a situation where most cyclists will tend to
Miles Bader
> As one of that rare breed - a law-abiding cyclist - I'd like to see
> *all* laws that apply to cars and lorries applied *and enforced
> equally* for cyclists. So I'd like to see *every* cyclist punished
That's silly. Laws are intended to achieve a certain result, and they
are a good idea only insofar as they achieve it (without causing other
problems).
Laws should aim to achieve safety at a cost considered acceptable.
Sometimes this will involve the same restrictions for
cars/bicycles/pedestrians; at other times, the restrictions should be
_different_ because of the differences between modes -- e.g. a car
typically is far less maneuverable and has far less situational
awareness than either a bicycle or a pedestrian (or a motorcycle for
that matter, though it's greater speed/weight move it more towards "car"
end of the spectrum).
Of course another function of laws is to try and achieve certain social
goals. If we want more bicycle usage, and there are safety problems
between cars and bicycles, then the right solution may be to restrict
cars even further (rather than increasing penalties on bicycles so
things are "more equal") _even if the "fault" lies with the bicyclist_.
-Miles
--
「すっごい」と呟いてる。「へんてこなもんばっかり」
「そんなにへんてこ？」
「へんてこへんてこ」
そう言われると見たくなってしまう。
Miles Bader
> I would create the conditions where the pedestrians have more rights
> than cyclists and cyclists more than cars.
Yes.
[And of course there are scooters and motorcycles, which are somewhere
in between bicycles and cars, though maybe their weight and speed make
them closer to the latter.]
-Miles
--
Advice, n. The smallest current coin.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> On Dec 11, 5:06 pm, Lil Abner <@Daisys.net> wrote:
>
> > Conservatives? Most Americans don't want to revert to living in caves
> > and heating with Mastodon dung.
>
> ...and arguing with paleolithic strawmen, either...
Well, they mostly live in cages, so the cave sounds like some romantic
past.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
>
> > I would create the conditions where the pedestrians have more rights
> > than cyclists and cyclists more than cars.
>
> Yes.
>
> [And of course there are scooters and motorcycles, which are somewhere
> in between bicycles and cars, though maybe their weight and speed make
> them closer to the latter.]
Scooters have the highest fun coefficient of any vehicle and are very
good on gas (some 80mpg) ... Not sure though how's their carbon
footprint in terms of having a "mowing machine motor." I know 2 cycles
are not longer made, but...
Mortimer
news:613fd2a6-a7ea-4601...@v12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
I would create the conditions where the pedestrians have more rights
than cyclists and cyclists more than cars.
===
I'd like a situtation where everyone has the same rights, so everyone goes
only when it's their turn and no-one tries to beat the system because of
either their size or the fact that that can disregard rules with impunity
because they cannot be traced.
It's a very sad state of affairs if the only way to encourage people to
cycle instead of driving is to make concessions about which rules they do
and don't obey.
Martin Edwards
> On Dec 10, 9:32 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>> Just got back from spending a few days in London, with the following
>> observations-
>>
>> #1: They're tough as nails. I was there during their recent ice age, with
>> temps sitting right at or below freezing. I was amazed at how many cyclists
>>
>> #2: They don't run stop lights& signs. It's just plain weird; whether on a
>> home-brew fixie or carbon road bike, they stop with the rest of the traffic,
>> and go with the rest of the traffic. Virtually without exception. Very odd
>> thing to witness!
>>
>> #3: London's efforts to reduce congestion in the city seem to have paid off.
>> It's a lot easier to get around than last time I visited. Either that or
>> everyone stayed home because of the cold.
>>
>> #4: Near the Gloucester tube station, you've got a Paul (French bakery
>> chain) a couple doors away from a Starbucks. Paul was doing significantly
>> more business and turning tables a lot more quickly. Would love to see them
>> open in the US; I prefer their coffee and their baked goods are world's
>> better. Of course, this has nothing to do with cycling (other than creating
>> "more livable" communities?).
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>
> How about their drivers? My sources (secret so far) tell me they are
> not as intimidating as ours besides the fact that they drive smaller
> cars and tend to obey the laws such as the passing lane and no phone.
>
> Our individualism keeps us in the cage and driving a cage, you know.
>
>
our cuddly international image, many British people ignore laws that
inconvenience them. The big exception is drinking and driving, which is
now considered unacceptable by the majority.
Martin Edwards
Bolwerk
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard
> philosopher" <nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:613fd2a6-a7ea-4601...@v12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>
> I would create the conditions where the pedestrians have more
> rights than cyclists and cyclists more than cars.
>
> ===
>
> I'd like a situtation where everyone has the same rights, so everyone
> goes only when it's their turn and no-one tries to beat the system
> because of either their size or the fact that that can disregard
> rules with impunity because they cannot be traced.
Everyone would still have the same rights /to use/ a bicycle, car, or walk.
> It's a very sad state of affairs if the only way to encourage people
> to cycle instead of driving is to make concessions about which rules
> they do and don't obey.
Some laws bicyclists have to follow might literally be dangerous to
them, particularly stopping at stop signs.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
Well, the question is, IS IT LEGAL? Here things are taken to a
extreme, where SUVs --extreme SUVs-- brave their way around their way
traffic phone in hand. Others just blast an air horn to terrorize
everybody. And it's all perfectly legal.
Our roads are the best example of INDIVIDUALISM taken to the extreme,
and then you fall into some speed trap for following some common sense
speed.
Wait then you find the fast lane vigilante making sure you are not any
faster than the speed limit. And last but not least the drag racers
along I-95, all of which make for an unexciting and dangerous drive on
the wild side. I say unexciting because smart driving is punished
here.
My sources in the UK tell me your cars are smaller, and there's a
greater passion for driving stick shift cars and having some fun. Not
everything shout be boring and dangerous like here. The question for
the British cops is:
Why don't they work some more in protecting the public from the wild
beasts, such as people on the phone or passing on the inside who have
no regard for others? I understand there's high unemployment and it
seems you need to hire more cops. ;)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
from London. Funny we may be as civilized as London pretty soon...
"maybe")
Originally Posted by Jess
Dude, I'd get into discussion with you, especially as it is about
London...but all you do is quote random stuff so how are we supposed
to write back?
And yes, London drivers are safer as the laws are stricter about
things like cell phones and so on.
***
Yeah Jess, I knew you were from London and were waiting for your
feedback. People here are so out of touch with the reality in other
places when they need some good examples to follow. If they care about
anything. The reason I quote people is because they are real people
talking about the real issues and we seem somewhat apathetic about
changing the rules of the jungle.
The bicycles (DecoBike) are said to be coming this winter and without
bike lanes or some taming of traffic is going be a tough proposition.
I'm hanging on to my rusting bikes to see what will happen. Well, some
of them are sitting right next to the ocean, and that's a crime, like
many others out there.
One thing for the promoters of this bicycle program. Please put bike
lanes along the 71st and 96st causeways as well as over the Haulover
bridge, and this "Wise TibetanMonkey, prophet of the last day before
the end of times" (yeah, it's all one title) will lay praise over you
and the whole world will know about it. Thanks!
"MAY THE SUN SHINE UPON YOU!"
Miles Bader
> Regrettably, riding on the pavement is common in Birmingham.
Why is it regrettable? I mean, if bicyclists are bowling-over
pedestrians, than of course _that's_ regrettable, but it's not riding on
the sidewalk/pavement that's the problem per-se. The issue is really
not where they ride, but whether they ride in a manner appropriate for
the location, and whether the physical infrastructure can accommodate
them (e.g a very narrow, or very crowded, sidewalk/pavement might make
passing very difficult for anything but pedestrians).
I harp on this point, because here the majority of people around here
_do_ ride on the sidewalk/pavement (those who want to really ride fast
ride on the street, and of course the more crowded the sidewalks, the
more likely bicyclists are to choose the street), and it seems to cause
little problem -- and there are a _vast_ number of bicyclists here
(multiple orders of magnitude more, I'd wager, than wherever
TibetanMonkey is).
I'm American, and my personal instinct is to ride on the street, but
since I observe around me a very healthy bicycle culture that
successfully works otherwise, it can get pretty annoying seeing the
endless pronouncements from TibetanMonkey that such behavior is
evil/wrong/etc.
[Can it be annoying sometimes, as a pedestrian? Sure. But simply
instituting rules that go against a long-ingrained bicycling culture
would almost certainly be pointless -- people would just ignore them.
Instead, the government approach seems to be to widen sidewalks, which
is fine by me....]
-Miles
--
"Nah, there's no bigger atheist than me. Well, I take that back.
I'm a cancer screening away from going agnostic and a biopsy away
from full-fledged Christian." [Adam Carolla]
Mortimer
news:87oc8q9...@catnip.gol.com...
> Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>> Regrettably, riding on the pavement is common in Birmingham.
>
> Why is it regrettable? I mean, if bicyclists are bowling-over
> pedestrians, than of course _that's_ regrettable, but it's not riding on
> the sidewalk/pavement that's the problem per-se. The issue is really
> not where they ride, but whether they ride in a manner appropriate for
> the location, and whether the physical infrastructure can accommodate
> them (e.g a very narrow, or very crowded, sidewalk/pavement might make
> passing very difficult for anything but pedestrians).
>
> I harp on this point, because here the majority of people around here
> _do_ ride on the sidewalk/pavement (those who want to really ride fast
> ride on the street, and of course the more crowded the sidewalks, the
> more likely bicyclists are to choose the street), and it seems to cause
> little problem -- and there are a _vast_ number of bicyclists here
> (multiple orders of magnitude more, I'd wager, than wherever
> TibetanMonkey is).
I'm inclined to agree with you. If you ride slowly (maybe only slightly
faster than normal walking pace) and if you ride safely (moving over and
maybe stopping briefly when you meet an oncoming pedestrian), then that's
not too bad. After all, there are some pavements/sidewalks where cycling is
permitted - usually with a white line down the middle to segregate cyclists
and pedestrians, for all the good that does: more often than not I find that
pedestrians walk n-abreast across the full width of the pavement, and are
annoyed if they have to move aside because they see you approaching or
because you've called "excuse me - may I come past" in a polite,
non-threatening way as you come up behind them.
As a cyclist and a driver, I'd prefer in an ideal world of wide pavements
for all roads to have separate cycle lanes on pavements whose use was
mandatory, to keep cyclists and cars/lorries separate from each other. But
we're not in an ideal world, so we need to share the road without either
group thinking that the other has concessions made to it - hence my comment
that the laws regarding red lights, zebra crossings and overtaking on the
left should apply to *all* road users. Likewise the law should allow for
cyclists to be prosecuted to the same extent as motorists and with the same
penalties for other offences such as going the wrong way along a one-way
street (get off and walk along the pavement) or speeding. One law for
everyone - what could be fairer than that? Cyclists seem to think that
inconvenient laws shouldn't apply to them. If only that defence could be
used by car drivers :-) [not that I would dare to try it...]
Miles Bader
> One law for everyone - what could be fairer than that? Cyclists seem
> to think that inconvenient laws shouldn't apply to them. If only that
> defence could be used by car drivers :-)
"Fair" isn't the issue (although many drivers seem to hold this position
more out of sour grapes and resentment than anything else -- "If _I_
have to follow these annoying rules, why shouldn't Timmy on his
bike?!").
"Appropriate" is the issue. "Do these regulations serve the intended
goals" is the issue.
Cars, bicycles, pedestrians, (and main battle tanks, etc) are
_different_.
Cars move much faster, are far less maneuverable, have much worse
deacceleration, their driver has much less situational awareness, and
they are much, much, more likely to cause damager/injury/death should
they hit something. [and similarly, they're simply far bigger -- so
they can't reasonably, for instance, be driven on the pavement, even
extremely slowly, and two cars that meet head-on in a one-lane road
cannot pass in many cases, even with much care.] Because of these
things, the risk from driving is much greater, and more care needs to be
taken; regulations reflect this. [The entire reason they're so heavily
regulated in the first place is the high degree of danger.]
That isn't to say there shouldn't (or should) be particular regulations
for bicyclists and pedestrians, merely that a simplistic "ONE RULE FOR
ALL!1!" position is silly.
Of course regulations are a crude tool at best, and don't typically
reflect every nuance. In practice, enforcement tends to be somewhat
flexible to account for the such imperfections -- even when jaywalking
is technically illegal, you're not likely to be cited for it unless
you're running through heavy traffic.
-Miles
--
Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as
they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a
cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Bolwerk
> As a cyclist and a driver, I'd prefer in an ideal world of wide
> pavements for all roads to have separate cycle lanes on pavements
> whose use was mandatory, to keep cyclists and cars/lorries separate
> from each other.
What strikes me as effective in parts of Europe is making bike lanes
visually and physically contiguous with sidewalks rather than streets.
Seems to give drivers less incentive to drive on the path.
RumiTheCat
I doubt the bikes will be rusting. Miami Beach is an interesting place
with very random people.
F Murtz
Is it legal in the UK to use a horn for other than it's intended purpose?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
Riding on sidewalks has a number of minuses:
1- It's not any safer than the road. My girlfriend has fallen on it
twice, either because it's narrow or uneven. Dirt can be a factor on
corners.
2- It creates dangerous conditions for pedestrians.
3- The practical speed is reduced in half to accommodate for
unexpected pedestrians and corners.
4- Corners are the most dangerous places on sidewalks, where cars
don't see you or ignore you.
5- Drivers just dismiss you.
6- Authorities will also dismiss and will never try to safer roads for
you.
7- Poles and signposts appear out of the blue, particularly when you
get distracted by pretty ladies. ;)
ETC, ETC.
Miles Bader
> Riding on sidewalks has a number of minuses:
There are clearly cases where riding on the road is better. I'm not
saying that riding on the road is bad; what I'm saying is that there are
_also_ many cases where riding on the sidewalk works well enough, and
many people who are more comfortable doing so.
Yes, they need to be careful around pedestrians, and yes they should do
so in a way appropriate for the location (crowding, width, visibility,
etc) -- but there's not some kind of fundamental incompatibility.
I dunno why so many U.S. bicycling advocates seem to be such
control-freaks...
-miles
--
gravity a demanding master ... soft soft snow
Martin Edwards
Using phones is certainly illegal. In England a lot of things are let
go because of the floodgate principle: if you prosecuted the courts
would get jammed up. This is especially true of common law offences
like causing a public nuisance. In theory you could get done for
letting your dog bark or having your alarm go off all the time, but it
rarely happens.
Martin Edwards
not enforced.
Steven M. O'Neill
>Cars move much faster, are far less maneuverable, have much worse
>deacceleration, their driver has much less situational awareness, and
>they are much, much, more likely to cause damager/injury/death should
>they hit something. [and similarly, they're simply far bigger -- so
>they can't reasonably, for instance, be driven on the pavement, even
>extremely slowly, and two cars that meet head-on in a one-lane road
>cannot pass in many cases, even with much care.] Because of these
>things, the risk from driving is much greater, and more care needs to be
>taken; regulations reflect this. [The entire reason they're so heavily
>regulated in the first place is the high degree of danger.]
Were there traffic lights before there were cars? I think there
may have been a few, but they were much rarer. Like it or not,
the current set of traffic laws were made for the convenience of
motor vehicles.
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo
Mortimer
news:ie5bh1$c5h$3...@reader1.panix.com...
The first traffic light in the UK was outside the Houses of Parliament in
1868. This predates cars, certainly of the internal combustion sort, even if
there were a few lumbering steam-driven cars before this which probably
could not go much faster than a cyclist.
Modern traffic laws may be written mainly for the benefit of motor vehicles
that can go faster, are less manoevrable and take longer to stop than
bicycles, but that's a reason for *all* road users to abide by them. If all
cars were taken off the road and only human-powered vehicles were pemitted,
I'm sure the laws coudl be relaxed considerably. But while ever vehicles
other than bikes are allowed, *everyone* needs to abide by the same rules,
both for reasons of safety and fairness.
Unfortunately a lot of cyclists think that because they are on two wheels,
this gives them the right to flagrantly disregard road laws, weaving in and
out of a stream of slow/stationary traffic, riding through red lights as if
they did not exist, riding straight through occupied zebra crossings (yes, I
have witnessed this personally on two occasions - on one occasion the
cyclist collided with a woman on the crossing and then tried to attack the
victim for "causing him to fall off and hurt himself", until my mate who was
built like a brick shithouse "persuaded" him that this was not a good idea
and held onto him until the police arrived).
Because of this, they can be a hazard to other road users who have to look
out for cyclists doing things that no other road user does. That is why some
people think that cyclists who behave this way (as opposed to the
law-abiding responsible ones) should be kept off the road on a properly
segregated pavement.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
>
> > Riding on sidewalks has a number of minuses:
>
> There are clearly cases where riding on the road is better. I'm not
> saying that riding on the road is bad; what I'm saying is that there are
> _also_ many cases where riding on the sidewalk works well enough, and
> many people who are more comfortable doing so.
>
> Yes, they need to be careful around pedestrians, and yes they should do
> so in a way appropriate for the location (crowding, width, visibility,
> etc) -- but there's not some kind of fundamental incompatibility.
>
> I dunno why so many U.S. bicycling advocates seem to be such
> control-freaks...
What's the advantage of riding on sidewalk over walking? A bit more
speed but a lot more aggravation. All that care, all that danger, all
that risk of getting the bike stolen. I think it's better to go back
to the hunter-gatherer and walk in the community.
I'd use the bike for longer distances but the roads are not ready for
me. Again, we need the cage on wheels.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "Steven M. O'Neill" <ste...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:ie5bh1$c5h$3...@reader1.panix.com...
Reality is our system is designed to facilitate the mindless consumer/
polluter and punish the smart cyclist/pedestrian. It's rage by the
machine against the human being. Those first cars were still human --
all open and slow-- but they developed into cages with a life of their
own. Not that it made life much easier for the user. Our obesity rates
--America and the UK-- are first and second place in the world...
What would happen if the automobile industry crashes and so many
people are laid off? The same could be argued about the Military-
Industrial Complex, the Medical Industry or the Prison Industry.
You know about the laws of cause and effect? ;)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
Remember, BIKE LOCALLY, BUY LOCALLY is the byword)
Originally Posted by Jess View Post
Monkey, I am all for bike lanes. But I don't think that will solve the
real issue which is bad drivers in Miami not respecting the bike
riders. I got knocked off my bike for the first time last week and you
know, not one person who saw came to help. It was like being in NYC.
No one stopped. I didn't ride my bike for a week after that, and now I
am even more careful.
As for Paul, as Carlos says, it's on Lincoln Oh, and it is actually
French and I don't recall ever seeing one in London.
And back to the original post, London has the deco bike system all set
up and it works like a charm I hear. Let's hope it does well in Miami
if it ever decides to start. It should have begun in August.
***
Thanks for your feedback. Regrettably hit-and-runs are everyday
occurrence. You were lucky not to be badly hurt and abandoned, and
that's my worst fear.
The belated bicycle plan will work if we make Miami Beach a different
place from Miami, which is not easy. We must create a BICYCLE CULTURE
and dedicate bike lanes along main streets including the causeways,
which are no-man's land except for Venetian causeway which has a lane.
What could be more refreshing than a nice bike ride on our beautiful
causeways? I had a dangerous confrontation with a driver on the 96th
st causeway over the right to the road, and the signs mandate you to
walk a bicycle on sidewalk over the bridge. Hey, when you bump into so
many dangers, you must re-evaluate your survival strategy.
I hear the City has a place for feedback (?) and we can offer our
humble suggestions there. Maybe nobody of relevance is reading these
forums.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
underground agents...
The last fun, humane cars were the British roadsters. It's not to say
they were reliable, but hey they weren't a cage. Now we have the
Miata, but mostly we have the SUVs which make life very miserable to
the Miatas.
Further, I have evidence that the British 3 speed bicycle is the most
successful leisure riding machine ever to hit the roads. It was copied
by India and China as a testament to their endurance and appeal, but
even there is now under attack...
Now we live under the prosperity brought by Globalization and drive
big cages on wheels with tinted windows as if hiding our true
identity. The question, do we have an identity nowadays? ;)
http://i.pbase.com/g6/27/593927/2/85721013.ItcYXbMP.jpg
See, the guy is not anonymous and has a smile. Probably you can tell
him apart from any other guy out there.
But my British style leisure riding machine, with adaptations, is the
ultimate ride. It's sitting in a storage, but it may be coming out if
"conditions" allow.
That was my wisdom for the day, right from the cage.
Miles Bader
> What's the advantage of riding on sidewalk over walking? A bit more
> speed but a lot more aggravation. All that care, all that danger, all
> that risk of getting the bike stolen. I think it's better to go back
> to the hunter-gatherer and walk in the community.
Why don't you ask the thousands and thousands of people who do it near
my house ever day...?
[They'd probably say "it's faster, less effort, and lets me carry
baggage" though]
-Miles
--
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come. --Nietzsche
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
>
> > What's the advantage of riding on sidewalk over walking? A bit more
> > speed but a lot more aggravation. All that care, all that danger, all
> > that risk of getting the bike stolen. I think it's better to go back
> > to the hunter-gatherer and walk in the community.
>
> Why don't you ask the thousands and thousands of people who do it near
> my house ever day...?
>
> [They'd probably say "it's faster, less effort, and lets me carry
> baggage" though]
The only convincing argument is "I don't know." Riding a bike under a
mile doesn't make sense, and over a mile it's too grinding on
sidewalks.
Wait a minute, thousands of people ride bikes on sidewalks in your
community?
Mortimer
news:5f77c8d0-cc4d-49c6...@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
===
As long as you discount the time to prepare for a bike ride (unlocking
garage door, checking that tyres haven't gone flat, putting on helmet, etc)
then I think cycling even a short distance has advantages over walking: you
can cover ground quicker and it's less tiring. That's on the flat or
downhill. But the usefulness of a bike over walking decreases as the
gradient increases: you are slowed down and more tired to a greater extent
than if you walk up the same gradient.
Miles Bader
> But while ever vehicles other than bikes are allowed, *everyone*
> needs to abide by the same rules, both for reasons of safety and
> fairness.
No they don't. The fact that you keep simply asserting they should
isn't an argument.
The different modes are _very_ different, and thus sometimes should be
treated differently. Note that I'm _not_ saying they should _always_ be
treated differently -- that would be absurd -- simply that there is
clearly room for differentiation when appropriate.
I don't think that's a particularly radical assertion...
-Miles
--
((lambda (x) (list x x)) (lambda (x) (list x x)))
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> > ETC, ETC.
>
> Same minuses in the U.S., but here people are conditioned from
> childhood to think that its safer to ride on the sidewalk. Unless
> they get with a road cyclist or a cycling club that teaches them the
> rules of the road, they never get off the sidewalks. Mommy said,
> "Ride here." Duh. They are still doing it at age 40! Never mind
> that in the meantime, they have mowed down 20 pedestrians and been
> blind-sided by cars not looking for them on the sidewalk when exiting
> from a parking lot to the street. Duh.
They are the scourge of pedestrians but are often victims of their own
blindness. Like the hunter-gatherers before, they live a short brutish
live.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
life.
Miles Bader
>> > What's the advantage of riding on sidewalk over walking? A bit more
>> > speed but a lot more aggravation. All that care, all that danger, all
>> > that risk of getting the bike stolen. I think it's better to go back
>> > to the hunter-gatherer and walk in the community.
>>
>> Why don't you ask the thousands and thousands of people who do it near
>> my house ever day...?
>>
>> [They'd probably say "it's faster, less effort, and lets me carry
>> baggage" though]
>
> The only convincing argument is "I don't know." Riding a bike under a
> mile doesn't make sense, and over a mile it's too grinding on
> sidewalks.
Shrug. I don't know the average trip length for most rider; it's
probably not that long, but probably more than a mile.
Bicycle transport here tends to be "local" transport -- anybody doing a
long commute probably rides on the road to achieve higher speeds
(and yeah, we've got our share of lycra warriors ...).
The thing is that there are many different ways of using a bicycle.
Some use it for rides of significant length, but others sort of treat it
as "walking+" -- even if you ride at a very sedate pace, a bicycle can
extend your range (for a given amount of time and effort) by a
significant factor. This is particularly true if you're carrying
luggage (e.g. the daily shopping and the kids...).
[I've seen old people that ride _more_ slowly than I walk (so it's I who
pass them!), but I expect they probably walk even more slowly than that,
so riding a bicycle makes doing stuff around town much less
frustrating.]
> Wait a minute, thousands of people ride bikes on sidewalks in your
> community?
Sure. Hopefully they don't all accidentally meet at the exact same
place and time. :]
Not everybody rides on the sidewalk, but maybe hmm, 75% or so I'd guess.
http://goo.gl/maps/i38F
http://www.musashikosugilife.com/blogdata/tsutaya-churin.jpg
http://mikkagashi.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2008/02/post_2a72.html
-Miles
--
P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false,
for reasons of military security.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
>
Well, since the INTERSECTIONS are the most problematic, you may have
to around the block in circles to play it safe.
And how about the vehicles coming out of driveways that ignore you in
your face and block the path?
I don't find that fun and find walking less stressful.
>
> > Wait a minute, thousands of people ride bikes on sidewalks in your
> > community?
>
> Sure. Hopefully they don't all accidentally meet at the exact same
> place and time. :]
>
> Not everybody rides on the sidewalk, but maybe hmm, 75% or so I'd guess.
So I guess pedestrians are an endangered species just like frogs,
another topic coming next. ;)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
wrote:
> 'His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the mundane prophet of the last days before the end of times[_2_ Wrote:
> > It's better to do like the Taliban and put a ban on it.
>
> > It's good they ticket bikes on sidewalks in the meantime though.
>
> It's amusing how a simply discussion regarding cyclists in London is
> able to bring up the "special relationship" and other political bombs.
Political bombs make real bombs unnecessary. It's like Kennedy said,
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable." -John F. Kennedy
Reality is it would take 100 years to make it possible for every
citizen in the West to ride a bicycle in peace at this pace, and if I
don't have peace, I give a fart about peace out there. Let the Law of
the Jungle be unleashed for all.
Miles Bader
> Well, since the INTERSECTIONS are the most problematic, you may have
> to around the block in circles to play it safe.
Of course you won't.
> And how about the vehicles coming out of driveways that ignore you in
> your face and block the path?
What about them? [Driveways are very rare here, but even in the
U.S. where they're common, that's a vanishingly infrequent occurrence
(even if it's annoying when it happens).]
> I don't find that fun and find walking less stressful.
You clearly have your preferences, and obviously are welcome to them.
But you really shouldn't try so hard to impose them on others...
>> Not everybody rides on the sidewalk, but maybe hmm, 75% or so I'd guess.
>
> So I guess pedestrians are an endangered species just like frogs,
Not at all; I'd guess there are probably more pedestrians here than
where you live too ... :]
-Miles
--
「すっごい」と呟いてる。「へんてこなもんばっかり」
「そんなにへんてこ？」
「へんてこへんてこ」
そう言われると見たくなってしまう。
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
>
> > Well, since the INTERSECTIONS are the most problematic, you may have
> > to around the block in circles to play it safe.
>
> Of course you won't.
You take a greater risk at every intersection and must look over your
shoulder to see traffic, which may not have seen you or simply don't
care. One such terrorist blasted the horn at me meaning, "I ain't
stopping," and I had to stop in humiliation in a live or die
situation.
>
> > And how about the vehicles coming out of driveways that ignore you in
> > your face and block the path?
>
> What about them? [Driveways are very rare here, but even in the
> U.S. where they're common, that's a vanishingly infrequent occurrence
> (even if it's annoying when it happens).]
What do you mean? Every parking lot has one in commercial areas.
>
> > I don't find that fun and find walking less stressful.
>
> You clearly have your preferences, and obviously are welcome to them.
> But you really shouldn't try so hard to impose them on others...
You are passing the buck to the pedestrians instead of taking your
place on the road. I don't blame because that's a SURVIVAL STRATEGY,
but please do not prescribe it to others.
I was riding a bike and all of a sudden I caught a crack on the
sidewalk, and planted my foot so hard that it was hurting for a while.
Old people can't handle that, nor a blow from some cyclist who may not
be as careful as you are.
>
> >> Not everybody rides on the sidewalk, but maybe hmm, 75% or so I'd guess.
>
> > So I guess pedestrians are an endangered species just like frogs,
>
> Not at all; I'd guess there are probably more pedestrians here than
> where you live too ... :]
Thousands of cyclists and pedestrians... I wonder if it's NYC of the
Magic Kingdom. ;)
Miles Bader
>> > Well, since the INTERSECTIONS are the most problematic, you may have
>> > to around the block in circles to play it safe.
>>
>> Of course you won't.
>
> You take a greater risk at every intersection and must look over your
> shoulder to see traffic, which may not have seen you or simply don't
> care. One such terrorist blasted the horn at me meaning, "I ain't
> stopping," and I had to stop in humiliation in a live or die
> situation.
Er, that risk exists no matter where you ride.
>> What about them? [Driveways are very rare here, but even in the
>> U.S. where they're common, that's a vanishingly infrequent occurrence
>> (even if it's annoying when it happens).]
>
> What do you mean? Every parking lot has one in commercial areas.
(Parking lots in commercial areas are rare here too.)
>> You clearly have your preferences, and obviously are welcome to them.
>> But you really shouldn't try so hard to impose them on others...
>
> You are passing the buck to the pedestrians instead of taking your
> place on the road. I don't blame because that's a SURVIVAL STRATEGY,
> but please do not prescribe it to others.
Prescribe what to others?
Remember: I'm not objecting to the concept of cycling in the road,
I'm objecting to your (apparent) wish to make usage that doesn't meet
your preconceptions illegal.
You seem to have a specific conception of what "cycling" involves;
that's fine -- it works for you, and maybe even is "best practice" for
the area in which you live -- but a single person's conception
obviously isn't a good foundation to build more general policy or
guidelines.
> I was riding a bike and all of a sudden I caught a crack on the
> sidewalk, and planted my foot so hard that it was hurting for a while.
> Old people can't handle that, nor a blow from some cyclist who may not
> be as careful as you are.
Random personal anecdotes and musings are not sufficient basis for
law though.
If the general decision of society is that they'd rather cycle in the
road, or there's a widespread negative reaction to cyclists on the
sidewalk, that will become the convention, and maybe even enforced by
law. But there needs to be a firm justification. Since such things
clearly depend on culture/custom to some degree as well, it will also
differ from place to place.
>> Not at all; I'd guess there are probably more pedestrians here than
>> where you live too ... :]
>
> Thousands of cyclists and pedestrians... I wonder if it's NYC of the
> Magic Kingdom. ;)
Well, "thousands of people a day" is not really that many. I think
the local population density is in the range of 40,000 people / mile^2
-- and they all probably go out at some point during the day....
-Miles
--
.Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
>
I could into another long winding arguments, but why don't we let the
"punches" speak for themselves. Mind you, this is civilized England
and "pavement" means --I think-- sidewalk...
Cyclist punched Shipton Road pedestrian three times in face
A YOUTH has been locked up for giving a pedestrian a black eye in a
confrontation sparked by a 12-year-old cyclist riding on the pavement.
The 17-year-old attacker and his younger cousin were both cycling
along Shipton Road, near Rawcliffe Lane, said Bob Moore prosecuting.
“The pedestrian heard a loud noise behind him, jumped and turned
round,” said Mr Moore. “A child on a bicycle who was obviously the 12-
year-old rode past him very closely, but didn’t make contact.”
Then the 17-year-old rode up and said: “Why are you trying to hit a 12-
year-old?” The pedestrian said he wasn’t, but the 17-year-old repeated
his question and punched the man three times in the face before riding
after his cousin into nearby Homestead park.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8709937.Cyclist_punched_man_three_times_in_face/?ref=rss
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
On Dec 14, 5:56 pm, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Random personal anecdotes and musings are not sufficient basis for
> law though.
>
> If the general decision of society is that they'd rather cycle in the
> road, or there's a widespread negative reaction to cyclists on the
> sidewalk, that will become the convention, and maybe even enforced by
> law. But there needs to be a firm justification. Since such things
> clearly depend on culture/custom to some degree as well, it will also
> differ from place to place.
I could go into more long winding arguments, but why don't we let the
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
sidewalks I can not recommend that everyone should go on the road
UNDER THE PRESENT DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.
Bicycles do NOT mix with pedestrians, and they do NOT mix with
traffic. WE NEED A LANE, traffic lane or otherwise. We need the whole
lane whenever other lanes are available. When they are not then we
share the lane.
If they don't like that let them give us some reasonably wide bike
lanes so we can have a place under the sun. No, we ain't got a place.
We live in humiliation and danger. It's a long, grinding torture that
you endure by riding on the road under current dangerous conditions.
Steven M. O'Neill
With all due respect, is anyone in your local government reading
these newsgroups? I'm curious if you spend as much time writing
them and garnering local support as you do posting here.
Best,
Steve
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I want to clarify for all that while I do criticize riding on
> >sidewalks I can not recommend that everyone should go on the road
> >UNDER THE PRESENT DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.
>
> >Bicycles do NOT mix with pedestrians, and they do NOT mix with
> >traffic. WE NEED A LANE, traffic lane or otherwise. We need the whole
> >lane whenever other lanes are available. When they are not then we
> >share the lane.
>
> >If they don't like that let them give us some reasonably wide bike
> >lanes so we can have a place under the sun. No, we ain't got a place.
> >We live in humiliation and danger. It's a long, grinding torture that
> >you endure by riding on the road under current dangerous conditions.
>
> With all due respect, is anyone in your local government reading
> these newsgroups? I'm curious if you spend as much time writing
> them and garnering local support as you do posting here.
I do, my friend, but they seem to be totally indifferent or totally
scared to speak, except for the moderator who's a chap from London.
Funny no, a chap from London in Miami...
http://forums.miamibeach411.com/off-topic-chit-chat/8170-london-sees-different-type-cyclist.html
Not only that, I've told them that their recent "grandiose project" (a
fancy mixed path by the beach) is a piece of shit, very dangerous
indeed, and they are speechless. ;)
Steven M. O'Neill
Ah, well, sorry to hear it. Godspeed to you.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 16, 9:54 am, ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote:
> >> His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I want to clarify for all that while I do criticize riding on
> >> >sidewalks I can not recommend that everyone should go on the road
> >> >UNDER THE PRESENT DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.
>
> >> >Bicycles do NOT mix with pedestrians, and they do NOT mix with
> >> >traffic. WE NEED A LANE, traffic lane or otherwise. We need the whole
> >> >lane whenever other lanes are available. When they are not then we
> >> >share the lane.
>
> >> >If they don't like that let them give us some reasonably wide bike
> >> >lanes so we can have a place under the sun. No, we ain't got a place.
> >> >We live in humiliation and danger. It's a long, grinding torture that
> >> >you endure by riding on the road under current dangerous conditions.
>
> >> With all due respect, is anyone in your local government reading
> >> these newsgroups? I'm curious if you spend as much time writing
> >> them and garnering local support as you do posting here.
>
> >I do, my friend, but they seem to be totally indifferent or totally
> >scared to speak, except for the moderator who's a chap from London.
> >Funny no, a chap from London in Miami...
>
>
> >Not only that, I've told them that their recent "grandiose project" (a
> >fancy mixed path by the beach) is a piece of shit, very dangerous
> >indeed, and they are speechless. ;)
>
> Ah, well, sorry to hear it. Godspeed to you.
Wait, there's one last hope before Jesus or the Revolution coming
soon...
(they've been coming soon for a while)
They will unleash 1,000 bikes into the jungle... or they may decide to
pacify the beast (traffic)... or they may draw bike lanes along major
thoroughfares... or it may be a project for PR to take place in a
small area.
Steven M. O'Neill
>http://decobike.com/
>
>They will unleash 1,000 bikes into the jungle... or they may decide to
>pacify the beast (traffic)... or they may draw bike lanes along major
>thoroughfares... or it may be a project for PR to take place in a
>small area.
Cool beans. NYC is getting similar also.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://decobike.com/
>
> >They will unleash 1,000 bikes into the jungle... or they may decide to
> >pacify the beast (traffic)... or they may draw bike lanes along major
> >thoroughfares... or it may be a project for PR to take place in a
> >small area.
>
> Cool beans. NYC is getting similar also.
The asphalt jungle is the same everywhere but here it's more spread
out. ;)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 1:18 PM, Forrest Hodge wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12/16/2010 9:37 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the mundane
> > prophet of the last days before the end of times wrote:
> >> I want to clarify for all that while I do criticize riding on
> >> sidewalks I can not recommend that everyone should go on the road
> >> UNDER THE PRESENT DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.
>
> >> Bicycles do NOT mix with pedestrians, and they do NOT mix with
> >> traffic. WE NEED A LANE, traffic lane or otherwise. We need the whole
> >> lane whenever other lanes are available. When they are not then we
> >> share the lane.
>
> >> If they don't like that let them give us some reasonably wide bike
> >> lanes so we can have a place under the sun. No, we ain't got a place.
> >> We live in humiliation and danger. It's a long, grinding torture that
> >> you endure by riding on the road under current dangerous conditions.
>
>
> >> "May the sun shine upon you --or at least the moon"
>
> >>http://webspawner.com/users/BIKEFORPEACE
>
> > How would you feel about say a $25 a year registration fee per bicycle
> > to pay for these dedicated lanes? Seems fair to me since the roads are
> > largely paid for with fuel taxes and/or automobile registration fees.
>
> Fuel taxes do not pay for local roads. Furthermore, fuel taxes (in the
> US) do not cover the expense of the military in the Middle East (and
> there would be no US military presence in the Middle East except for oil
> and natural gas).
Hey, if that is what it takes to be entitled to the TRAFFIC LANE so be
it.
Some training and certification may be required so the stupid monkeys
don't get on the road like that. I'm referring, of course, to the wild
riders on sidewalks endangering pedestrians.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 8:23 PM, Forrest Hodge wrote:
> > roads. I'll ignore the bit about wars in the middle east as it has
> > nothing to do with whether or not bicycles need a lane to themselves.
>
> Bicycle lanes are a ghetto for cyclists. What is needed is vigorous
Depends what you define as a "cyclist"...
I've given instructions to my chain of command to issue the following
licenses to cyclists:
A- Lycra-clad, above 20mph
B- Casual clothing, but in the range of 15-20mph, single speeds are
often found here
C- Practical cycling, 10-15mph and racks are common place
D- Folding bikes, at home on sidewalks
E- The casual ones or kids
F- Those failures riding on sidewalks and proud of it
A,B,C are entitled to the traffic lane.
D,E,F need sidewalks or bike lanes or paths.
In case it matters, I'm in the C,D category -and proud of it.
I do this in my capacity of "Comandante Banana, King of the Apes" and
not Wise TibetanMonkey.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the mundane prophet of the last days before
> [...]
>
> > Yep, I'm afraid Ed is a CAPITALIST PIG.
> > "Oink, Oink"
>
> The first thing I learned many years ago when I came to these cycling
> newsgroups was that most members were liberals, if not socialists. This is
> not true in the real world of cycling. It is only true on Usenet. In any
> event, it has been my pleasure to kick their sorry asses ever since.
The real cycling world in America is made up of survivors riding junk
bikes on sidewalks. They make up the majority, but not the most
affluent. They don't even come here or are affiliated with a political
party.
They are the Proles on bikes.