Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 30, 3:50 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> > In
> > my experience of riding in NL (not huge, but a couple of weeks' worth so
> > not inconsequential either) the real difference is drivers who
> > understand, account for and defer to cycles sharing the roads with them.
> > They have to, because there are so many bikes.
>
> Don't forget that with large numbers cycling, the majority of the
> drivers are also cyclists which helps enormously IMO.


I'm telling you: Being smart is contagious. And so being stupid, just
look at many people drive SUVs in America.

 

[Peter Clinch]

donquijote1954 wrote:

> Well, luck goes a long way sometimes. But armor is the reason many
> people buy SUVs...
>
> "Infected individuals mistakenly reason that the sheer size of the
> vehicle suddenly makes them supreme road worriers."

(Is that a Freudian slip for "warriors"? ;-/)

Or rather, perception of armour. What a lot of them fail to note is
that performance in a crash test is only part of the story. Easier to
hit, less manoeuvrable, less responsive and more liable to roll take
away the advantages, but as usual it's *perception* that people take
more notice of than reality.

What they do achieve is making it more dangerous for everyone else, of
course, the usual outcome of an arms race.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

donquijote1954 wrote:

> Unbelievable.,.. A smart comment from you? Well, you been absorbing
> some of the good stuff from others here, right?

My comments are quite consistent. The one here, that you need a
critical mass of cyclists on the roads to make drivers take notice, is
completely consistent with saying bike lanes aren't often worth the time
of day. As many cycles as you want can be segregated on bike lanes and
paths, and the drivers won't have to take any notice of them because
they're somewhere else.

The comments are based on reality, not on pipe dreams.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[John Kane]

On Jul 27, 10:52 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 27 Jul, 15:06, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > (I can't get at the original at the moment, so here's the digest which I
> > trust is accurate).
>
> Can now get at the original - the final paragraph comes down in favour
> of increasing cycle facilities:
>
> "Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been
> constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and
> feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on
> road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the
> construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in
> health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much
> greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in
> road safety."
>
> I'm personally reconsidering my view as a result of reading this
> paper. Before, I would have said that most urban cycle facilities are
> positively harmful and should be scrapped tomorrow (I'd make an
> exception for various routes such as those on former railway lines
> which can be worthwhile). However, having seen the impact on cycling
> levels and road traffic of the Copenhagen scheme, I'm starting to
> wonder. I guess there's scope for safety to increase as people get
> more used to them, and maybe designs can be improved.
>
> I think the key thing is the quality of the facilities. The pictures
> in the report suggest that Copenhagen has the space and inclination to
> do things properly. Many British urban areas simply don't have the
> space. If a city has room to do things properly - which means a
> comprehensive network, not scraps of route where there happens to be
> space that end suddenly just where you actually need them - then great
> go ahead. Otherwise, forget it, and consider other measures.
>
> Rob

Can you supply a reference for that study. I'd like to get my hands on
it for a current discussion that we're having here. Thanks

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[donquijote1954]

While some here keep using and abusing their red-herring arguments
that bike lanes are more dangerous (fine, let's do it with or without
bike lanes), there's people out there that have decided to change,
even challenge the beast, so they can have a better, healthier life,
and they are part of the revolution...


Bikes are better than cars

The last time I drove the car was October 27, 2002. It was a very bad
day. I vowed that I would never drive again. I have kept that vow.

I ride my bike everywhere I go. I've lost about 45 lbs since I started
bike commuting, and my blood pressure is lower. I've found myself
expressing optimism, which was something new for me. I don't get as
depressed as I used to, especially in the winter. I think cycling is a
kind of meditation. I could never go back to driving a car.

My Beliefs
I think bikes are inherently better than cars. I honestly believe that
if more people used bikes instead of cars, the world would be a much
better place. I think people would be healthier. They would be more
physically fit, and they would be mentally healthier, both happier and
more relaxed. Those are just the benefits to the cyclist. Everyone
benefits from fewer cars. Fewer cars mean less asthma. Fewer cars mean
fewer traffic deaths (more than 42,000 people per year die in the US
as a result of motor vehicle "accidents"). These are health benefits
for everyone.

Our car culture has hastened sprawl and destroyed wildlife habitat.
People are becoming so far removed from nature, they don't even know
they need nature, not just for their physical health, but for their
mental health.

Cars insulate people from nature. Bikes allow people to experience it.
I don't want to be a passive observer of the weather. I like feeling
the rain and wind on my face -- it makes me know I'm alive! When I
ride as the snow falls, I can't help but smile. I feel like I'm
playing. Riding in a strong headwind is extra work, but it's extra
work for a car too. People driving cars are simply unaware that
they're consuming extra fuel. They're insulated from nature. I'll wear
the right clothing to keep me comfortable for the weather, but I want
to experience it, not just sit inside a metal and glass cage on a
cushy seat where the weather might as well be something on television.
It's a real world out there! I want to be IN it!

A cyclist can also observe plants and animals that a motorist can't.
Cars just whiz by everything too fast for a motorist to see most
things, and the motion and noise of cars send most animals running
from the horrible machine. Bicycles are quiet. They move at a sane
pace. I can actually see what I'm riding past instead of everything
being a blur.

I also believe that if more people used bicycles instead of cars,
cyclists would be more respected. We would be treated as human beings
instead of as second-class citizens. People deny us services, yell at
us, swear at us, honk at us, throw things at us, and in extreme cases
assault us, or sometimes even kill us, for no reason other than
because we are riding bicycles. In other words, people treat us like a
despised minority. We haven't had much luck being treated as equals.
And there's still that whole business of cars destroying the
environment and belching carcinogens and other particulates into the
air (asthma, anyone?). So...this means we need to become the majority.
We need to outnumber them. I'm not advocating some sort of violent
revolution. That's the farthest thing from what I want -- I'm a
pacifist. I simply want cyclists -- peaceful cyclists -- to be the
majority. Sure, it's Utopian, but it's what I want. So it's a goal to
strive for.

(lots of good stuff)

http://www.riinsrants.info/bikes/

 

[biking-geordie]

I'm not sure about scooters - particularly if they're powered by a tw-
stroke engine. Matt Seaton makes the point in his new book that the
emissions from these things are 11 times worse than from a car or
motorbike using a (regular) 4 stroke petrol engine or diesel engine.
Might be worth looking into if this is an issue for you.

On 23 Jul, 22:15, "Michael Plog" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also bought a scooter (moped) as a toy, but I take it for errands as often
> as possible. I do ride it to work, and do not end up sweaty. My wife and I
> still ride our recumbents for entertainment and exercise (especially
> cardiac), but the moped is good for other things. I get close to 150mpg, so
> I feel pretty good buying one gallon of gas at a time.
>
> A word about traffic. I take side streets on both the bicycle and moped.
> Sometimes that is impossible, but generally there will be streets with very
> little traffic yet getting where you need to be.
>
> Happy trails!
>
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in
> > America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great
> > (and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that
> > uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes.
> > Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by
> > chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the
> > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet
> > most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle
> > use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the
> > percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right?
>
> > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
> > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And
> > that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking
> > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
> > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of
> > fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out
> > there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food
> > chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic,
> > if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good
> > 80MPG.
>
> > So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live
> > long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off
> > I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the
> > market for the hell of it)...
>
> > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
> >http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> > BIKE FOR PEACE
> >http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 31, 5:31 am, biking-geordie <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not sure about scooters - particularly if they're powered by a tw-
> stroke engine. Matt Seaton makes the point in his new book that the
> emissions from these things are 11 times worse than from a car or
> motorbike using a (regular) 4 stroke petrol engine or diesel engine.
> Might be worth looking into if this is an issue for you.
>

Mine is a four stroke engine, with a new catalytic that I guess now
it's mandatory. And I get 80MPG with 2 people. I got it because
there's no room for bikes on major roads and because I want to stay
away from cars and car insurance --and the cavemen.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 31, 4:46 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Most experienced bicylists can handle bike lanes just fine, and
> > find that ones in compliance with the current standards are not
> > a problem (ones that are substandard can be a problem). I know
> > people who have ridden across the U.S. who have no objections to
> > properly designed bike lanes.
>
> > So, why don't you cut your infantile ad hominem arguments? You
> > are just making yourself look like a fool.
>
> Why should experienced bicyclists have to "handle" bike lanes when they
> can already handle normal non-bike lane roads. Why do we have to adjust
> our riding for cry babies like you?

One basic reason YOU NEED BIKE LANES is that when you don't have them,
YOU ARE LEFT WITH NO LANES. THE CARS THINK (AND ACT) LIKE THEY OWN THE
LANES, all of them. And since you are at a little thing at the bottom
of the food chain, drivers can shout at you, throw things at you, and
even spit at you --or simply run you over. And UNDER THAT SORT OF
TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE...

(same lady quoted above)

Mr. Irate Motorist, just how many lanes do you want?
A familiar sound. Behind me, "HONK HONK!" Sigh. Here we go again.
"HONK HONK HONK!!!" I maintain my position in the center of the lane
as it's too narrow to share with a car. I'm on Division, a one way
street, three lanes, very light traffic, but Mr. Irate Motorist is
****** off that I've taken one of three lanes. Most people just change
lanes to pass me, like they would any other slow-moving vehicle, but
Mr. Irate Motorist slows to my pace, window rolled down, half in my
lane, half in the next, beside me. "BLAH BLAH BLAH SHOULDN'T BE ON THE
ROAD BLAH BLAH BLAH SPEED LIMIT BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!" I can't understand
half of what he's saying, but I imagine it's what I've heard before.
He thinks I shouldn't be on the road since I can't maintain the speed
limit. Do people even understand anymore that the speed limit is
supposed to be the maximum speed allowed, not the minimum? I suppose
not, since the police don't ticket anyone unless they're going well
over the posted limit.

I yell over his words, "THERE'S A PASSING LANE! THERE'S A PASSING
LANE! THERE'S A PASSING LANE!" over and over, as clearly as I can, all
the way to Ann, where I turn right and continue my journey to work.
After I turn I glance back and see a police car on Division,
continuing past Ann. No flashing lights though. I would think the
police officer would have witnessed the motorist driving half in one
lane, half in the other for several blocks, keeping pace with me while
I was yelling. Didn't it occur to the officer that the motorist was
harassing me? If it did, police don't seem to think harassment of
cyclists is a problem.

My thoughts returned to Mr. Irate Motorist. What I had said to him
was, "There's a passing lane." What I should have said was, "You've
got two passing lanes! This road is three lanes wide! Just how many
lanes do you want? Quit harassing me, you dumbass!" Some motorists are
like grown up versions of possessive children who don't want to share
their toys. It isn't that they're able to play with all of their toys
themselves simultaneously; they just don't want anyone else to play
with anything. They want everything for themselves.

I have a hunch that if someone did a study they would find that the
motorists who harass cyclists, don't want them on "their" roads, argue
about maintaining speed limits, paying road taxes, and all the other
ridiculous things cyclists have all heard, are the same people who
were possessive children who didn't want to share toys or take turns
on playground equipment. It isn't about speed limits or road taxes.
It's about personality. One develops one's essential personality as a
young child. It's a core part of one's being. Interests and skills
will come and go throughout life, and beliefs may change, but
personality isn't going to change much.

I'm not a parent, and I realize there are different approaches to
parenting. I have no idea what works. How do you deal with a little
kid who wants to have all the toys? How do you get little Billy to get
it into his thick little head that it doesn't really matter that he
wants all the toys? Other kids want to play too. If he keeps all the
toys to himself, he's being a jerk. Is there some way to make him see
that?

If there is, that's what we need to do with grown up Bill. We need to
make him see that it really doesn't matter that he wants the whole
road to himself. Other people need to use it too. If he tries to keep
the whole road to himself, he's being a jerk.

http://www.riinsrants.info/bikes/howmany.htm

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"donquijote1954" who? wrote:
> ...
> One basic reason YOU NEED BIKE LANES is that when you don't have them,
> YOU ARE LEFT WITH NO LANES. THE CARS THINK (AND ACT) LIKE THEY OWN THE
> LANES, all of them. And since you are at a little thing at the bottom
> of the food chain, drivers can shout at you, throw things at you, and
> even spit at you --or simply run you over. And UNDER THAT SORT OF
> TERROR CYCLISTS MUST SURVIVE...
>
> (same lady quoted above)
>
> Mr. Irate Motorist, just how many lanes do you want?
> A familiar sound. Behind me, "HONK HONK!" Sigh. Here we go again.
> "HONK HONK HONK!!!" I maintain my position in the center of the lane
> as it's too narrow to share with a car. I'm on Division, a one way
> street, three lanes, very light traffic, but Mr. Irate Motorist is
> ****** off that I've taken one of three lanes. Most people just change
> lanes to pass me, like they would any other slow-moving vehicle, but
> Mr. Irate Motorist slows to my pace, window rolled down, half in my
> lane, half in the next, beside me. "BLAH BLAH BLAH SHOULDN'T BE ON THE
> ROAD BLAH BLAH BLAH SPEED LIMIT BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!" I can't understand
> half of what he's saying, but I imagine it's what I've heard before.
> He thinks I shouldn't be on the road since I can't maintain the speed
> limit. Do people even understand anymore that the speed limit is
> supposed to be the maximum speed allowed, not the minimum? I suppose
> not, since the police don't ticket anyone unless they're going well
> over the posted limit.
>
> I yell over his words, "THERE'S A PASSING LANE! THERE'S A PASSING
> LANE! THERE'S A PASSING LANE!" over and over, as clearly as I can, all
> the way to Ann, where I turn right and continue my journey to work.
> After I turn I glance back and see a police car on Division,
> continuing past Ann. No flashing lights though. I would think the
> police officer would have witnessed the motorist driving half in one
> lane, half in the other for several blocks, keeping pace with me while
> I was yelling. Didn't it occur to the officer that the motorist was
> harassing me? If it did, police don't seem to think harassment of
> cyclists is a problem.
>
> My thoughts returned to Mr. Irate Motorist. What I had said to him
> was, "There's a passing lane." What I should have said was, "You've
> got two passing lanes! This road is three lanes wide! Just how many
> lanes do you want? Quit harassing me, you dumbass!" Some motorists are
> like grown up versions of possessive children who don't want to share
> their toys. It isn't that they're able to play with all of their toys
> themselves simultaneously; they just don't want anyone else to play
> with anything. They want everything for themselves.
>
> I have a hunch that if someone did a study they would find that the
> motorists who harass cyclists, don't want them on "their" roads, argue
> about maintaining speed limits, paying road taxes, and all the other
> ridiculous things cyclists have all heard, are the same people who
> were possessive children who didn't want to share toys or take turns
> on playground equipment. It isn't about speed limits or road taxes.
> It's about personality. One develops one's essential personality as a
> young child. It's a core part of one's being. Interests and skills
> will come and go throughout life, and beliefs may change, but
> personality isn't going to change much.
>
> I'm not a parent, and I realize there are different approaches to
> parenting. I have no idea what works. How do you deal with a little
> kid who wants to have all the toys? How do you get little Billy to get
> it into his thick little head that it doesn't really matter that he
> wants all the toys? Other kids want to play too. If he keeps all the
> toys to himself, he's being a jerk. Is there some way to make him see
> that?

Tell Little Billy that he is unworthy as a person and if he keeps on
behaving that way you will no longer love him. If that does not work,
take away ALL his toys and don't let him play with the other children
until he learns to behave. If this fails, turn him over to the custody
of the state.

> If there is, that's what we need to do with grown up Bill. We need to
> make him see that it really doesn't matter that he wants the whole
> road to himself. Other people need to use it too. If he tries to keep
> the whole road to himself, he's being a jerk....

Big Billy also needs to be taught a lesson. Videotaping the behavior
would be a good start. Send the video to the local police, and if that
does not help, send it to all the local television stations. Complain
to the police commission, alderman, mayor, etc, and make yourself a
nuisance until someone does something.

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

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 31, 7:53 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Big Billy also needs to be taught a lesson. Videotaping the behavior
> would be a good start. Send the video to the local police, and if that
> does not help, send it to all the local television stations. Complain
> to the police commission, alderman, mayor, etc, and make yourself a
> nuisance until someone does something.
>

I saw somewhere I video camera that attaches to your helmet. That
would come real handy, but it would turn you into a vigilante fighting
the bad guys on the road. And that would make you more crazy than
DonQuixote fighting the windmills as there too many reckless drivers
out there.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jul 31, 7:53 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Big Billy also needs to be taught a lesson. Videotaping the behavior
> > would be a good start. Send the video to the local police, and if that
> > does not help, send it to all the local television stations. Complain
> > to the police commission, alderman, mayor, etc, and make yourself a
> > nuisance until someone does something.
> >
>
> I saw somewhere I video camera that attaches to your helmet. That
> would come real handy, but it would turn you into a vigilante fighting
> the bad guys on the road. And that would make you more crazy than
> DonQuixote fighting the windmills as there too many reckless drivers
> out there.

Nah. Here's how Don Quixote, equipped only with his trusty video camera
(we'll call it "Sancho") would operate:

1) obnoxious behaviour recorded
2) without confronting the driver, a copy of the incident is sent to the
police as an adjunct to a formal complaint.

There is no step 3,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[Peter Clinch]

donquijote1954 wrote:

> One basic reason YOU NEED BIKE LANES is that when you don't have them,
> YOU ARE LEFT WITH NO LANES.

And as I know from mostly not having any bike lanes, that's not actually
a problem. I know that from real, empirical experience.

Here it comes again: we know bike lanes are not a Big Win, because their
real world track record shows us that they are typically more dangerous
than the roads. I know you don't want to hear that, but closing your
ears doesn't make it go away.

> THE CARS THINK (AND ACT) LIKE THEY OWN THE
> LANES, all of them.

You're greatly exaggerating.
For a start, many, many cyclists are drivers too, and they don't have
their minds magically morphed into a Jekyll/Hyde thing by getting into
their cars. IME (which is on Planet Earth) I get consideration from
drivers when I show it in return, and we co-exist very well for the most
part.

Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but
they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you
push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned
and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use
the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead.

They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not
helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?*

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[DougC]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> ... I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the
> supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile.
>
> Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
> places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule....
> ... Great places are within biking
> distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
> NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe.....
>

The problem with this plan is that typically "the squeaky wheel gets the
grease". The only way that gov't would know that a bike lane was even
necessary was if there were lots of complaints of motorists being held
up by bicyclists.

Where I live the only roads prohibited for bicycles are interstate
highways; every other road is legal and free. Get a good rear-view
mirror, get out there, and get in the way. Every motorist that gets
****** off at you for slowing them down is one more "advocate" for bike
lanes.
~

 

[George Conklin]

"DougC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:qE%[email protected]...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > ... I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the
> > supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile.
> >
> > Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
> > places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule....
> > ... Great places are within biking
> > distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
> > NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe.....
> >
>
> The problem with this plan is that typically "the squeaky wheel gets the
> grease". The only way that gov't would know that a bike lane was even
> necessary was if there were lots of complaints of motorists being held
> up by bicyclists.

Based on the bicycle militants posting here, bicycles do not "hold up"
cars.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 31, 10:29 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
> > Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > > ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy
> > > spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little
> > > boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up.
>
> > Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman!
>
> (Of course, being embarassed by his behavior, Pein snipped his
> infantile insults before replying.)
>
> Pein, why don't you get some professional help for your problem? You
> might start with an anger-management class, although a psychiatrist
> might be able to give you a more apropos suggestion.

If a psychiatrist can help a caveman, he should benefit from it. Bike
lanes are so easy even a caveman can do it!

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 31, 10:39 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Pein has yet to explain why a bike lane stripe is worse than a
> > > shoulder stripe place a foot or two to the right of where the bike
> > > lane stripe is.
>
> > The bicycle lane leads motor vehicles operators (who are not cyclists)
> > to believe that cyclists should be confined to bike lanes, bike paths,
> > etc. This creates an especial difficulty when needing to make a left
> > turn [1], since the cagers wonder "what the hell is the cyclist doing
> > out of the bike lane?"
>
> Except it is not true - that is simply a bogus argument some people
> have put out. Look up the California Driver's Handbook
> <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm> and
> specifically <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike>:

The cavemen driving out there are not THAT stupid. They just want to
use their vehicles as clubs.

 

[Peter Clinch]

George Conklin wrote:

> Based on the bicycle militants posting here, bicycles do not "hold up"
> cars.

For some values of "holding up"...

I know how much I get held up by bikes in the car, and it's typically
not very much at all, despite being religiously careful in overtaking
giving huge amounts of room (because I appreciate that myself when I'm
on a bike and people do it for me). Often as many as /whole seconds/
pass before I have a good overtaking opportunity, and where it actual
trickles on into minutes normally I'm only being held up in getting to
the next delay a little later.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 12:13 am, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
>
>
> donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 7:53 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Big Billy also needs to be taught a lesson. Videotaping the behavior
> > > would be a good start. Send the video to the local police, and if that
> > > does not help, send it to all the local television stations. Complain
> > > to the police commission, alderman, mayor, etc, and make yourself a
> > > nuisance until someone does something.
>
> > I saw somewhere I video camera that attaches to your helmet. That
> > would come real handy, but it would turn you into a vigilante fighting
> > the bad guys on the road. And that would make you more crazy than
> > DonQuixote fighting the windmills as there too many reckless drivers
> > out there.
>
> Nah. Here's how Don Quixote, equipped only with his trusty video camera
> (we'll call it "Sancho") would operate:
>
> 1) obnoxious behaviour recorded
> 2) without confronting the driver, a copy of the incident is sent to the
> police as an adjunct to a formal complaint.
>
> There is no step 3,

Makes sense. It would have to record sound though so all that name
calling goes with the report: "Hey you, stupid asshole, get outta my
way."

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but
> they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you
> push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned
> and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use
> the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead.
>
> They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not
> helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?*


You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE
BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH
OR DANISH LEVELS?

Would you deny that bike lanes bring people out? How 'bout this other
setup?

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/

Remember this piece in the dialog, "It's a war zone out there"...

(The Great Ed is gonna love this!)

 

[Peter Clinch]

donquijote1954 wrote:

> You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE
> BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH
> OR DANISH LEVELS?

Level all the hills and change history so we'd never lost our bike culture.

Or in other words, stop dreaming and get real. If it does happen it's
going to take a /very/ long time and you'll need more than bike lanes to
achieve it.

> Would you deny that bike lanes bring people out? How 'bout this other
> setup?

I haven't seen any particular evidence that they do. I've seen plenty
of suggestions from people that they'd cycle if there were more, but
where there have been more it hasn't appeared to make any real
difference because the excuse is just an excuse. The basic problem is
not being in the habit.

> http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/

They don't really help. And they've been shown not to help and we can
see them not helping in practice.
Take the Milton Keynes Redways, a New Town in England built with
completely separate bike lanes so everyone can get about by bike. Only
they tend not to, and those that do don't appear to be any safer than
folks in other places using the roads.

> Remember this piece in the dialog, "It's a war zone out there"...

No it's not, unless you're into pointless exaggeration.

One thing you can do to encourage more people onto bikes is stop
routinely exaggerating the dangers. Why are people going to want to go
cycling if it's a "war zone"?

What you need to do is tell it like it /actually is/: a relatively safe
and remarkably efficient, cheap and healthy way to get about. As
opposed to some ridiculous story where folks will run over them for the
sake of it, where they need to be civilly disobedient to get their
rights, and where there's a war going on. That really sounds like a
good reason to start using a bike! (not)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/