Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
> > >>
> >>The increased distance inexperienced cyclists ride from the curb in a
> >>bike lane is insignificant and has no bearing on the occurance of a
> >>hook collision.
> > Absolutely false. They'll ride anywhere inside a bike lane. Without
> > one, they hug the curb regardless, except on next-to-zero-traffic
> > residential streets.
> >
>
> So what? They ride a very small amount futher left laterally. That
> does not discourage a hook incident. You've got to be further left
> than bike lanes afford.

Not true at all. Your turning radius for a given sideways acceleration
is proportional to the square of your velocity. If a driver would slow
to 15 mph to make a turn with a 12 foot lane + 5 foot shoulder (using
the full space), a bike lane that puts the cyclist 5 feet from the curb
means that the driver now has to turn with a 12 foot radius, slowing
the driver to 12.6 mph. Now suppose you are riding at 15 mph. What
do you think happens?

>
> And really, who gives a hoot about ignorant bicyclists? They should
> learn how to ride.

Tell that to the parent of an 8 year old kid injured in a traffic
accident.

> > The further you are from the curb, the less chances you have of being
> > cut off, and the more room you have to avoid an accident otherwise.
>
> Again, the small amount that a bike lane results in a left lateral
> shift for ignorant beginners is not enough to deter collisions.

It actually is enough to make a difference.

> >>Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral
> >>position, and their space is reduced.
> > Not true at all. Read the California Vehicle Code and compare where
> > you can legally ride with and without bike lanes (and you can legally
> > ignore any bike lane that was not installed in conformance with
> > state design standards).
> >
>
> Who cares what the California Vehicle Code says? First, many places do
> have mandatory bike lane use. You've got to have a reason to leave
> it. Second, regardless of laws, motorists enforce bike lane use
> through coercion and intimidation.

I live in California and anyone who rides a bicycle in that state or
drives a car in that state damn well should care about what the
California Vehicle Code says.

If it is better than what your state has, then get your state to
make some changes. That would be far more productive than ranting
on usenet.

> If the bike lane stripe wasn't there, there'd be a very wide space
> that the vehicle (ie bicyclist) in front would have right of way to. A
> bike lane is nanny state micromanagement of bicyclist's lateral
> position.

The vehicle code in California and many other states contains a
provision that bicyclists riding on the roadway at less than the
normal speed of traffic must ride as far to the right as is
practicable. That means on that very wide space of yours (i.e.,
a very wide lane), you have less freedom as to where to position
your bicycle than when there is no bike lane (which you don't have
to use if going at or above the normal speed of traffic).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > You can't be serious - this is a web site put up by some guys with
> > an agenda. There is no reason to take it seriously. Provide something
> > respectable, like a journal article.
> >
> You can't be serious. Most peer reviewed journal articles with
> bicycling content are a methodological joke.

The one I just quoted (from the ITE journal) is not a joke. But we can
see where you are at - forget any decent research if it goes against
your preconceptions.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"donquijote1954" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> ...
> 'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars
> by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars
> running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially
> unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political
> "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the
> cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels,
> vodka, used frymax™ oil, or cow ****). They are at the heart of the
> problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by
> shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much
> worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We
> have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common
> activities of daily life.'

A vehicle such as the go-one [1] with a small (less than 1 hp)
electric motor could replace automobiles for urban driving. Longer
distances could be handled by high speed rail (e.g. maglev) along
existing freeway and expressway alignments. This would preserve
individual mobility, but with vehicles 1/50 of the size of what is
currently being used (with similar decreases in natural resources
used). These vehicles would also be much less likely to kill or
seriously injure pedestrians in a collision.

Of course, they would not provide nearly the same degree of passive
crash protection; however, some thinning of the herd might not be such
a bad thing.

[1] <http://www.go-one.us/>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"Joe the Aroma" (who?) anonymously snipes:
> ...
> The US does have an inequality problem. But that doesn't make us
> undemocratic by any means (except if you are a kook)....

Male bovine excrement.

The rich ruling class control who get nominated for the Republicrats
by holding the purse strings and the people get to choose between the
two candidates for who will be their overseer. The politicians depend
on the legalized bribery of campaign donations to hold onto their
positions, so they do nothing to threaten the dominance of the ruling
class.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 4:58 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> >> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> >> > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> >> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this
> >> newsgroup.
>
> > It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car
> > lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let
> > drivers do as they please? Please!
>
> So what was your point, that they only poll "Lexus and Mercedes dealers"?
> You're such a nut, you're hardly worth debating. But this is fun.

