Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[Marz]

On Aug 3, 10:16 am, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > As I don't live in the USA, I
>
> Maybe that's why you don't understand what's going on here. Slower
> vehicles don't have to drive on the right at all, nor should drivers
> pay be paying attention to driving, simply you get these SUV behemoths
> whistling past you that leave you shaking in your commitment to ride
> anymore.

What?? Please explain what you mean by saying,'nor should drivers pay
be paying attention to driving.' Because most drivers (in the US) I
see are paying attention to the road.

I ride most days along side SUV behemoths here in Texas and they've
not put me or any of my friends off riding. Maybe it's how you ride
that's causing you too many close encounters with other road users.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:


> As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
> design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
> HOV lanes.

The whole concept of bike lanes is bad.

That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere
they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations.

You keep bringing up a comparison between bike lanes and HOV lanes.
Apparently you have an inability to distinguish differences.

HOV lanes are 12' wide, are used on freeways, are typically (always?)
the left lane (US), are intended to allow their users to pass
congestion, are not mandatory, do not collect debris, and are
universally loved by their users.

Bike lanes are 4' wide, are used on normal streets which is an
inappropriate treatment, are typically the rightmost lane (US), are
intended to allow motorists to pass bicyclists easier while sometimes
stopped motorists block the bike lane, are typically mandatory (if not
mandatory, motorists enforce their use anyway), collect debris, and are
often despised by their intended users.

Wayne

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in
> >>> the area to know why.
> >> But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to
> >> know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities.
> >>
> > Nice try at changing context from your silliness about India and China.
>
> Do you deny that many of the "high-tech" jobs that were supposed to
> replace the outsourced manufacturing jobs are also being outsourced to
> China, India and other low wage countries?

Read what I said. Some things can't be outsourced to third-world
countries, for the reasons I gave you. Those countries could, of
course, catch up to us. I'll give you a hint - you won't find the 10
gigabit/second NIC cards coming out of China until they become a
commodity, nor the device drivers for them (the chips typically have
problems that require software 'work arounds', and you need a close
collaboration between hardware and software engineers to get
everything working).

Various new CPUs are designed in the Bay Area and the software groups
that provide OS support. You can look at SUN's recent CPUs with
multiple cores and multiple threads per core as an example. In this
sort of work, you have to develop the hardware and software at the
same time as you need both for a finished product, so heavy use is
made of simulators that allow the software to be tested before the
hardware is ready, and these require an enormous amount of
computation.

>
> > But, your "unequal, second-class facilities" thing is simply propaganda.
> > As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
> > design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
> > HOV lanes.
> >
> >> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus?
> > Maybe you can try to improve your grammar?
>
> That is an editing error, not a fundamental mistake in grammar.

It's a grammar error (whether due to bad editing or not) that made the
sentence completely incomprehensible.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> "Bike lanes" and "bike paths" lead motorists to believe that these are
> >> the ONLY places cyclists belong, which makes cycling more dangerous
> >> for cyclists who do not necessarily only want to ride where there are
> >> "special" bicycle farcilities (sic).
> > Mindless Propaganda. Come back when you have something serious to
> > say.
>
> Whoosh!
>
> Zaumen does not seem to realize that the CVC is nothing more than
> regulations developed by California bureaucrats, and does not
> establish the fundamental principles of right-of-way or how "bicycle
> lanes" affect the attitudes of motorists. His citing the CVC, the way
> fundamentalists cite the religious tract of their preference, as being
> some infallible word from on high that is universally applicable is
> humorous, however.

You do't seem to realize that the CVC is similar to the vehicle code
in most states, and that it contains the rules that all road users
(drivers and bicyclists) should follow.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 9:38 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > I saw a bumper sticker today that here is quite revolutionary: SLOWER
> > TRAFFIC KEEP TO THE RIGHT... AVOID ROAD RAGE! That must be a communist
> > attempt at bringing regulation to our roads. We want to zigzag if we
> > please, and drive our SUVs while on the phone if we want, so we can
> > remain a free nation!
>
> > Rage is part of life in the jungle, and the strong shall survive.
> > Hallelujah!
>
> People that pass on the right or drive slower than traffic in the left
> lane (reverse for Japan and Commonwealth islands) should have their
> vehicles crushed in a public spectacle.

And should be able to earn the label "terrorist," cause they cause a
lot of destruction, mayhem and death to innocent parties.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 11:20 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman writes:
>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> When you have a really nasty bug to track down as part of your 6-figure
> >>>>> job, any act of kindness is really appreciated. ...
>
> >>>> I hear there are a lot of highly intelligent, computer software and
> >>>> hardware design capable people in India willing to work for a high
> >>>> four figure or low five figure (U.S. dollar) annual income.
> >>> There are some things you can't outsource to India. Working on an OS
> >>> is one of them, particularly when new hardware is involved (and India
> >>> is mostly doing software, not hardware).
> >> For now.
>
> > No, for a very long time to come, as long as the U.S. has a
> > substantial technical edge, and if India and China catch up, their
> > incomes will become comparable to ours.
>
> > Also, infrastructure is important - when you are running chip
> > simulations that need the largest machines you can get your hands on
> > and that have to run for a day or more (maybe a lot more), you can't
> > get by in a place where there are regular power failures on a weekly
> > or daily basis.
>
> >>> Some of the hardware design
> >>> done in Silicon Valley requires a huge capital investment in server
> >>> farms for chip verification. That is not available in India or China
> >>> right now,
> >> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> >> Exactly.
>
> > except it is for as long as those countries are not at the top of the
> > heap in the high-tech world.
>
> >>> which may be why we have so many people from India or
> >>> China living here and getting U.S.-level salaries.
> >> Expanded guest worker program, perhaps?
>
> > We need every smart person we can get, but you'd have to work in
> > the area to know why.
>
> But obviously some of them are people lacking enough street smarts to
> know that "bicycle lanes" are unequal, second class facilities.
>
> Maybe Zaumen doesn't being asked to sit at the back of the bus?
>

The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
safety is... the sidewalk. And that's what they do all the time. They
are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 11:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > Besides, if "separate but equal" is the law of the land in many areas,
> > particularly applied to those who live beyond walled communities, I
> > don't see why it should apply to bikes and SUVs. They do NOT mix, just
> > as lions and monkeys.
>
> Some of the monkeys (ok, apes) learned to walk upright and used their
> now free forelimbs to make and hold weapons. The lions learned to stay
> well away from these otherwise slow and weak creatures.\

The lions learned to wait until the monkeys killed each other for them
to have a good lunch. Yep, lions are scavengers too!

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 3, 12:56 pm, Marz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:16 am, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > As I don't live in the USA, I
>
> > Maybe that's why you don't understand what's going on here. Slower
> > vehicles don't have to drive on the right at all, nor should drivers
> > pay be paying attention to driving, simply you get these SUV behemoths
> > whistling past you that leave you shaking in your commitment to ride
> > anymore.
>
> What?? Please explain what you mean by saying,'nor should drivers pay
> be paying attention to driving.' Because most drivers (in the US) I
> see are paying attention to the road.
>
> I ride most days along side SUV behemoths here in Texas and they've
> not put me or any of my friends off riding. Maybe it's how you ride
> that's causing you too many close encounters with other road users.

They simply are NOT paying attention to a large extent. If you are on
the cell phone you are NOT paying any more attention than if you had a
six pack of beer. And tell MADD that's a good thing.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
> safety is... the sidewalk.

That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that
conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous
than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the
opposite.

"Donquijote," don't you think you should research some of these points
before you make more mistaken posts?

> And that's what they do all the time. They
> are not that stupid to ride with the fish out there.

Before you can make a judgement of who or what is stupid, you need to
do the background reading.

Try Google first. If you have trouble locating data, we can give
citations.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >>YOU may ride 2' from edge of pavement, and others may ride 2' from
> >>edge of pavement, but it is not good practice. I don't ride 2' from
> >>edge of pavement.
> > Wayne, stop lying (you misquote me so consistently that lying is the
> > only explanation): I talked about riding 14' from the lane stripe
> > (on the left) of the adjacent traffic lane, which puts you a couple
> > of feet inside the bike lane. You know, two feet from the bike lane
> > stripe, which can be quite far from the curb.
>
> Are you a moron?
> In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement.

What you are is a liar. For some reason, you refuse to admit that lane
stripe to the left of the rightmost vehicular lane can be far more than
16 feet from a curb. If parking is allowed, bike lanes are typically
a minimum of 12 feet in width 5 feet for the vehicle, 3 feet to clear a
door, and another 4 for the bike and to allow for people parking a
maximum of 18 inches from a curb. If you then ride a foot or two
inside the bike lane, you will have room to clear parked vehicles
safely.

Around here, we also have streets with 6 to 8 foot bike lanes and no
parking allowed in them (e.g., Page Mill Road between El Camino Real
and the Foothill Expressay). If there is a fire or other emergency
during commute hours, when the lanes are filled to capacity and the
streets gridlocked, you then have a chance to let an emergency vehicle
get through.

So, before calling people "morons", I suggest you at least get your
facts straight, if only so you won't look like the fool that you are.

> >>Not me. I typically ride 4' from edge of pavement no matter what my
> >>speed is.
> > More dishonesty from Pein - given the minimum bike lane width, 4'
> > from the edge of the pavement is not outside of the bike lane.
>
> You are a moron.

Reduced to name calling because you don't like the facts?

> > If you don't care about traffic laws, or at least make a reasonable
> > effort to obey them, then do all of us a favor by not riding a bike
> > and not driving a car.
>
>
> Moron. I don't live in CA so I don't care about the CVC!

Make sure you don't visit California, at least not if you intend to
ride a bike, drive a car, or even walk across a street.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >>Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
> >>about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for
> >>many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.
> > Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he
> > is
> > one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few
> > "discussions" with him.
>
> Zauman, from my current "discussion" with you, I conclude that you are
> a moron. I've had numerous discussions with Frank, and he doesn't
> misinterpret me like you do, or distort what I say, or say anything
> dishonest.

What a liar you are, Pein. You are the person who is distorting
what you are replying to. If you have nice discussions with Krygowski,
it is only because you two agree with each other.

> Over the years I've read hundreds of his posts on usenet
> and have never read anything dishonest. You are a fruit cake. You need
> professional help.

Krygowski is a bald-faced liar, and so are you. Of course, you probably
never disagreed with him on any of his pet peeves. If you did, he'd lie
about you just as he lies about anyone else he disagrees with.

You can look at his dishonest comments about a former disccusion (I even
produced the message ID a day or so ago showing that he dissembled).
Rather than admit the truth, he then tried to accuse me of changing the
subject - anything but admit the truth.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

>>In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement.
>
>
> What you are is a liar.

Moron,

This is my last communication with you because trying to converse with
you is a constantly moving target.

Wayne

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] writes:

> On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
> > safety is... the sidewalk.
>
> That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that
> conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous
> than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the
> opposite.

<http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf> shows that
sidewalk cycling *in the same direction as traffic* has nearly the
same risk as riding on the roadway. See Table 5. For all bicyclists
in the study, the risk riding with traffic on the sidewalk divided by
the risk of riding on the roadway is 0.9 When you break it up by age,
however, you find that both the 17 and under and the 18 and over
catagories have a slightly increased risk when using the sidewalk and
when riding in the same direction as vehicular traffic. The reason is
that the 17 and under group has a significantly lower risk of an
accident than the 18 and over group no matter where they rode, but the
17 and under group was more likely to use a sidwalk.

The reduced risk for the 17 and under group is a bit counterintuitive,
given that by appearances they would seem be less careful than the 18
and older group. In a discussion with one of the authors, I suggested
a hypothesis that would explain the difference of about a factor of 2
(but it would take quite a bit of work to test it): the under 17 group
consists of mostly children who ride back from school before the
evening commute, but are in the morning commute, whereas the 18 and
over group (with a large contingent of Stanford students) has to ride
in both the morning and evening commutes. It is during commute hours
that the risk of a collision with a motor vehicle is highest, primarly
due to the larger number of vehicles on the road at that time. We can
also add a tendency not to use lights at night. That accounts for the
factor of two difference (and the large number of college students in
the area biases the "18 and over" catagory towards people in the late
teens and early 20s).

Where the real risk of sidewalk cycling appears is when riding against
the flow of traffic, and riding against the flow of traffic is far
more prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent road. That's where
you get an enhanced risk several times the risk of riding in the
correct direction on the road.

The bottom line is that riding on a sidewalk is not particularly risky
if you go at a speed appropriate for the conditions and if you ride in
the same direction as traffic. Obviously you need to be especially
careful about entering intersections, but the data seems to suggest
that most people who use sidewalks are doing that (the increased risk
is nearly all due to going the wrong way).

> "Donquijote," don't you think you should research some of these points
> before you make more mistaken posts?

Well, obviously Krygowski doesn't read the literature either as
comprehensively as he'd like to pretend.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:


> What a liar you are, Pein. You are the person who is distorting
> what you are replying to. If you have nice discussions with Krygowski,
> it is only because you two agree with each other.

Moron,

I don't lie: ever. Conversing with you is the most painful experience
I've had in a long time.

Good bye.

Wayne

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> > As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
> > design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
> > HOV lanes.
>
> The whole concept of bike lanes is bad.
>
> That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere
> they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations.

Pein, cut your idiotic rhetoric and show what you think is wrong with
the Caltrans standards for bike lanes.


>
> You keep bringing up a comparison between bike lanes and HOV
> lanes. Apparently you have an inability to distinguish differences.
>
> HOV lanes are 12' wide, are used on freeways, are typically (always?)
> the left lane (US), are intended to allow their users to pass
> congestion, are not mandatory, do not collect debris, and are
> universally loved by their users.
>
> Bike lanes are 4' wide, are used on normal streets which is an
> inappropriate treatment, are typically the rightmost lane (US), are
> intended to allow motorists to pass bicyclists easier while sometimes
> stopped motorists block the bike lane, are typically mandatory (if not
> mandatory, motorists enforce their use anyway), collect debris, and
> are often despised by their intended users.

Bike lanes are usually wider than 4' around here, sometimes a lot wider,
are clear of debris, and are in most cases popular with "their intended
users." The use of the lane is not mandatory in general, but rather
simply reflects the normal "slower traffic keeps to the right" rule.
The people who get as emotional as you do are very much a minority,
albeit a vocal one on usenet.

Also, bike lanes allow bicyclists to pass congestion whenever the
congestion is so bad that a bicyclist can ride faster than normal
traffic, and when that is the case, the use of the bike lane is
completely optional. It is pointless to argue about it - the CVC
is available on line.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >>In a 16' lane, 14' from the lane stripe is 2' from the edge of pavement.
> > What you are is a liar.
>
> Moron,
>
> This is my last communication with you because trying to converse with
> you is a constantly moving target.

Well, you just lied twice - your constantly moving target thing is a
lie, as is your "last communication". The post I'm replying to,
meesage ID <[email protected]>, was sent at
Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:03:34 -0400, but you subsequently posted another
reply with message ID <[email protected]>
at Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:06:16 -0400.

Care to explain how that post followed your "last communication"?

Your problem otherwise is that I'm simply not letting you get away
with misrepresenting what I actually said, and you are finding that
very awkward.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> > What a liar you are, Pein. You are the person who is distorting
> > what you are replying to. If you have nice discussions with Krygowski,
> > it is only because you two agree with each other.
>
> Moron,
>
> I don't lie: ever. Conversing with you is the most painful experience
> I've had in a long time.
>
> Good bye.
> Wayne

ROTFLMAO. You claimed the post you made 3 minutes before this one was
your "last communication" and now you say you don't lie?

I really don't care whether you consider it lying, but you have been
going around repeatedly misrepresenting what I said, replying to
sensible comments with infantile name calling, and otherwise behaving
like a child.

If you find conversing with me to be a "painful experience", it is
simply because you can't handle any statement about some topics that
clashes with your preconceptions. You need some professional help.
Maybe you and your friend Krygowski can go in together for group
therapy.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:32:40 -0400, Wayne Pein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Bill Z. wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
>>>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
>>>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
>>
>> Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
>> everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
>> any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
>> city he rode.
>
>Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
>about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many
>writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.
>
>Wayne

Seconded. Frank's experiences closely parallel mine.

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 6:04 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
> > On Aug 3, 3:01 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The street smart poor know that the best place to ride a bike in
> > > safety is... the sidewalk.
>
> > That statement is wrong. There have been several studies that
> > conclusively showed sidewalk cycling to be many times more dangerous
> > than cycling in the roadway. I know of no studies that show the
> > opposite.
>
> <http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf> shows that
> sidewalk cycling *in the same direction as traffic* has nearly the
> same risk as riding on the roadway. See Table 5. For all bicyclists
> in the study, the risk riding with traffic on the sidewalk divided by
> the risk of riding on the roadway is 0.9 When you break it up by age,
> however, you find that both the 17 and under and the 18 and over
> catagories have a slightly increased risk when using the sidewalk and
> when riding in the same direction as vehicular traffic. ...
>
> ...obviously Krygowski doesn't read the literature either as
> comprehensively as he'd like to pretend.

Bill, you're amazing.

Let's look at the conclusion of the paper:

"Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur
greater risk than those on the roadway (on average
1.8 times as great), most likely because of
blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way
sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and
sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence
of wrong-way travel."

What you've done is cherry pick the data in order to make a silly
argument. Even if sidewalk cycling is safe for, say, cyclists between
32 and 42 years of age, with red hair, riding slowly, in the direction
of traffic, and stopping at all driveways, that's not representative
of Donquijote's "street smart poor." Neither is your carefully chosen
sub-group.

Absent evidence of special characteristics, the best advice on riding
should be based on the average data, not your sub-group.

And you probably know about the Canadian study that found sidewalk
cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't
think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away.

Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:

> Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
> constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

So why do you encourage him?

Frank, you 'n Wayne are swinging punches at the Tar Baby,
to show the rest of the world what a Tar Baby it is.
But we already know it's a Tar Baby. You don't need to
prove anything. Unless you're obsessed like Captain Ahab
in Moby ****, and need to prove some irrational idea to
yourself by besting your chosen opponent.

Captain Ahab could've won (or at least broke even) by just
leaving the freaky whale alone to die a natural death.

The whale got Ahab's leg in the beginning of the story,
and got his life at the end of the story. But in between,
the whale slowly nibbled & nibbled & nibbled him to death.
And Ahab kept coming back for more nibbling. Just like
you guys are doing.

So, we all know Bill Zaumen is a Great White Tar Baby with
a wrinkled brow & crooked jaw, and much stickiness.

I am not only alone left to tell thee.

And you can't effectively harpoon a Tar Baby.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca