Hun again

[matagi]

People, what are you thinking? Everyone knows that the only way to solve the traffic congestion problem is to build more car lanes. After all, it is so much fun to be stationary on a freeway, otherwise why do so many people do it?

Heaven forbid we should actually discourage people from driving and encourage them to use an alternative like public transport or *gasp* a bicycle or (and here's a radical notion) even walking to work! The horror! The horror!

 

[Shane Stanley]

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

> I also draw on my traffic light poll at Bike Café where it was evident
> a prime reason for running read lights was bicycle riders did not like
> slowing for lights at every intersection, stopping then having to get
> up momentum again

Hoe does this differ from car drivers?

--
Shane Stanley

 

[rooman]

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

> I also draw on my traffic light poll at Bike Café where it was evident
> a prime reason for running read lights was bicycle riders did not like
> slowing for lights at every intersection, stopping then having to get
> up momentum again

Hoe does this differ from car drivers?

--
Shane Stanley

unless you are Fred Flinstone ...seriously what are you on?

Car driver sits in seat, listens to radio, drinks coffee, does eye lashes, talks on phone, when lights change , presses accelerator and moves on.... I have never seen a car driver ever have to raise a sweat getting to work because he/she had to stop at lights ( well other than those with a serious anger management problem)...

a rider on the other hand, slows, removes feet from clips or pedal straps and stops places foot on ground and waits for lights to change, rider prepares pedal in position to move off lights change presses hard on forward pedal and then build cadence by physical applicatiom from riders body through the legs to exert force to turn pedals to turn crank to drive chain to turn rear wheel and obtain forward motion...ummm I thnk that is how it works!! or do you want me to draw a picture....

sheesh!

 

[Donga]

On Mar 4, 3:32 pm, rooman <rooman.2mw...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Shane Stanley Wrote:> In article <[email protected]>,
> > rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I also draw on my traffic light poll at Bike Café where it was
> > evident
> > > a prime reason for running read lights was bicycle riders did not
> > like
> > > slowing for lights at every intersection, stopping then having to get
> > > up momentum again
>
> > Hoe does this differ from car drivers?
>
> > --
> > Shane Stanley
>
> unless you are Fred Flinstone ...seriously what are you on?
>
> Car driver sits in seat, listens to radio, drinks coffee, does eye
> lashes, talks on phone, when lights change , presses accelerator and
> moves on.... I have never seen a car driver ever have to raise a sweat
> getting to work because he/she had to stop at lights ( well other than
> those with a serious anger management problem)...
>
> a rider on the other hand, slows, removes feet from clips or pedal
> straps and stops places foot on ground and waits for lights to change,
> rider prepares pedal in position to move off lights change presses hard
> on forward pedal and then build cadence by physical applicatiom from
> riders body through the legs to exert force to turn pedals to turn
> crank to drive chain to turn rear wheel and obtain forward
> motion...ummm I thnk that is how it works!! or do you want me to draw a
> picture....
>
> sheesh!
>
> --
> rooman

.... all part of riding a bike, so what's the issue with stopping and
starting? Your motorist subject might say he was saving petrol and
time by going through, and you would have to say it was fine by your
measure.

Donga

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 3 Mar 2007 21:51:14 -0800
Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:32 pm, rooman <rooman.2mw...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> straps and stops places foot on ground and waits for lights to change,
>> rider prepares pedal in position to move off lights change presses hard
>> on forward pedal and then build cadence by physical applicatiom from
>> riders body through the legs to exert force to turn pedals to turn
>> crank to drive chain to turn rear wheel and obtain forward
>> motion...ummm I thnk that is how it works!! or do you want me to draw a
>> picture....
>
> ... all part of riding a bike, so what's the issue with stopping and
> starting? Your motorist subject might say he was saving petrol and
> time by going through, and you would have to say it was fine by your
> measure.

I have decided the redlight running is because riders of upright bikes
want to get where they are going more quickly so they can get off the
things!

Zebee

 

[rooman]

In aus.bicycle on 3 Mar 2007 21:51:14 -0800
Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:32 pm, rooman <rooman.2mw...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> straps and stops places foot on ground and waits for lights to change,
>> rider prepares pedal in position to move off lights change presses hard
>> on forward pedal and then build cadence by physical applicatiom from
>> riders body through the legs to exert force to turn pedals to turn
>> crank to drive chain to turn rear wheel and obtain forward
>> motion...ummm I thnk that is how it works!! or do you want me to draw a
>> picture....
>
> ... all part of riding a bike, so what's the issue with stopping and
> starting? Your motorist subject might say he was saving petrol and
> time by going through, and you would have to say it was fine by your
> measure.

I have decided the redlight running is because riders of upright bikes
want to get where they are going more quickly so they can get off the
things!

Zebee

you may be right zeebee... your rec bike seat might be easier on the bum...I'm sure you think so... but we uprights have to use discipline and maybe some chamois cream and ride on... I never have a butt problem from bike seats , so it's not my concern...

but donga...its not my reasoning( "say its fine by your measure")...it is what the respondents say.... sure there were large percentage who just didnt give a fig and went through them anyway, but when the overall figures are examined there are a large percentage who certainly dont like the exertion factor that is a factor of repetitive, clipping unclipping, getting up to momentum again, and consequent stopping and starting ( and in my view something that could be avoided with green wave synching)...I'm sure its not etxra time or delay factor, but more so are repetitive stop start at closely spaced lights that could have been better synchronised to help alleviate the stopping and maintain a traffic flow for all , (car and rider alike...)

anyway this is not about redlight running, but it is a relevant observation to make if we care to look at why some people chose not , or prefer not, to stop at closely spaced red lights...

whatever...somebody else offer some plausible ways to improve traffic flow, get more people riding, encourage greater law observance by all and to have lower injury and death stats out there.... we want to ride in a vehicular way as that is the way the "experts" (Forester etc) say we will fare best then we need to ensure that the roads and traffic management permit that and do not excise bicyle riders from roadways, or make conditions impossible for vehicular riding....

I dont necessarily agree with Copenhagen lanes per se, they may have a place in some locations... but each of us has to be responsible for what we do and how we do it... for those experienced and skilled , it doesnt matter if we have bike lanes, green waves or other measures...they will fare best as they are looking out and doing the things that are necessary to maximise their safety and survival and enjoyment...

there are however many who would ride if they felt more confident and would never ride on the road unless there was a separation from traffic, so if it is the overwhelming view of the community that that be the way of the future, then we will end up with that as an outcome... we are trying to get more people riding...BV seems to think the way to go is separation of riders from traffic...this sits well with the car lobby, and no doubt Tiny Tim...but it is not necessarily the way for the best outcome for all riders in the long term...

building skill sets, getting experience , riding vehicularly and keeping a proper lookout for yourself is our personal obligation no matter what....

here endeth the lesson.... ( it is Sunday in the Church of the Shiny Bicycle) and I'll now go consume some of the communion red...ciao tifosi

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:07:28 +1100
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
> certainly dont like the exertion factor that is a factor of repetitive,
> clipping unclipping, getting up to momentum again, and consequent
> stopping and starting ( and in my view something that could be avoided
> with green wave synching)...I'm sure its not etxra time or delay
> factor, but more so are repetitive stop start at closely spaced lights
> that could have been better synchronised to help alleviate the stopping
> and maintain a traffic flow for all , (car and rider alike...)

A number of the ones I see doing it aren't sailing straight through,
but almost stopping and in some cases stopping, then going.

For example, one intersection has the traffic going from left to right
across my path with a right turn arrow as well as straight, that's the
sequence before my light goes green. Many[1] riders stop at the red,
look right, decide it's clear, and go.

Zebee

[1] meaning all but the bod on the bent....

 

[Shane Stanley]

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

> a rider on the other hand, slows, removes feet from clips or pedal
> straps and stops places foot on ground and waits for lights to change,
> rider prepares pedal in position to move off lights change presses hard
> on forward pedal and then build cadence by physical applicatiom from
> riders body through the legs to exert force to turn pedals to turn
> crank to drive chain to turn rear wheel and obtain forward
> motion...ummm I thnk that is how it works!! or do you want me to draw a
> picture....

Well I'd like you to explain how that justifies running red lights. Is
it the difficulty involved -- like, say, a driver complaining how hard
it is to move into the next lane to pass a cyclist -- or the fact that
it involves some extra exertion? If it's the latter, then maybe they
should just give up. Let's build a wall alongside Beach Road to keep out
the wind, too.

Sorry, I agree that repeated red lights are a pain, but there's no more
justification for cyclists to run them than for motorists. And the
exertion argument goes out the window when you see cyclists come to a
(near) stop, decide the way is clear, and then go through.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:52:59 +1100
Shane Stanley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry, I agree that repeated red lights are a pain, but there's no more
> justification for cyclists to run them than for motorists. And the
> exertion argument goes out the window when you see cyclists come to a
> (near) stop, decide the way is clear, and then go through.

Indeed. Besides, what about all that crowing about fitness and health
and good looking backsides?

Zebee

 

[rooman]

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

> a rider on the other hand, slows, removes feet from clips or pedal
> straps and stops places foot on ground and waits for lights to change,
> rider prepares pedal in position to move off lights change presses hard
> on forward pedal and then build cadence by physical applicatiom from
> riders body through the legs to exert force to turn pedals to turn
> crank to drive chain to turn rear wheel and obtain forward
> motion...ummm I thnk that is how it works!! or do you want me to draw a
> picture....

Well I'd like you to explain how that justifies running red lights. Is
it the difficulty involved -- like, say, a driver complaining how hard
it is to move into the next lane to pass a cyclist -- or the fact that
it involves some extra exertion? If it's the latter, then maybe they
should just give up. Let's build a wall alongside Beach Road to keep out
the wind, too.

Sorry, I agree that repeated red lights are a pain, but there's no more
justification for cyclists to run them than for motorists. And the
exertion argument goes out the window when you see cyclists come to a
(near) stop, decide the way is clear, and then go through.

--
Shane Stanley

I beg your pardon...where in this thread have I suggested that there is justification for anyone to run a redlight ...

exertion is expressed in context as the difference between a stopped vehicle and a stopped bike...there is just a teensie difference on how you get them both back to speed if you have ever noticed!!!!.... that, and separation of bike and car, and subsequently the green wave synchronisation is the totality of the spirit of this thread, (not a red light running "green light"...)

you seem happy to push some weird barrow that this thread is about such a thing...couldnt be more wrong baby!!

try again...this time dont distort the subject and read all of what is written not just the bits you want to pick out and jump on out of context ...

Wilma...knock knock knock open the dor...Wilma!, Wilma!!, WILMA ?????

 

[beerwolf]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> A number of the ones I see doing it aren't sailing straight through,
> but almost stopping and in some cases stopping, then going.
>
> For example, one intersection has the traffic going from left to right
> across my path with a right turn arrow as well as straight, that's the
> sequence before my light goes green. Many[1] riders stop at the red,
> look right, decide it's clear, and go.
>
> Zebee
>
> [1] meaning all but the bod on the bent....

Are you referring to the intersection of Pyrmont Bridge Rd with the
approaches to the Anzac bridge? I see a lot of the behaviour you describe
there. I've stopped doing it myself - but can understand the reasons for.
The left lane immediately after the overpass, on the city side, is made
very narrow by an unreasonably jutting out piece of traffic island. You
don't really want to be sharing that bit with a car, so the rationale for
busting the red is to get clear of that part before a car wants to come
through.

--
beerwolf
(To reply by email, remove numbers from my address)

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:25:56 -0000
beerwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Are you referring to the intersection of Pyrmont Bridge Rd with the
> approaches to the Anzac bridge? I see a lot of the behaviour you describe

Yup, that one.

> there. I've stopped doing it myself - but can understand the reasons for.
> The left lane immediately after the overpass, on the city side, is made
> very narrow by an unreasonably jutting out piece of traffic island. You
> don't really want to be sharing that bit with a car, so the rationale for
> busting the red is to get clear of that part before a car wants to come
> through.

I am pretty slow to take off, but I still manage to either beat the
first car, or else take the lane as the 2nd one comes up. There's
some ugly squeezing later on which has to be dealt with too.

The ones who do it aren't waiting till the other side goes yellow,
they are doing it well on the other side's green.

I don't think they are thinking a much about safety as about "i can
get where I'm going faster".

Same as the ones who use the ped lights, but cross against the red
there.

Zebee

 

[Shane Stanley]

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

> I beg your pardon...where in this thread have I suggested that there is
> justification for anyone to run a redlight ...

You didn't, and I didn't say you did. What you did say was that in your
"traffic light poll", having to slow, stop and get up momentum was given
as a "prime reason" for running red lights. I'm just suggesting that
those who said that are talking self-justifying ****, and that it's no
more excuse than the the dozens that motorists can make up. Do you
agree, or do you think their answer is legitimate?
>
> exertion is expressed in context as the difference between a stopped
> vehicle and a stopped bike...there is just a teensie difference on how
> you get them both back to speed if you have ever noticed!!!!

Yes, and it's the difference in how you keep them at speed. It's one of
the reasons why it's healthier to ride -- exertion is *good* for you!

> that,
> and separation of bike and car, and subsequently the green wave
> synchronisation is the totality of the spirit of this thread, (not a
> red light running "green light"...)

Sorry, but you brought up the business of running lights, suggesting the
reason, and also suggesting "it could be overcome by simple traffic light
synchronisation".

> try again...this time dont distort the subject and read all of what is
> written not just the bits you want to pick out and jump on out of
> context ...

OK. I think it's a nice sounding idea, but wildly impractical. And I'd
rather see cyclists' limited lobbying resources spent on projects that
have some chance of success.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[rooman]

Shane Stanley QUOTE-do you think their answer is legitimate?

no, but it was or is real to them at the time and they had the guts to say so, and I commend them for coming out, when many won't... it is not justification and given better synchronisation of lights many would no longer see or feel the need to do it again.

>
> exertion is expressed in context as the difference between a stopped
> vehicle and a stopped bike...there is just a teensie difference on how
> you get them both back to speed if you have ever noticed!!!!

Shane StanleyQUOTE-Yes, and it's the difference in how you keep them at speed. It's one of
the reasons why it's healthier to ride -- exertion is *good* for you!

and we all ride to a large extent to ensure we do exert, (for fitness, etc) however there must be a reasonable approach to traffic intersection and light management that ensures that riders are not "forced" by bad synchonisation and closely spaced lights to exhaust themselves on a simple commute which places them at risk, an exhausted rider is an unsafe rider. That is why I see extra unnecessary stops as a safety issue.

> that,
> and separation of bike and car, and subsequently the green wave
> synchronisation is the totality of the spirit of this thread, (not a
> red light running "green light"...)

Shane StanleyQUOTE-Sorry, but you brought up the business of running lights, suggesting the
reason, and also suggesting "it could be overcome by simple traffic light
synchronisation".

raised to offer fair balance, as there are many who still do that and have done that but may no longer so their experience is valid, their reasons maybe not justified, but cannot be ignored, that is why the questions were asked and responses gathered, to ignore them is folly......thus it was not to justify running red lights, & you did not see it in that context.

> try again...this time dont distort the subject and read all of what is
> written not just the bits you want to pick out and jump on out of
> context ...

Shane StanleyQUOTE OK. I think it's a nice sounding idea, but wildly impractical. And I'd
rather see cyclists' limited lobbying resources spent on projects that
have some chance of success.

you do not see a green wave concept as having some chance of success?...why?, and what is your alternative suggestion that may merit success.



--

 

[Shane Stanley]

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

> no, but it was or is real to them at the time and they had the guts
> to say so, and I commend them for coming out, when many won't.

With respect, I think you overrate your fellow man. It reminds me of the
people who explain why they can't ride, and when you counter it, keep
coming up with others.

> it is not justification and given better synchronisation of lights
> many would no longer see or feel the need to do it again.

See above.

> an exhausted rider is an unsafe rider. That is why I see extra
> unnecessary stops as a safety issue

By that logic, you could argue that cycling is inherently unsafe
because it tires people. I don't buy it.

> > you do not see a green wave concept as having some chance of
> success?...why?

Lots of grounds. Political: look at the reaction to last week's release
of the St Kilda Road proposals. Practical: At the moment lights are
synchronised for *traffic*; engineers will tell you that the carrying
capacity of the road network will drop by a very significant percentage
if you change that. You describe it as a "simple" change of traffic
light sequences, but it's anything but simple. Sometimes the way to
keep traffic flowing is to stop other traffic, bikes included.
Practical: Unlike motorised traffic, where most travelling along a road
can and will travel at much the same speed, cyclists' speed can vary
significantly, based on things like fitness, how they're dressed, type
of bike, as well as variables like which way the wind blows. Imagine
all the fit riders hitting every red light because they're synchronised
for some "typical" speed. Or all the tired and slow ones, getting more
and more exhausted and, by your argument, unsafe, because they can't
keep up the pace. Or trying to get the balance right for the traffic up
a two-way road as a strong southerly change rolls in. And then you have
to get pedestrians to somehow play ball and stop pushing the button
until they're told. In short, I don't think it could be made to work,
even with political commitment. Philosophical: Bikes are part of
traffic, and in most places share the road. I'm wary of arguments for
special treatment based on flimsy arguments.

> and what is your alternative suggestion that may merit success.

I don't think there is any easy answer. But I think many of the other
ideas mentioned here in the past, including several by you, have more
merit than this one.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[rooman]

> an exhausted rider is an unsafe rider. That is why I see extra
> unnecessary stops as a safety issue

By that logic, you could argue that cycling is inherently unsafe
because it tires people. I don't buy it.

spurious argument...doesnt wash

many an accident on training rides and commutes happen after an exhaustive episode, ( hill, repetitve sprints, hard stop starts, emotional burden of shock from a near miss) [source: according to information I have gleaned in discussion with bike shop owners who repair bikes and counsel riders after crashes ( yes they do that too!)]

...exhaustion is a factor in a rider's ability to be safe, remain in charge of faculties and for new riders this is an important safety proviso...as we train and ride more sure fitness assists and the exhaustion factor is less frequent.... but the newbies, and they will be many in years to come need everything going for them....so planners need to be reminded of all the items to research and digest.... to accept or discard.....so they need to be raised and considered ... (if all the messengers survive, ie: from attempted assassinations and silencing killings in places like this)

positive suggestions that stimulate pro-active measures would help......

> and what is your alternative suggestion that may merit success.

I don't think there is any easy answer. But I think many of the other
ideas mentioned here in the past, including several by you, have more
merit than this one.

I also do not see an easy answer, but to do nothing and offer nothing into the mix is defeatist..... the green wave is a consideration that can be added to the possibilities as either appropriate or not... it has merit where conditions permit...

I do not accept that the current traffic light synchronisation along St Kilda Rd is even optimised for Cars, I would suggest it is optimised for trams. But be that as it may, St Kilda Rd is not at all a pleasant ride for bicycles and (most of the time not for cars either) so, if we are to be encouraged to ride more and St Kilda Rd is an obvious entry point to the city from the south east then a means to accommodate large numbers of riders who are forced to use the bicycle lane needs to be found...

It could be that , if there are so many of them and the bicycle lane as we now know it is totally full,
then they will either take a lane because it is impractical to use the bicycle lane, and if the traffic lane too is full, then they too will have to be like a line of cars bumper to bumper

then we all stop and smell the roses together

 

[cfsmtb]

Links on the "Green Wave" bicycle traffic treatment. The Green Wave treatment was also mentioned at last years BFA planning meeting (pre AGM),.

30.000 cyclists get green traffic light wave
http://www.copcap.com/composite-9862.htm

From the POV of a Sydney Councillor:
http://ecouncillor.blogspot.com/2006/10/dealing-with-bicycle-congestion-not.html

Action Planning for More Cyclists in Odense
http://www.cykelby.dk/english.asp#wave

 

[Shane Stanley]

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

> many an accident on training rides and commutes happen after an
> exhaustive episode

I don't doubt it (especially on training rides). But I guess I just
can't see that stopping and having a breather and then starting off
again is necessarily that much more exhausting.

> I do not accept that the current traffic light synchronisation along St
> Kilda Rd is even optimised for Cars, I would suggest it is optimised for
> trams.

You're probably right, but the point is you can't really just
synchronise one road in isolation -- it affects all those that cross it
too. From a traffic management point of view it's a series of
compromises.

> But be that as it may, St Kilda Rd is not at all a pleasant ride
> for bicycles and (most of the time not for cars either) so, if we are
> to be encouraged to ride more and St Kilda Rd is an obvious entry point
> to the city from the south east then a means to accommodate large
> numbers of riders who are forced to use the bicycle lane needs to be
> found...

If the numbers build, I suspect accommodation will be found. The
response of the Transport Minister last week was based on a politician's
simple number-crunching -- he even spoke the figures out loud.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[cfsmtb]

I don't doubt it (especially on training rides). But I guess I just
can't see that stopping and having a breather and then starting off
again is necessarily that much more exhausting.

A point that's missing so far, or maybe I've just missed it, is how cycling is momentum based and that is a major factor in why numerous cyclists scribble in the margins regarding road rules et al. A Green Wave treatment or similar traffic light synchronisation would factor in cyclists speed and thus decrease the perceived need for bustin' reds or the need to drastically wash off speed.

We all know the territory, ie: getting a good speed up and then having to drop the anchors for lights. Ok thats the law and I'm not going to quibble with it, but on the surface it's easier for drivers to utilise light signals designed for motorised vehicles, not increasing numbers of human-powered transport. Ditto, a rethink is required at some point.

 

[DaveB]

cfsmtb wrote:
> We all know the territory, ie: getting a good speed up and then having
> to drop the anchors for lights.

Pah , lights are nothing. I'm convinced the damned tram drivers on High
St Kew sit at the bottom of the hills waiting for me pretending to
offload pedestrians and only when I've come to a complete halt do they
go again. With my lack of climbing ability I need all the momentum I can
get!

DaveB