That the poll among the well-to-do (those that can afford Lexus and
health insurance) are no evidence that we don't need health insurance.

You may ask THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE INSURANCE if you want to have some
credibility.

And the same applies to bikes. Ask the working class if they want to
have bike lanes to get to work. I bet you they go for it.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 26, 4:31 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "The effect of the cycle lane studied in this report is to reduce the
> amount of roadspace available to cyclists, and therefore makes
> conditions significantly worse for cyclists."
>
> Tony

They can't get any worse. People just don't go out and ride in
practical situations. The few that do ride sidewalks thereby
endangering pedestrians and themselves.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"donquijote1954" who? wrote:
>
> If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

If you not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> >> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> > It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.
>
> You are _so_ not in touch with your inner crackpot. What are you doing
> here, anyway?

I think he represents motorized lobby. You know, they are very crafty
in lying. Big Tobacco hired some PR agents to throw smoke on the whole
issue even after they knew smoking lead to cancer. Now Big Oil is
doing the same with Global Warming. Never trust the fox and follow the
money to find his trail.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 6:17 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > A cycle oriented society would signal a more egalitarian society. A
> > society where SUVs are the symbol of power and status though signals a
> > Darwinist view of the world...
>
> If you say so, I'd say it signals a society where SUV's are symbols of power
> and status... nothing more.
>
> > Quality of Life, Income, Education and Life Expectancy
>
> > If we would only focus on per capita income statistics, we would
> > perhaps be surprised to hear that the inhabitants of the small central
> > European nation of Luxembourg are the wealthiest in the world, with an
> > average salary of $53,780. The average salary in Norway is $45,000 but
> > the Nordic countries are above all known for being an egalitarian
> > society; of the seventeen richest countries in the world, Sweden ranks
> > first as having the fewest people living in poverty and the fewest
> > illiterate people, while other rich countries such us the United
> > States have the the most, showing that stark inequality persists even
> > in middle or high-income countries.
>
> Luxemburg is a teeny tiny country compared to the US which clocks in at
> 300,000,000. We're mammoth even compared to Scandanavia.
>
> The US does have an inequality problem. But that doesn't make us
> undemocratic by any means (except if you are a kook). I don't think cars
> have anything to do with it, cars are democratic, they give to the masses
> what was at one time only available to the wealthy. You think only the
> wealthy should have access to large houses and generous expanses of land?


Cars may be democratic, but also they an instrument of enslavement
toward the working classes. Some worker riding a bike to work would be
better off, save a lot of money and be healthy --as well as work fewer
hours to stay afloat economically.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 6:24 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not
> > become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are.
>
> > They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed.
>
> Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet that
> we did, then.

The Scandinavian studied the American system a century ago, and
learned what to do --and what to avoid.

The car obsession is dismissed by every other civilized nation. It's
"cuckoo," to use your own words.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 7:09 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> That's true, or at least their wants are. What they _want_ is to not
> >> become a lot of fat ass lardos like we are.
>
> > They look over here at how we are and are truly alarmed.
>
> > Hopefully they won't adopt the low-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet
> > that we did, then.
>
> The main thing you have to watch out for there is the rich desserts!

But if people rode bikes to go places, then they could eat the rich
dessert without much worry. I love them too much for one.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 7:46 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> > ...
> > 'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars
> > by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars
> > running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially
> > unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political
> > "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the
> > cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels,
> > vodka, used frymax™ oil, or cow ****). They are at the heart of the
> > problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by
> > shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much
> > worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We
> > have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common
> > activities of daily life.'
>
> A vehicle such as the go-one [1] with a small (less than 1 hp)
> electric motor could replace automobiles for urban driving. Longer
> distances could be handled by high speed rail (e.g. maglev) along
> existing freeway and expressway alignments. This would preserve
> individual mobility, but with vehicles 1/50 of the size of what is
> currently being used (with similar decreases in natural resources
> used). These vehicles would also be much less likely to kill or
> seriously injure pedestrians in a collision.
>
> Of course, they would not provide nearly the same degree of passive
> crash protection; however, some thinning of the herd might not be such
> a bad thing.
>
> [1] <http://www.go-one.us/>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Love it! I guess I can charge it with bananas.

But it seems about the same as a good recumbent with a wind screen,
right? Perhaps this one will be too hot. Anyway good in windy, cold
conditions.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 9:25 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" (who?) anonymously snipes:
>
> > ...
> > The US does have an inequality problem. But that doesn't make us
> > undemocratic by any means (except if you are a kook)....
>
> Male bovine excrement.
>
> The rich ruling class control who get nominated for the Republicrats
> by holding the purse strings and the people get to choose between the
> two candidates for who will be their overseer. The politicians depend
> on the legalized bribery of campaign donations to hold onto their
> positions, so they do nothing to threaten the dominance of the ruling
> class.

Big Oil and the Big Three bet on the two horses and wait to see who
wins. And that's how the big fat SUVs get perpetuated in America,
right?

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The anti-bike lane hysteria of many is just plain silly. All the
>>>things are is a special purpose lane. Drivers should be expected
>>>to understand what these are, and they are fundamentally no different
>>>that HOV lanes or bus lanes - lanes restricted to specific types
>>>of vehicles.
>>
>>Huh? A 4' lane is not different than a HOV or bus lane? Last time I
>>checked, these lanes were at least 12'.
>
>
> Huh? You think the lane width has *anything* to with one's
> understanding of right-of-way rules?

There are *operational* differences between a 4' lane and a 12' lane.


>
>>And you've already noted that bike lanes are like shoulders. Well,
>>shoulders are not intended for vehicular use. They are for providing
>>buffer from roadside elements and a vehicle recovery area.
>
>
> Well, that's a distortion of what I said too. I pointed out that
> the cost of a bike lane stripe is about the same as a shoulder
> stripe. The bike lanes are treated differently than shoulders
> at key locations - intersections and places where the lanes
> terminate. A bike lane strip will be dropped (end when the lane
> ends), whereas a shoulder strip usually curves and runs to the
> curb. If you were guiding on a stripe in bad conditions (rain,
> at night), which would you prefer?

The striping differences between bike lanes and shoulders are
inconsequential. They are fundamentally alike.


>
>>
>>To justify your claim you would have to show why
>>
>>>a bus lane doesn't make drivers suddently incapable of noticing
>>>buses.
>>
>>No he doesn't. A bike lane makes bicyclists less noticable to
>>motorists because it creates an additional lane of traffic that
>>bicyclists can be obscured by from turning motorists.
>
>
> Shear nonesense - when riding at less than the normal speed of
> traffic, a bicyclist would be in about the same position on the
> roadway regardless, and the stripe itself is not a sight-line
> obstruction.

Totally untrue. Imagine a 10' lane. Now imagine that 10' lane with a
bike lane next to it. With the bike lane, there would be guaranteed
motor vehicle obstructions adjacent to the bicyclist.
>
>
>>>This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too
>>>close to the curb.
>>
>>Who cares about most cyclists who are ingorant of proper bicycling?
>>Get education!
>
>
> Oh, so you don't care about "most cylclists who are ingorant [sic] of
> proper bicycling" and would favor natural selection to get rid of them?
>
> Some of these cyclists who are "ignorant" are children who are too young
> to drive a motor vehicle. What do you propose to do with them? Do you
> really have a problem with a bike lane along a two lane street with a
> 25 mph speed limit and relatively little traffic, going past an
> elementary school?

Yes. What is the point of a bike lane on a low volume low speed street?

>
> Do you have a problem with a bike lane being installed instead of a
> shoulder stripe on a 6 lane road, with the bike lane going to the
> left of right turn lanes? The alternative is a shoulder stripe
> with less lane area in the lane that bicyclist going straight would
> use.

Yes. The alternative is a wide outside lane or a narrow outside lane.

>
> If you simply don't like the things just say you don't like them. It
> is pointless to come up with silly arguments to justify your
> preferences.

Your arguments are silly.

Wayne

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
> people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
> they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
> failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
> decisions.

The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free
market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from
the truth.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>
>>So what? They ride a very small amount futher left laterally. That
>>does not discourage a hook incident. You've got to be further left
>>than bike lanes afford.
>
>
> Not true at all. Your turning radius for a given sideways acceleration
> is proportional to the square of your velocity. If a driver would slow
> to 15 mph to make a turn with a 12 foot lane + 5 foot shoulder (using
> the full space), a bike lane that puts the cyclist 5 feet from the curb
> means that the driver now has to turn with a 12 foot radius, slowing
> the driver to 12.6 mph. Now suppose you are riding at 15 mph. What
> do you think happens?
>

Quit making up numbers. You have no idea what you are talking about.

>
>>And really, who gives a hoot about ignorant bicyclists? They should
>>learn how to ride.
>
>
> Tell that to the parent of an 8 year old kid injured in a traffic
> accident.

We shouldn't attempt to design for ignorance.



>
>
>>>The further you are from the curb, the less chances you have of being
>>>cut off, and the more room you have to avoid an accident otherwise.
>>
>>Again, the small amount that a bike lane results in a left lateral
>>shift for ignorant beginners is not enough to deter collisions.
>
>
> It actually is enough to make a difference.

Sorry. Not.
>
>>
>>Who cares what the California Vehicle Code says? First, many places do
>>have mandatory bike lane use. You've got to have a reason to leave
>>it. Second, regardless of laws, motorists enforce bike lane use
>>through coercion and intimidation.
>
>
> I live in California and anyone who rides a bicycle in that state or
> drives a car in that state damn well should care about what the
> California Vehicle Code says.
>
> If it is better than what your state has, then get your state to
> make some changes. That would be far more productive than ranting
> on usenet.

Oh stop your jibberjabber.

>
>
>>If the bike lane stripe wasn't there, there'd be a very wide space
>>that the vehicle (ie bicyclist) in front would have right of way to. A
>>bike lane is nanny state micromanagement of bicyclist's lateral
>>position.
>
>
> The vehicle code in California and many other states contains a
> provision that bicyclists riding on the roadway at less than the
> normal speed of traffic must ride as far to the right as is
> practicable. That means on that very wide space of yours (i.e.,
> a very wide lane), you have less freedom as to where to position
> your bicycle than when there is no bike lane (which you don't have
> to use if going at or above the normal speed of traffic).

Only to people like you who assume that laws like that are legitimate,
or that they apply to roads with striping on them. Here's a hint: "as
far right as practicable" laws were originally intended for roads
without striping. That some people have bastardized them to attempt to
micromanage bicyclists within-lane position is a tragedy. That bike
reservation apologists want to be micromanaged is testimony to their
ignorance.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You can't be serious - this is a web site put up by some guys with
>>>an agenda. There is no reason to take it seriously. Provide something
>>>respectable, like a journal article.
>>>
>>
>>You can't be serious. Most peer reviewed journal articles with
>>bicycling content are a methodological joke.
>
>
> The one I just quoted (from the ITE journal) is not a joke. But we can
> see where you are at - forget any decent research if it goes against
> your preconceptions.
>

I don't have preconceptions. Give me the citation.

Wayne

 

[David L. Johnson]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> -snip the usual-
>
>> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies.

Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually
just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a
pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be
more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so
much more likely to support universal health insurance.

But, they also don't tend to buy the products advertised on the programs
that discuss the poles, so no one cares. They probably also don't tend
to vote. Rich folks with a lot to lose (so they think) are the ones
pollsters and politicians care about.

Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones.
Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those
who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with
pollsters on the phone) are not random samples.

Polls are entertainment, not science.

--

David L. Johnson

Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality.
-- Michael Crichton

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"donquijote1954: who? wrote:
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > "donquijote1954" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> > > ...
> > > 'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars
> > > by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars
> > > running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially
> > > unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political
> > > "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the
> > > cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels,
> > > vodka, used frymax™ oil, or cow ****). They are at the heart of the
> > > problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by
> > > shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much
> > > worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We
> > > have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common
> > > activities of daily life.'
>
> > A vehicle such as the go-one [1] with a small (less than 1 hp)
> > electric motor could replace automobiles for urban driving. Longer
> > distances could be handled by high speed rail (e.g. maglev) along
> > existing freeway and expressway alignments. This would preserve
> > individual mobility, but with vehicles 1/50 of the size of what is
> > currently being used (with similar decreases in natural resources
> > used). These vehicles would also be much less likely to kill or
> > seriously injure pedestrians in a collision.
>
> > Of course, they would not provide nearly the same degree of passive
> > crash protection; however, some thinning of the herd might not be such
> > a bad thing.
>
> > [1] <http://www.go-one.us/>.
>
> Love it! I guess I can charge it with bananas.
>
> But it seems about the same as a good recumbent with a wind screen,
> right? Perhaps this one will be too hot. Anyway good in windy, cold
> conditions.

Some velomobiles [1] are basically recumbent trikes with fairings,
while others use the fairing as a monocoque structural member.

[1] The generic class the go-one fits into.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"Joe the Aroma" (who?) anonymously snipes:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
> > people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
> > they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
> > failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
> > decisions.
>
> The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free
> market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from
> the truth.

Yes, and the US will never have a free-market health care system,
since there are members of the wealthy elite (health care providers
and insurers) who benefit from gaming the current system.

However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful