"Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
much." "They were finding the main roads because they’re faster, but they’re unpleasant to cycle on."
https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/
Kai Ryssdall interviewing Laura Laker, freelance journalist in London
writing about active transit and the author of the upcoming book,
“Potholes and Pavements: A bumpy ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.”
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
"Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
much." "They were finding the main roads because they’re faster, but
they’re unpleasant to cycle on."
https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/
Kai Ryssdall interviewing Laura Laker, freelance journalist in London
writing about active transit and the author of the upcoming book,
“Potholes and Pavements: A bumpy ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.”
Which is the problem of shunting bikes off the main roads really as >navigation becomes trickier.
And another reason the ones that do use the main roads are successful ie
they are quick direct an all that.
To be honest I’ve found the apps for bikes are fairly woeful and I’m not >sure they are useful solution, personally if I have such a journey I plot
the route and use my Garmin to navigate.
I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle >route into town, with out much navigation required.
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
"Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
much." "They were finding the main roads because theyre faster, but
theyre unpleasant to cycle on."
https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/
Kai Ryssdall interviewing Laura Laker, freelance journalist in London
writing about active transit and the author of the upcoming book,
Potholes and Pavements: A bumpy ride on Britains National Cycle Network. >>>
Which is the problem of shunting bikes off the main roads really as >>navigation becomes trickier.
Yes indeed. In addition, it becomes more awkward and a little more
dangerous. Not unexpectedly, I might add. Even a child could observe
the fact that a badly build and badly maintained outer side of a road is >awkward to use, even more so an even less maintained, incomplete and >meandering tertiary network build in spaces that most people call "lost >places".
And another reason the ones that do use the main roads are successful ie >>they are quick direct an all that.
These main roads are main roads because they were and are being built
exactly where there is a need for them.
To be honest Ive found the apps for bikes are fairly woeful and Im not >>sure they are useful solution, personally if I have such a journey I plot >>the route and use my Garmin to navigate.
So do I. In my experience, those old, mostly pocket pc/Windows CE
based auto navi systems where better for finding a usable course while
riding than my more or less top of the line Garmin Edge 1030. I had to
avoid the bicycling profile on my Yakumo Delta 300, because that sent us
into the bushes, based on the assumption that all cyclists are
recreational cyclists prefering forest trails over all else. Using the >motorcycle/moped profile combined with "shortest route" instead was
almost perfect. In addition, those devices allowed to customize the
routing algorithm by changing the weights of different road categories, >simply by editing a text based configuration file.
Im also lucky with location in that Im at the end of well trodden cycle >>route into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very >_belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle
path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
for those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.
On 2/2/2024 4:34 PM, sms wrote:
"Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
much." "They were finding the main roads because theyre faster, but
theyre unpleasant to cycle on."
https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/
It's largely a complaint about mapping apps for cycling, or using Google
maps for that purpose. I agree Google Maps isn't often the best. Until >recently we were Warm Showers hosts of touring cyclists. For a long
time, Google told people riding from Pittsburgh to our place, with full >packs, to climb one of the most famously difficult hills in the area. I
see that's now been corrected, perhaps in part because I submitted a map >correction covering that.
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
"Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
much." "They were finding the main roads because they’re faster, but
they’re unpleasant to cycle on."
https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/
Kai Ryssdall interviewing Laura Laker, freelance journalist in London
writing about active transit and the author of the upcoming book,
“Potholes and Pavements: A bumpy ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.”
Which is the problem of shunting bikes off the main roads really as
navigation becomes trickier.
Yes indeed. In addition, it becomes more awkward and a little more
dangerous. Not unexpectedly, I might add. Even a child could observe
the fact that a badly build and badly maintained outer side of a road is awkward to use, even more so an even less maintained, incomplete and meandering tertiary network build in spaces that most people call "lost places".
And another reason the ones that do use the main roads are successful ie
they are quick direct an all that.
These main roads are main roads because they were and are being built
exactly where there is a need for them.
To be honest I’ve found the apps for bikes are fairly woeful and I’m not >> sure they are useful solution, personally if I have such a journey I plot
the route and use my Garmin to navigate.
So do I. In my experience, those old, mostly pocket pc/Windows CE
based auto navi systems where better for finding a usable course while
riding than my more or less top of the line Garmin Edge 1030. I had to
avoid the bicycling profile on my Yakumo Delta 300, because that sent us
into the bushes, based on the assumption that all cyclists are
recreational cyclists prefering forest trails over all else. Using the motorcycle/moped profile combined with "shortest route" instead was
almost perfect. In addition, those devices allowed to customize the
routing algorithm by changing the weights of different road categories, simply by editing a text based configuration file.
I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
route into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very _belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle
path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
for those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
route into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very >>_belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle >>path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
for those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.
It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban and
suburban bike paths.
As a purely recreational rider I do my best to
avoid them for the very reasons I've seen expressed here on RBT.
In
fact, I do my best to avoid riding in any urban and suburban areas,
although, sometimes, I need faciliies or have an urge for a coffee or
a chocolate malt, and I take the plunge.
Am Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:24:35 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
...
I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
route into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very
_belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle >>> path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
for those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.
It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban and
suburban bike paths.
Not so.
These mostly mandatory bike paths certainly are more of a hassle, when commuting in urban areas, as I did for decades. There are time
constraints and you have no choice about the destination.
But forcing cyclists to use inferior ways in rural areas isn't better,
it's just different. The road network is less dense there, so you often
have the very same problem of not having a usable alternative, because
the distances of potential alternative routes exceed your capabilites as
a cyclist. Remember: different from motorists, cyclists have a very
limited power budget.
As a purely recreational rider I do my best to
avoid them for the very reasons I've seen expressed here on RBT.
Being retired some years now, outside of shopping and occasional visits,
all my rides are recreational, in a way. But I still have to ride
starting from home. Driving the family car for many miles every other
day, for just riding my bike a fraction of that distanc somewhere
outsitde of town isn't something I indend to do or to talk other people
into. Actually, its excactly what I strictly want to avoid.
In
fact, I do my best to avoid riding in any urban and suburban areas,
although, sometimes, I need faciliies or have an urge for a coffee or
a chocolate malt, and I take the plunge.
Fortunately, the part of the city where we live still allows cyclists to
use most ordinary roads for cycling. And, believe it or not, there is a
lot more everyday cycling here then in those parts of the city where
thei've built "cycling infrastructure". Personally, I don't need
"Tempo 30" (30 km/h == 19 mph) instead of the default 31 mph, but I
suppose that's all it takes to empower cyclists who have been scared to
death by the ubiquitous, car-affine fear-mongering created for that very purpose.
For vacations, we prefer and use rural areas specifically choose for
there absence of "cycling infrastructure". Works great.
Am Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:24:35 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder ><Soloman@old.bikers.org>:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman >>><roger@sarlet.com>:
...
Im also lucky with location in that Im at the end of well trodden cycle >>>>route into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even >>>worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very >>>_belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle >>>path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
for those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still >>>enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.
It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban and >>suburban bike paths.
Not so.
These mostly mandatory bike paths certainly are more of a hassle, when >commuting in urban areas, as I did for decades. There are time
constraints and you have no choice about the destination.
But forcing cyclists to use inferior ways in rural areas isn't better,
it's just different. The road network is less dense there, so you often
have the very same problem of not having a usable alternative, because
the distances of potential alternative routes exceed your capabilites as
a cyclist. Remember: different from motorists, cyclists have a very
limited power budget.
As a purely recreational rider I do my best to
avoid them for the very reasons I've seen expressed here on RBT.
Being retired some years now, outside of shopping and occasional visits,
all my rides are recreational, in a way. But I still have to ride
starting from home. Driving the family car for many miles every other
day, for just riding my bike a fraction of that distanc somewhere
outsitde of town isn't something I indend to do or to talk other people
into. Actually, its excactly what I strictly want to avoid.
fact, I do my best to avoid riding in any urban and suburban areas, >>although, sometimes, I need faciliies or have an urge for a coffee or
a chocolate malt, and I take the plunge.
Fortunately, the part of the city where we live still allows cyclists to
use most ordinary roads for cycling. And, believe it or not, there is a
lot more everyday cycling here then in those parts of the city where
thei've built "cycling infrastructure". Personally, I don't need
"Tempo 30" (30 km/h == 19 mph) instead of the default 31 mph, but I
suppose that's all it takes to empower cyclists who have been scared to
death by the ubiquitous, car-affine fear-mongering created for that very >purpose.
For vacations, we prefer and use rural areas specifically choose for
there absence of "cycling infrastructure". Works great.
Absolutely as bikes are comparatively slow though in london less so, but
even so don’t generally want to take the long way around, I do on the commute as the direct route is grim, I also if I do take the car do similar as the direct route isn’t nice and I prefer to be 5/10 mins slower and have a more chilled route in both cases.
On 2/3/2024 8:53 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Absolutely as bikes are comparatively slow though in london less so, but
even so don’t generally want to take the long way around, I do on the
commute as the direct route is grim, I also if I do take the car do similar >> as the direct route isn’t nice and I prefer to be 5/10 mins slower and have
a more chilled route in both cases.
In my area, Silicon Valley, the commutes from the housing-rich areas to
the job-rich areas are often faster when you don't use the main roads
because of the increasing number of multi-use paths that avoid traffic lights, stop signs, and surface-level railroad crossings. Even though
the speed limit is 15MPH, you don't have to be constantly stopping.
15MPH was fine pre-Ebike, now it's violated a lot but there is no enforcement.
Most of these paths are along waterways and have no lights because the
water district says that lights disturb the wildlife and forbid them. So
you have to have good lights to use them at night.
Pre-pandemic, pre-remote-work, these multi-use paths were packed with
bicycle commuters going to Google, Microsoft, Intel, Nvidia etc.. Now
they are still well-used, but not as crowded, which makes them more
pleasant to use.
Look at <https://i.imgur.com/XBgNdTn.jpeg> and decide if you'd rather be
on the paved multi-use path (green), with no traffic lights and no
freeway or expressway interchanges, or having to navigate those
high-speed interchanges between expressways (bicycles allowed) and
freeways (red). I used that path even before it was paved because I
worked in that area.
A new multi-use path that will go between some of the Apple campuses in Cupertino, combined with protected bike lanes, is in the works <https://walkbikecupertino.org/2023/09/tamien-innu-moves-forward/>. It
was originally called the Junipero Serra trail, but given the history of Father Junipero Serra the city dropped that name.
Also, in this area, some of the worst maintained roads are the more
major roads. It all depends on which government entity is tasked with
the maintenance of the roads (state, county, or city) and how much money they're willing to spend to achieve a high PCI (pavement condition index).
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:24:35 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org>:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
...
I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
route into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very
_belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle >>>> path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
for those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.
It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban and
suburban bike paths.
Not so.
These mostly mandatory bike paths certainly are more of a hassle, when
commuting in urban areas, as I did for decades. There are time
constraints and you have no choice about the destination.
How did you end up with Mandatory bike paths? Certainly in uk any attempts have failed miserably I think from memory one police officer overstepped
his position and the resulting court case made it very clear that cyclist have the choice and right to use the roadway.
Am 04.02.2024 um 12:30 schrieb Roger Merriman:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:24:35 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org>:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
...
It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban andI’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
route into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very >>>>> _belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle >>>>> path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck >>>>> for those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling. >>>>
suburban bike paths.
Not so.
These mostly mandatory bike paths certainly are more of a hassle, when
commuting in urban areas, as I did for decades. There are time
constraints and you have no choice about the destination.
How did you end up with Mandatory bike paths? Certainly in uk any attempts >> have failed miserably I think from memory one police officer overstepped
his position and the resulting court case made it very clear that cyclist
have the choice and right to use the roadway.
Certainly such things have to be decided by the legislator:
"Let's proudly present roads free from bicycles to the international
guests at the Berlin Oylmpic games".
As opposed to most other ideas of that time, this one caught on and
spread all over the Continent, just like Napoleon's "drive on the right"
did 150 years earlier.
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.02.2024 um 12:30 schrieb Roger Merriman:Any efforts to change this? I mean cycleways can be good but should be
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:24:35 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org>:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
...
It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban andI’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
route into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even >>>>>> worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very >>>>>> _belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle >>>>>> path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck >>>>>> for those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still >>>>>> enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling. >>>>>
suburban bike paths.
Not so.
These mostly mandatory bike paths certainly are more of a hassle, when >>>> commuting in urban areas, as I did for decades. There are time
constraints and you have no choice about the destination.
How did you end up with Mandatory bike paths? Certainly in uk any attempts >>> have failed miserably I think from memory one police officer overstepped >>> his position and the resulting court case made it very clear that cyclist >>> have the choice and right to use the roadway.
Certainly such things have to be decided by the legislator:
"Let's proudly present roads free from bicycles to the international
guests at the Berlin Oylmpic games".
As opposed to most other ideas of that time, this one caught on and
spread all over the Continent, just like Napoleon's "drive on the right"
did 150 years earlier.
choice for obvious reasons.
Am 05.02.2024 um 13:01 schrieb Roger Merriman:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.02.2024 um 12:30 schrieb Roger Merriman:Any efforts to change this? I mean cycleways can be good but should be
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:24:35 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org>:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
...
It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban and >>>>>> suburban bike paths.I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
route into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even >>>>>>> worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very >>>>>>> _belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle
path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates >>>>>>> bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck >>>>>>> for those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still >>>>>>> enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling. >>>>>>
Not so.
These mostly mandatory bike paths certainly are more of a hassle, when >>>>> commuting in urban areas, as I did for decades. There are time
constraints and you have no choice about the destination.
How did you end up with Mandatory bike paths? Certainly in uk any attempts >>>> have failed miserably I think from memory one police officer overstepped >>>> his position and the resulting court case made it very clear that cyclist >>>> have the choice and right to use the roadway.
Certainly such things have to be decided by the legislator:
"Let's proudly present roads free from bicycles to the international
guests at the Berlin Oylmpic games".
As opposed to most other ideas of that time, this one caught on and
spread all over the Continent, just like Napoleon's "drive on the right" >>> did 150 years earlier.
choice for obvious reasons.
Yes, in 1998, the rule was changed from "bicycles have to use bicycle
paths" to "bicycles have to use bicycle paths if they are marked with a
sign (white bicycle on blue background)". Around the same time, France introduced a square road sign "optional bicycle path" to supplement the
round "mandatory bicycle path".
In both countries, cyclists have manged to turn approx. 10% of the
bicylce paths to optional ones, and car drivers are of the strong
opinion that cyclists must use all bicycle paths irrespective of legal
status and quality.
On 2/4/2024 5:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
That does look direct, though I assume much like my old cycleway do
need to
be reasonably close to start/end for it to be useful? Ie too far and not
worth it time wise at least...
That's true. As a guess, any one fancy bike facility in a city will be
within reach of just a couple percent of the population, most of whom
would never use it anyway. And those projects easily reach millions of dollars in costs.
Am 05.02.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 2/4/2024 5:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
That does look direct, though I assume much like my old cycleway do
need to
be reasonably close to start/end for it to be useful? Ie too far and not >>> worth it time wise at least...
That's true. As a guess, any one fancy bike facility in a city will be
within reach of just a couple percent of the population, most of whom
would never use it anyway. And those projects easily reach millions of
dollars in costs.
The German authorities plan "bicycle highways" on the order of magnitue
of €2 million per km, approx. $3 million per mile, which is considered "appropriate" when you have plausible ridership of 1,500 or more per
work day and gets federal subsidies with 2,000 rides per workday.
One minimum standard is that the route built as a bicycle highway must
be at least 3 miles long and connect towns with city centers ideally not
more than 6 miles apart, to actually get stome usage.
On 2/4/2024 5:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
That does look direct, though I assume much like my old cycleway do need to >> be reasonably close to start/end for it to be useful? Ie too far and not
worth it time wise at least...
That's true. As a guess, any one fancy bike facility in a city will be
within reach of just a couple percent of the population, most of whom
would never use it anyway. And those projects easily reach millions of dollars in costs.
To achieve the glorious goals of really effective increases in bike mode share, with measurable benefits regarding reduced congestion, increased public health and reduced pollution, a city would need many dozens of
such fancy corridors plus lots of luck. The cost would likely be
hundreds of millions of dollars.
Amsterdam was able to do that, but the Amsterdam voters who approved
those efforts have greatly different attitudes and priorities than
American voters. American cities are more likely to get half-ass approximations of good facilities, which do very little good and often
make things worse.
On 2/5/2024 9:00 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:trodden cycle
Am 05.02.2024 um 13:01 schrieb Roger Merriman:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 04.02.2024 um 12:30 schrieb Roger Merriman:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:24:35 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org>:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
...
I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well
Evenroute into town, with out much navigation required.
Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky.
the veryworse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just
maintained cycle_belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery
than luckpath that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates >>>>>>>>> bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists
stillfor those few lucky persons.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are
cycling.enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to
hassle, when
It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban and >>>>>>>> suburban bike paths.
Not so.
These mostly mandatory bike paths certainly are more of a
attemptscommuting in urban areas, as I did for decades. There are time
constraints and you have no choice about the destination.
How did you end up with Mandatory bike paths? Certainly in uk any
oversteppedhave failed miserably I think from memory one police officer
cyclisthis position and the resulting court case made it very clear that
right"have the choice and right to use the roadway.
Certainly such things have to be decided by the legislator:
"Let's proudly present roads free from bicycles to the international >>>>> guests at the Berlin Oylmpic games".
As opposed to most other ideas of that time, this one caught on and
spread all over the Continent, just like Napoleon's "drive on the
and theThat argument was kinda made and settled early last century here, suchdid 150 years earlier.Any efforts to change this? I mean cycleways can be good but should be >>>> choice for obvious reasons.
Yes, in 1998, the rule was changed from "bicycles have to use bicycle
paths" to "bicycles have to use bicycle paths if they are marked with a
sign (white bicycle on blue background)". Around the same time, France
introduced a square road sign "optional bicycle path" to supplement the
round "mandatory bicycle path".
In both countries, cyclists have manged to turn approx. 10% of the
bicylce paths to optional ones, and car drivers are of the strong
opinion that cyclists must use all bicycle paths irrespective of legal
status and quality.
things as the road tax being changed to vehicle to stop entitlement
Cycling Touring Club who fought to keep bikes on the roads.such as
Plus some of the peak car infrastructure certainly in london failed
streets in the sky and so on.
Do have mandatory cycle lanes though they differ significantly in meaning
in that the mandatory means cars can’t use them than bikes have to.
Ie the non mandatory are literally just paint not even legal protection!
Here in the U.S., the League of American Bicyclists used to be very
dedicated to preserving cyclists' rights to the road. In the past 15
years or so they've switched to heavily promoting segregation. Some say
the change was pushed by prominent bike industry figures who imagine
that changing America into Amsterdam will help industry bottom lines.
Maybe ten years ago there were some pretty prominent (at least, in bike advocacy circles) prosecutions of cyclists who really needed to use
roadways for transportation to work. See https://road.cc/content/news/130546-kentucky-cyclist-repeatedly-arrested-%E2%80%93-commuting-road
Despite pleas for legal assistance, the LAB pretended she didn't
exist. As I recall, she eventually had to move out of the area.
Another guy I've met was in a very similar situation in some New England state. He was able to persist in his battle against the cops and finally
win. But again, LAB took no interest in preserving his right to the road.
And I'll note, neither of those cases involved bike facilities! The
battles were over fundamental ability to use the road at all!
The Ohio Bicycle Federation was able to modify Ohio law to say that bike lanes, etc. cannot be mandatory. I don't know how many other states have similar laws.
Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to
them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive certainly compared to junction upgrades.
On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner
london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling
routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to
them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive
certainly compared to junction upgrades.
I recall when they finally completed one bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a vehicle bridge
but no one on either side really wanted it because of the additional
motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets. Finally they
built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it
cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for cyclists and it is
heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend tax money than to improve transportation infrastructure.
Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so against increasing cycling numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.
I assume it’s ideological.
On 2/5/2024 6:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner >>>> london Im out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling
routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to >>>> them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive >>>> certainly compared to junction upgrades.
I recall when they finally completed one bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a vehicle bridge
but no one on either side really wanted it because of the additional
motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets. Finally they
built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge
<http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it >>> cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for cyclists and it is
heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend tax money than to >>> improve transportation infrastructure.
If a person is hugely devoted to bike infrastructure, of course they'll
say spending millions on a bike/ped bridge is a great idea. People like
that are in favor of almost any bike infrastructure, no matter the cost.
Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so against increasing cycling >>> numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.I assume its ideological.
First, I'm not against increasing cycling numbers. But I'm skeptical of
the value of most bike infrastructure based on several observations.
One is the inflated promises: "If we build it, they will come!"
promotions promise terrific increases in bike mode share, and with that, >significant decreases in auto use and congestion. AFAICT that almost
never happens. I've seen many, many cities with lots of bike lanes. I
see lots of bikes only very near some universities in some of those
cities, and empty bike lanes elsewhere. Bike mode share in U.S. cities
rarely exceeds 1%, no matter what promises were made.
Another reason is the sales techniques used to promote this stuff. The
number one talking point is "safety," as in "This will _finally_ give
people a safe place to ride!" That carries the implication that riding >ordinary streets is just too dangerous, which is absolutely false. By
putting that message out there, I think facilities proponents are
actually decreasing cycling. Why? Because they're making people believe
they should not ride on ordinary streets! And almost all streets in any
city will remain "ordinary" forever. You simply can't put bike
facilities everywhere.
A third reason is lousy design standards, as in "Any bike facility is a
good bike facility." I've seen some really crazy stuff built for bikes - >crazy enough that no cyclist I know is likely to use it. They've said so
in conversations I've overheard, with no prompting from me. And I've had >several friends injured on "nice safe" bike facilities, specifically
because of deficient designs. Based on people I know, the risk per mile >ridden is actually higher on these "innovative" facilities.
A fourth reason is the maintenance problem. When politicians push to get
bike lanes or bike trails installed, they figure their job is done,
because they have something to point to at reelection time. But it's not
as effective to point at an expensive small-scale sweeper vehicle, or
guys fixing pavement that only cyclists use; so that stuff gets little
or no funding. (The past week or two, we've had discussions about that
lack of maintenance.) Gravel-filled or snow-filled bike lanes are a well >known problem. So is broken glass, mud, fallen leaves and other debris.
A fifth reason is the reaction of motorists. Even in states or countries >where it's legal to leave a bike lane or ride on a road without one, >motorists assume you should never do that, and even some cops do the
same. Some motorist get downright aggressive about it. And I think
motorist education efforts to say "We built this for cyclists but they
don't have to use it" are very unlikely to exist, or succeed if they do >exist. Hell, within the past two years I had a woman driver slow down,
match my speed, blare her horn and yell at me to "get on that new
sidewalk! My tax dollars paid for it!" (Note: Sidewalk, not bike path!)
I can go on, but you get the idea. As a well-known bike advocate said,
"99 percent of bike lanes give the others a bad name." I think he's >exaggerating only slightly.
On 2/5/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
That doesn’t need to be either, can do both they aren’t mutually exclusive
Here in the U.S., the League of American Bicyclists used to be very
dedicated to preserving cyclists' rights to the road. In the past 15
years or so they've switched to heavily promoting segregation. Some say
the change was pushed by prominent bike industry figures who imagine
that changing America into Amsterdam will help industry bottom lines.
by any means.
True, the two strategies don't need to be mutually exclusive. But from
what I've observed of LAW, they are.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:37:22 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
I assume its ideological.
Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
infrastructure.
The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
traffic increasing? Or is it more a matter of "Oh! It looks like a
nice day, I guess I'll ride my bike."? Or the alternate, "Goodness,
it's raining and cold, I'll take the car."
On 2/5/2024 6:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner >>>> london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling
routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to >>>> them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive >>>> certainly compared to junction upgrades.
I recall when they finally completed one bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a vehicle bridge
but no one on either side really wanted it because of the additional
motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets. Finally they
built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge
<http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it >>> cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for cyclists and it is
heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend tax money than to >>> improve transportation infrastructure.
If a person is hugely devoted to bike infrastructure, of course they'll
say spending millions on a bike/ped bridge is a great idea. People like
that are in favor of almost any bike infrastructure, no matter the cost.
Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so against increasing cycling >>> numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.I assume it’s ideological.
First, I'm not against increasing cycling numbers. But I'm skeptical of
the value of most bike infrastructure based on several observations.
One is the inflated promises: "If we build it, they will come!"
promotions promise terrific increases in bike mode share, and with that, significant decreases in auto use and congestion. AFAICT that almost
never happens. I've seen many, many cities with lots of bike lanes. I
see lots of bikes only very near some universities in some of those
cities, and empty bike lanes elsewhere. Bike mode share in U.S. cities
rarely exceeds 1%, no matter what promises were made.
Another reason is the sales techniques used to promote this stuff. The
number one talking point is "safety," as in "This will _finally_ give
people a safe place to ride!" That carries the implication that riding ordinary streets is just too dangerous, which is absolutely false. By
putting that message out there, I think facilities proponents are
actually decreasing cycling. Why? Because they're making people believe
they should not ride on ordinary streets! And almost all streets in any
city will remain "ordinary" forever. You simply can't put bike
facilities everywhere.
A third reason is lousy design standards, as in "Any bike facility is a
good bike facility." I've seen some really crazy stuff built for bikes - crazy enough that no cyclist I know is likely to use it. They've said so
in conversations I've overheard, with no prompting from me. And I've had several friends injured on "nice safe" bike facilities, specifically
because of deficient designs. Based on people I know, the risk per mile ridden is actually higher on these "innovative" facilities.
A fourth reason is the maintenance problem. When politicians push to get
bike lanes or bike trails installed, they figure their job is done,
because they have something to point to at reelection time. But it's not
as effective to point at an expensive small-scale sweeper vehicle, or
guys fixing pavement that only cyclists use; so that stuff gets little
or no funding. (The past week or two, we've had discussions about that
lack of maintenance.) Gravel-filled or snow-filled bike lanes are a well known problem. So is broken glass, mud, fallen leaves and other debris.
A fifth reason is the reaction of motorists. Even in states or countries where it's legal to leave a bike lane or ride on a road without one, motorists assume you should never do that, and even some cops do the
same. Some motorist get downright aggressive about it. And I think
motorist education efforts to say "We built this for cyclists but they
don't have to use it" are very unlikely to exist, or succeed if they do exist. Hell, within the past two years I had a woman driver slow down,
match my speed, blare her horn and yell at me to "get on that new
sidewalk! My tax dollars paid for it!" (Note: Sidewalk, not bike path!)
I can go on, but you get the idea. As a well-known bike advocate said,
"99 percent of bike lanes give the others a bad name." I think he's exaggerating only slightly.
On 2/5/2024 6:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Certainly for cities as large as London (note your
suburb would be inner
london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance)
with number of cycling
routes which as time has gone on have had cycle
infrastructure added to
them, people converge onto them. None of these are
particularly expensive
certainly compared to junction upgrades.
I recall when they finally completed one
bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a
vehicle bridge
but no one on either side really wanted it because of the
additional
motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets.
Finally they
built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge
<http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it >>> cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for
cyclists and it is
heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend
tax money than to
improve transportation infrastructure.
If a person is hugely devoted to bike infrastructure, of
course they'll say spending millions on a bike/ped bridge is
a great idea. People like that are in favor of almost any
bike infrastructure, no matter the cost.
Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so againstI assume it’s ideological.
increasing cycling
numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.
First, I'm not against increasing cycling numbers. But I'm
skeptical of the value of most bike infrastructure based on
several observations.
One is the inflated promises: "If we build it, they will
come!" promotions promise terrific increases in bike mode
share, and with that, significant decreases in auto use and
congestion. AFAICT that almost never happens. I've seen
many, many cities with lots of bike lanes. I see lots of
bikes only very near some universities in some of those
cities, and empty bike lanes elsewhere. Bike mode share in
U.S. cities rarely exceeds 1%, no matter what promises were
made.
Another reason is the sales techniques used to promote this
stuff. The number one talking point is "safety," as in "This
will _finally_ give people a safe place to ride!" That
carries the implication that riding ordinary streets is just
too dangerous, which is absolutely false. By putting that
message out there, I think facilities proponents are
actually decreasing cycling. Why? Because they're making
people believe they should not ride on ordinary streets! And
almost all streets in any city will remain "ordinary"
forever. You simply can't put bike facilities everywhere.
A third reason is lousy design standards, as in "Any bike
facility is a good bike facility." I've seen some really
crazy stuff built for bikes - crazy enough that no cyclist I
know is likely to use it. They've said so in conversations
I've overheard, with no prompting from me. And I've had
several friends injured on "nice safe" bike facilities,
specifically because of deficient designs. Based on people I
know, the risk per mile ridden is actually higher on these
"innovative" facilities.
A fourth reason is the maintenance problem. When politicians
push to get bike lanes or bike trails installed, they figure
their job is done, because they have something to point to
at reelection time. But it's not as effective to point at an
expensive small-scale sweeper vehicle, or guys fixing
pavement that only cyclists use; so that stuff gets little
or no funding. (The past week or two, we've had discussions
about that lack of maintenance.) Gravel-filled or
snow-filled bike lanes are a well known problem. So is
broken glass, mud, fallen leaves and other debris.
A fifth reason is the reaction of motorists. Even in states
or countries where it's legal to leave a bike lane or ride
on a road without one, motorists assume you should never do
that, and even some cops do the same. Some motorist get
downright aggressive about it. And I think motorist
education efforts to say "We built this for cyclists but
they don't have to use it" are very unlikely to exist, or
succeed if they do exist. Hell, within the past two years I
had a woman driver slow down, match my speed, blare her horn
and yell at me to "get on that new sidewalk! My tax dollars
paid for it!" (Note: Sidewalk, not bike path!)
I can go on, but you get the idea. As a well-known bike
advocate said, "99 percent of bike lanes give the others a
bad name." I think he's exaggerating only slightly.
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?
<snip>
I assume it’s ideological.Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
infrastructure.
The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
traffic increasing?
On 2/6/2024 9:18 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28?PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?
<snip>
I assume its ideological.Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
infrastructure.
The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
--
If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.Tin Foil Awards
Without.
I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.
Without.
I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.
On 2/6/2024 7:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Without.
I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.
Except often there are no parallel streets that get you
where you need to go, and often the alternate routes are
freeways where you aren't allowed (with a few exceptions.
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?
<snip>
I assume it’s ideological.Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
infrastructure.
The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
closed mind about these things.
Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.
The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
local facilities that are less than five years old!
Is the cyclist actually 'safer"? Is it good for the cyclist to "feel"
safer?
On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
closed mind about these things.
Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.
The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
local facilities that are less than five years old!
On 2/7/2024 11:44 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/6/2024 2:44 PM, John B. wrote:
Is the cyclist actually 'safer"? Is it good for the cyclist to "feel"
safer?
Yes, the statistics to bear out the fact that cyclists are safer when
separated from vehicles.
See <https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/5/303.full> and
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>.
Alternately, see https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2193
"Compared with cycling on lanes of major roads without bicycle
facilities, the risk of crashing or falling was lower on conventional
bike lanes (adjusted OR=0.53; 95% CI=0.33, 0.86) and local roads with >(adjusted OR=0.31; 95% CI=0.13, 0.75) or without bicycle facilities or >traffic calming (adjusted OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.23, 0.65). Protected bike
lanes with heavy separation (tall, continuous barriers or grade and >horizontal separation) were associated with lower risk (adjusted
OR=0.10; 95% CI=0.01, 0.95), but those with lighter separation (e.g.,
parked cars, posts, low curb) had similar risk to major roads when one
way (adjusted OR=1.19; 95% CI=0.46, 3.10) and higher risk when they were
two way (adjusted OR=11.38; 95% CI=1.40, 92.57)"
Let's review that. So compared to major roads without any bike facilities:
They found adding a paint stripe (which many facilities proponents say >"That's not good enough!!!") cut risk about in half. (OR=.53)
Minor or "local" roads with bike lane stripes had roughly 1/3 the risk
of major roads with no bike facilities. (OR=0.31)
But "Local" roads with no bike facilities had roughly the same level of >safety as those with facilities. (OR=0.39) So adding those stripes to
local roads is hardly worth it.
Heavily "protected" bike lanes had very low risk (OR=0.10) IF they were
one way. But deeper into the paper, that was dominated by such bike
lanes over bridges, where no intersections could occur. And
intersections are the real problem for car-bike crashes. That's where
you get crossing paths and surprises.
Lightly "protected" bike lanes (flex posts, curbs, even parked cars!)
were slightly MORE dangerous than major roads with no facilities!
(OR=1.19) as long as they were one-way.
And the most "stylish" facility these days, the bi-directional
"protected" bike lanes? They were over 11 times as dangerous as a major
road with no bike facilities at all! (Odds ratio OR=11.38)
How come? There can be many reasons, but it's likely that a big one is
half the bicyclists pop into intersections from directions and locations >where motorists don't normally have to look. Here's a good example: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
So the "bike lanes make you safer" argument is simplistic at best.
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 12:48:26 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less >>>> closed mind about these things.
Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.
The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
local facilities that are less than five years old!
design how ever newly constructed it is.
Number of roads locally have wands and what not, this doesn’t turn them
into innovative or ever segregated cycleways in any meaningful sense.
Roger Merriman
But it does inform the drivers that bicycles may be present.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less >>> closed mind about these things.
Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.
The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
local facilities that are less than five years old!
design how ever newly constructed it is.
Number of roads locally have wands and what not, this doesn’t turn them into innovative or ever segregated cycleways in any meaningful sense.
On 2/7/2024 12:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff
and have a less
closed mind about these things.
Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike
facility
problems have vanished recently.
The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to
the stuff that's
been installed in our area within the last year, and even
more to some
local facilities that are less than five years old!
edge or new
design how ever newly constructed it is.
Number of roads locally have wands and what not, this
doesn’t turn them
into innovative or ever segregated cycleways in any
meaningful sense.
I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop
trying to claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not
representative of the rest of the world.
On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest
of the world.
Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of >cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
Perhaps he should take notes.
On 2/7/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less >>>> closed mind about these things.
Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.
The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
local facilities that are less than five years old!
design how ever newly constructed it is.
I thought I'd described the bi-directional "protected" bike lane
separated by concrete plus posts near the downtown. And a bi-directional >bike+ped sidepath along one of the more important downtown streets,
separated from the roadway by several feet of grass or something - I
forget. Those are both very trendy, and both very unused.
If those aren't sufficiently trendy, what exactly are you wanting built?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest >>> of the world.
Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of
cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
Those rides were a long time ago, according to what I've read.
Perhaps he should take notes.
On 2/7/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less >>>> closed mind about these things.
Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.
The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
local facilities that are less than five years old!
design how ever newly constructed it is.
I thought I'd described the bi-directional "protected" bike lane
separated by concrete plus posts near the downtown. And a bi-directional bike+ped sidepath along one of the more important downtown streets,
separated from the roadway by several feet of grass or something - I
forget. Those are both very trendy, and both very unused.
If those aren't sufficiently trendy, what exactly are you wanting built?
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:13:12 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:06:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less >>>>>> closed mind about these things.
Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.
The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's >>>>> been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some >>>>> local facilities that are less than five years old!
design how ever newly constructed it is.
I thought I'd described the bi-directional "protected" bike lane
separated by concrete plus posts near the downtown. And a bi-directional >>> bike+ped sidepath along one of the more important downtown streets,
separated from the roadway by several feet of grass or something - I
forget. Those are both very trendy, and both very unused.
If those aren't sufficiently trendy, what exactly are you wanting built?
Here, there are several examples bike paths seperated from the
road/street by grass that are quite heavily used. I'm looking forward
to a new one opening soon. It will fill in a gap in what will be over
two hundred miles of interconnected mostly rural trail.
I'm not forecasting anything but now that you have 200+ miles of
bicycle lane will the next step be "Now that they have their own road
they don't need ours".
Much like Santa Clara in that regard.
Goodness! Do you mean that what happens to me isn't representative of
what happens in the rest of the world :-?
I'm not forecasting anything but now that you have 200+ miles of
bicycle lane will the next step be "Now that they have their own road
they don't need ours".
I’d hazard a guess that it’s probably not generally useful for utility for
example cycling, I do happen to,use Parks trails which absolutely where intended for leisure than utility, though some have changed usage with
time, ie industrial to leisure.
On 2/7/2024 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Much like Santa Clara in that regard.
Well that's why I always state "in my area" or "in the Bay Area" or "in Silicon Valley," or "in New York City." I don't try to extrapolate my experiences onto the whole world.
On 2/8/2024 5:58 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
I’d hazard a guess that it’s probably not generally useful for utility for
example cycling, I do happen to,use Parks trails which absolutely where
intended for leisure than utility, though some have changed usage with
time, ie industrial to leisure.
That is not the case in my area. The separated infrastructure is heavily
used for "utility" cycling. In both the case of separated bike lanes,
and multi-use paths, they tend to be faster than using regular traffic
lanes and surface streets respectively.
The industrial and commercial development in Silicon Valley tends to be toward the northeast while the major housing areas tend to be in the southwest. The multi-use paths tend to run along creeks that flow into
the San Francisco Bay that also happen to go from the housing-rich areas
to the jobs-rich areas.*
Los Gatos Creek Trail: <https://parks.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb961/files/396244los_gatos_creek_part1.pdf>
Goes by Netflix and a bunch of smaller companies, then all the way into downtown San Jose (with one unfinished gap where you have to use surface streets)
Stevens Creek Trail: <https://padailypost.com/2021/07/10/racist-lurks-on-stevens-creek-trail/stevens-creek-trail/>.
Goes to Microsoft and Google, with connections to other trails that go
north to Meta.
San Tomas Aquino Trail: <https://hiiker-production-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/emxokbwhfme8ybj13o6g0wcxn8xv>.
Goes to Intel, Nvidia, Levi's stadium, and connects to other trails that
go to Cisco, Samsung, and other companies.
Unfortunately, the big fruit company in my city was able to prevent a multi-use trail that would have run through a corner of their property,
a trail that would have been very useful
<https://i.imgur.com/Fx6jH0q.png>. However they have funded a lot of new infrastructure that goes to their various campuses, and are funding
another MUP that will connect to their newer campus, but it will not be really great for recreation since it's right next to a freeway: <https://walkbikecupertino.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Tamien-Innu-trail-segments.png>
* Disclaimer: None of these trails are anywhere near Ohio.
On 2/8/2024 6:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank KrygowskiIndeed, my experience with road bikes in detail is now
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would
stop trying to
claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not
representative of the rest
of the world.
Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden
in hundreds of
cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
Those rides were a long time ago, according to what I've
read.
Perhaps he should take notes.
some 10 years in the
past, I’ve hired one on holiday few years back and so on
but it’s different
to owning one.
The last time I rode my bike on a dedicated bike facility in
a major city in a different state was roughly four months
ago, IIRC. I think that bike facility was maybe two years
old. I believe I posted here about a near-conflict with a
woman on a cell phone driving across the bike path.
It's simply false to claim that "the old stuff was no good,
the new stuff is great." Unless there's lots of new stuff in
the past three months.
On 2/8/2024 5:58 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
I’d hazard a guess that it’s probably not generally useful for utility >> for
example cycling, I do happen to,use Parks trails which absolutely where
intended for leisure than utility, though some have changed usage with
time, ie industrial to leisure.
That is not the case in my area. The separated infrastructure is heavily
used for "utility" cycling. In both the case of separated bike lanes,
and multi-use paths, they tend to be faster than using regular traffic
lanes and surface streets respectively.
The industrial and commercial development in Silicon Valley tends to be toward the northeast while the major housing areas tend to be in the southwest. The multi-use paths tend to run along creeks that flow into
the San Francisco Bay that also happen to go from the housing-rich areas
to the jobs-rich areas.*
Los Gatos Creek Trail: <https://parks.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb961/files/396244los_gatos_creek_part1.pdf>
Goes by Netflix and a bunch of smaller companies, then all the way into downtown San Jose (with one unfinished gap where you have to use surface streets)
Stevens Creek Trail: <https://padailypost.com/2021/07/10/racist-lurks-on-stevens-creek-trail/stevens-creek-trail/>. Goes to Microsoft and Google, with connections to other trails that go north to Meta.
San Tomas Aquino Trail: <https://hiiker-production-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/emxokbwhfme8ybj13o6g0wcxn8xv>. Goes to Intel, Nvidia, Levi's stadium, and connects to other trails that go to Cisco, Samsung, and other companies.
Unfortunately, the big fruit company in my city was able to prevent a multi-use trail that would have run through a corner of their property,
a trail that would have been very useful
<https://i.imgur.com/Fx6jH0q.png>. However they have funded a lot of new infrastructure that goes to their various campuses, and are funding
another MUP that will connect to their newer campus, but it will not be really great for recreation since it's right next to a freeway: <https://walkbikecupertino.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Tamien-Innu-trail-segments.png>
* Disclaimer: None of these trails are anywhere near Ohio.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:13:12 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:06:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less >>>>>> closed mind about these things.
Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.
The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's >>>>> been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some >>>>> local facilities that are less than five years old!
design how ever newly constructed it is.
I thought I'd described the bi-directional "protected" bike lane >>>separated by concrete plus posts near the downtown. And a bi-directional >>>bike+ped sidepath along one of the more important downtown streets, >>>separated from the roadway by several feet of grass or something - I >>>forget. Those are both very trendy, and both very unused.
If those aren't sufficiently trendy, what exactly are you wanting built?
Here, there are several examples bike paths seperated from the
road/street by grass that are quite heavily used. I'm looking forward
to a new one opening soon. It will fill in a gap in what will be over
two hundred miles of interconnected mostly rural trail.
I'm not forecasting anything but now that you have 200+ miles of
bicycle lane will the next step be "Now that they have their own road
they don't need ours".
On 2/8/2024 6:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank KrygowskiIndeed, my experience with road bikes in detail is now some 10 years in the >> past, Ive hired one on holiday few years back and so on but its different >> to owning one.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest >>>>> of the world.
Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of >>>> cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
Those rides were a long time ago, according to what I've read.
Perhaps he should take notes.
The last time I rode my bike on a dedicated bike facility in a major
city in a different state was roughly four months ago, IIRC. I think
that bike facility was maybe two years old. I believe I posted here
about a near-conflict with a woman on a cell phone driving across the
bike path.
It's simply false to claim that "the old stuff was no good, the new
stuff is great." Unless there's lots of new stuff in the past three months.
Am 08.02.2024 um 17:18 schrieb sms:
On 2/8/2024 5:58 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
I’d hazard a guess that it’s probably not generally useful for utility >>> for
example cycling, I do happen to,use Parks trails which absolutely where
intended for leisure than utility, though some have changed usage with
time, ie industrial to leisure.
That is not the case in my area. The separated infrastructure is heavily
used for "utility" cycling. In both the case of separated bike lanes,
and multi-use paths, they tend to be faster than using regular traffic
lanes and surface streets respectively.
The industrial and commercial development in Silicon Valley tends to be
toward the northeast while the major housing areas tend to be in the
southwest. The multi-use paths tend to run along creeks that flow into
the San Francisco Bay that also happen to go from the housing-rich areas
to the jobs-rich areas.*
Los Gatos Creek Trail:
<https://parks.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb961/files/396244los_gatos_creek_part1.pdf>
Goes by Netflix and a bunch of smaller companies, then all the way into
downtown San Jose (with one unfinished gap where you have to use surface
streets)
Stevens Creek Trail:
<https://padailypost.com/2021/07/10/racist-lurks-on-stevens-creek-trail/stevens-creek-trail/>.
Goes to Microsoft and Google, with connections to other trails that go north to Meta.
San Tomas Aquino Trail:
<https://hiiker-production-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/emxokbwhfme8ybj13o6g0wcxn8xv>.
Goes to Intel, Nvidia, Levi's stadium, and connects to other trails that
go to Cisco, Samsung, and other companies.
Unfortunately, the big fruit company in my city was able to prevent a
multi-use trail that would have run through a corner of their property,
a trail that would have been very useful
<https://i.imgur.com/Fx6jH0q.png>. However they have funded a lot of new
infrastructure that goes to their various campuses, and are funding
another MUP that will connect to their newer campus, but it will not be
really great for recreation since it's right next to a freeway:
<https://walkbikecupertino.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Tamien-Innu-trail-segments.png>
* Disclaimer: None of these trails are anywhere near Ohio.
I'm sorry I don't find any usage numbers for those trails, similar to <https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/229568/Analysis%20Report%20of%20Minnesota%20Bicycle%20%26%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Volume%20%282017-2020%29.pdf?sequence=1>
for Minnesota.
Do you think 800 bikes per weekday is nothing or a lot?
In my state, we need a minimum usage expectation of 2,000 daily
passenger miles per mile of trail for a state bike express route to be
built, and a minimum usage expectation of 1,500 for state subsidies of a local bike express route.
Rolf
On 2/8/2024 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Abysmal projects eventually (some sooner, some later) get
replaced with a new project, new contracts, new kickbacks.
Eenvelopes change hands to locate it near one property and
others to move it away from another property. It's in the
nature of government.
Vaguely related: One of my Christmas gifts was a collection
of Mike Royko columns. You'd like his proposal (from the
1967) of a new Seal for the city of Chicago. It featured two
hands shaking, with paper currency being transferred, and a
new city motto: "Ubi Est Mea."
On 2/8/2024 6:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank KrygowskiIndeed, my experience with road bikes in detail is now some 10 years in the >> past, I’ve hired one on holiday few years back and so on but it’s different
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest >>>>> of the world.
Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of >>>> cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
Those rides were a long time ago, according to what I've read.
Perhaps he should take notes.
to owning one.
The last time I rode my bike on a dedicated bike facility in a major
city in a different state was roughly four months ago, IIRC. I think
that bike facility was maybe two years old. I believe I posted here
about a near-conflict with a woman on a cell phone driving across the
bike path.
It's simply false to claim that "the old stuff was no good, the new
stuff is great." Unless there's lots of new stuff in the past three months.
I'm sorry I don't find any usage numbers for those trails, similar to <https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/229568/Analysis%20Report%20of%20Minnesota%20Bicycle%20%26%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Volume%20%282017-2020%29.pdf?sequence=1>
for Minnesota.
Do you think 800 bikes per weekday is nothing or a lot?
In my state, we need a minimum usage expectation of 2,000 daily
passenger miles per mile of trail for a state bike express route to be
built, and a minimum usage expectation of 1,500 for state subsidies of a local bike express route.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The last time I rode my bike on a dedicated bike facility in a major
city in a different state was roughly four months ago, IIRC. I think
that bike facility was maybe two years old. I believe I posted here
about a near-conflict with a woman on a cell phone driving across the
bike path.
But by definition that rules out a innovative segregated cycleway,
certainly the stuff built in london it’s very difficult for that to happen or even impossible in some places, ie junctions and crossings having infrastructure after all the junction is the danger zone.
At least within uk old railways lot where freight not passenger so even if named for closest villages/towns it’s fair diversion to them.
Ie they make great leisure trips but mostly not utility, which is different to a line within a city, which london has a few and do tend to connect and have minimal junctions for obvious reasons.
Though often they are kept so can be repurposed ie light rail new lines
laid and so on, or used for non passenger uses such a driver change over
and so on.
On 2/8/2024 8:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At least within uk old railways lot where freight not passenger so even if >> named for closest villages/towns it’s fair diversion to them.
Ie they make great leisure trips but mostly not utility, which is different >> to a line within a city, which london has a few and do tend to connect and >> have minimal junctions for obvious reasons.
Though often they are kept so can be repurposed ie light rail new lines
laid and so on, or used for non passenger uses such a driver change over
and so on.
We have one old railway line that goes to a cement factory that was
recently shut down. There was only maybe one train a week when it was
open. It would be a great bike trail, even with the grade crossings.
It's already an unofficial, unpaved, trail and the railroad ignores its
use. There have been efforts for many years to "formalize" the trail.
Now that the cement plant is shut down the railroad may want to sell off
the tracks and right-of-way.
On 2/8/2024 2:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Cities are becoming less car friendly see car parking by
car size/emissions
and so on, and so infrastructure is added bit by bit.
If cities do want to decrease car use, the key is to make
the city less car friendly. Make it inconvenient to drive.
Some strategies that have been used are lowering speed
limits, reducing "through" access (especially in residential
neighborhoods), reducing parking space counts, increasing
cost of parking, imposing congestion pricing or other fees
for entering the city, etc.
Strategies like those directly attack the negative aspects
of cars in cities. They are direct disincentives to car use.
Instead we're continuing to design cities for the
convenience of motorists over everyone else, with wide fast
roads, acres of asphalt parking, low density development
etc. It's silly to do that, then hope that some nice bike
lanes will cause lots of folks to abandon their very
convenient cars.
Here's the problem with disincentives for motorists: Most
voters are motorists. They may want the _other_ drivers to
switch to bikes or walking or mass transit or whatever. But
if you restrict their _own_ driving or parking, they'll vote
you out of office.
On 2/8/2024 2:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Cities are becoming less car friendly see car parking by car size/emissions >> and so on, and so infrastructure is added bit by bit.
If cities do want to decrease car use, the key is to make the city less
car friendly. Make it inconvenient to drive.
Some strategies that have been used are lowering speed limits, reducing >"through" access (especially in residential neighborhoods), reducing
parking space counts, increasing cost of parking, imposing congestion
pricing or other fees for entering the city, etc.
Strategies like those directly attack the negative aspects of cars in
cities. They are direct disincentives to car use.
Instead we're continuing to design cities for the convenience of
motorists over everyone else, with wide fast roads, acres of asphalt
parking, low density development etc. It's silly to do that, then hope
that some nice bike lanes will cause lots of folks to abandon their very >convenient cars.
Here's the problem with disincentives for motorists: Most voters are >motorists. They may want the _other_ drivers to switch to bikes or
walking or mass transit or whatever. But if you restrict their _own_
driving or parking, they'll vote you out of office.
On 2/8/2024 5:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest >>>>> of the world.
Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of >>>> cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
Perhaps he should take notes.
I've always been a bit amused at Frankie's bragging, "Oh I rode a
bicycle"...
Let's review. Scharf implies that all I know is my own suburban village.
I respond that I've ridden very extensively in many, many places.
John, read this slowly: That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village.
Got that?
Or is that too confusing? If so, tell me what part of it confuses you.
I'll try to help.
BTW, I have noticed that you never "brag" about any bike rides. I
wonder: Do you ever ride?
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:14:26 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest >>>> of the world.
Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of >>>cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
Those rides were a long time ago, according to what I've read.
Perhaps he should take notes.
I've always been a bit amused at Frankie's bragging, "Oh I rode a
bicycle", as after all, riding a bike is just another means of >transportation. Does someone who just came back from a vacation trip
out "West" stand around bragging, "I just drove my car to Omaha... And
back"
Oh Yes, I saw my little 6 year old girl. She was helping her mother
buy groceries at the market. So from a single skilled person who can
only claim "Oh, I rode a bicycle" She has advanced to a multi skilled
person who can now brag "I ride a bicycle", and I can buy the
groceries, too."
I've always been a bit amused at Frankie's bragging, "Oh I rode a
bicycle", as after all, riding a bike is just another means of transportation. Does someone who just came back from a vacation trip
out "West" stand around bragging, "I just drove my car to Omaha... And
back"
I guess the question is whether it might reopen in the future, certainly number of london railways have opened/closed number of times, even some tunnels under the Thames have been reused/repurposed and indeed been at
times unused.
On 2/8/2024 2:43 PM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
I've always been a bit amused at Frankie's bragging, "Oh
I rode a
bicycle", as after all, riding a bike is just another
means of
transportation. Does someone who just came back from a
vacation trip
out "West" stand around bragging, "I just drove my car to
Omaha... And
back"
"How do you know someone's a vegan? Don't worry, they'll
tell you."
"How do you know that 'he who must not be named' rode a
bicycle? Don't worry, he'll tell you."
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 18:42:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/8/2024 2:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Cities are becoming less car friendly see car parking by car size/emissions >>> and so on, and so infrastructure is added bit by bit.
If cities do want to decrease car use, the key is to make the city less
car friendly. Make it inconvenient to drive.
Some strategies that have been used are lowering speed limits, reducing
"through" access (especially in residential neighborhoods), reducing
parking space counts, increasing cost of parking, imposing congestion
pricing or other fees for entering the city, etc.
Strategies like those directly attack the negative aspects of cars in
cities. They are direct disincentives to car use.
Instead we're continuing to design cities for the convenience of
motorists over everyone else, with wide fast roads, acres of asphalt
parking, low density development etc. It's silly to do that, then hope
that some nice bike lanes will cause lots of folks to abandon their very
convenient cars.
Here's the problem with disincentives for motorists: Most voters are
motorists. They may want the _other_ drivers to switch to bikes or
walking or mass transit or whatever. But if you restrict their _own_
driving or parking, they'll vote you out of office.
Some people seem to like having the government control them. That's
something I'll never understand.
On 2/8/2024 2:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Cities are becoming less car friendly see car parking by car size/emissions >> and so on, and so infrastructure is added bit by bit.
If cities do want to decrease car use, the key is to make the city less
car friendly. Make it inconvenient to drive.
Some strategies that have been used are lowering speed limits, reducing "through" access (especially in residential neighborhoods), reducing
parking space counts, increasing cost of parking, imposing congestion
pricing or other fees for entering the city, etc.
Strategies like those directly attack the negative aspects of cars in
cities. They are direct disincentives to car use.
Instead we're continuing to design cities for the convenience of
motorists over everyone else, with wide fast roads, acres of asphalt
parking, low density development etc. It's silly to do that, then hope
that some nice bike lanes will cause lots of folks to abandon their very convenient cars.
Here's the problem with disincentives for motorists: Most voters are motorists. They may want the _other_ drivers to switch to bikes or
walking or mass transit or whatever. But if you restrict their _own_
driving or parking, they'll vote you out of office.
On 2/8/2024 10:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 18:29:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/8/2024 5:43 PM, John B. wrote:
I've always been a bit amused at Frankie's bragging, "Oh I rode a
bicycle"...
Let's review. Scharf implies that all I know is my own suburban village. >>>>
I respond that I've ridden very extensively in many, many places.
John, read this slowly: That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village.
Got that?
Or is that too confusing? If so, tell me what part of it confuses you. >>>> I'll try to help.
BTW, I have noticed that you never "brag" about any bike rides. I
wonder: Do you ever ride?
Actually I was never aware that the crossing a border line whether a
Country, State or City, was such a significant event.
Wow, I guess my response to John was too confusing! Or perhaps he just
forgot to read it? Let me repeat:
Let's review. Scharf implies that all I know is my own suburban village.
I respond that I've ridden very extensively in many, many places.
John, read this slowly: That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village.
Got that?
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 05:11:12 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 22:43:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/8/2024 10:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 18:29:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/8/2024 5:43 PM, John B. wrote:
I've always been a bit amused at Frankie's bragging, "Oh I rode a >>>>>>> bicycle"...
Let's review. Scharf implies that all I know is my own suburban village. >>>>>>
I respond that I've ridden very extensively in many, many places.
John, read this slowly: That means my knowledge is much greater than >>>>>> just my village.
Got that?
Or is that too confusing? If so, tell me what part of it confuses you. >>>>>> I'll try to help.
BTW, I have noticed that you never "brag" about any bike rides. I
wonder: Do you ever ride?
Actually I was never aware that the crossing a border line whether a
Country, State or City, was such a significant event.
Wow, I guess my response to John was too confusing! Or perhaps he just
forgot to read it? Let me repeat:
Let's review. Scharf implies that all I know is my own suburban village. >>>
I respond that I've ridden very extensively in many, many places.
John, read this slowly: That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village.
Got that?
Must be terrible to have such a need to brag and have accomplished
nothing more praiseworthy than riding a bicycle.
"That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village."??
What in the world is the old fool going on about?
Yeah, Californians don't need that steenkin concrete, or the jobs, taxes
and whatnot. Californians are happy to live in yurts made from prairie grasses (no animal skins!)and cook with dung fires. 'Closer to The
Earth' donchaknow.
Actually I was never aware that the crossing a border line whether a
Country, State or City, was such a significant event. I certainly wish
that someone had told me as I've been doing it since I was 12 years
old and must have accumulated a number sufficient to brag about by now
:-)
Hmmm I've crossed the Pacific Ocean 5 times now. Does that count?
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 20:14:36 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 7:12:35?p.m. UTC-6, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2024 3:10 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
I guess the question is whether it might reopen in the future, certainly >>>> number of london railways have opened/closed number of times, even some >>>> tunnels under the Thames have been reused/repurposed and indeed been at >>>> times unused.Hopefully that cement plant, one of, it not the biggest, polluter in
California, will not ever re-open.
But the tracks can stay if they want, there is sufficient land on the
side for a trail. It's a single track.
Sad what transpired in Santa Clara Valley with public transit.
<https://cityasnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/sociecity-1920-2012-rail-lines-san-jose.jpg>.
Much of that was due to the widespread adoption of the motor car and trucks. >>
Cheers
Out of curiosity I looked it up and a diesel-electric train emits far
less green house emissions, per ton mile, then a diesel truck.
On 2/9/2024 12:34 AM, John B. wrote:
The most noticeable thing about Frankie's claims is that they, are
never conformed.
Conformed to what?
John probably meant "confirmed." But as we've seen, if I mention
something with no documentation, I'm told I'm lying. If I mention
something with documentation, I'm told I'm bragging.
Some may find this interesting: >https://www.bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/ALittleSummerRide.htm
On 2/9/2024 4:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/8/2024 2:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Most voters are motorists but certainly with cities the
Cities are becoming less car friendly see car parking by
car size/emissions
and so on, and so infrastructure is added bit by bit.
If cities do want to decrease car use, the key is to make
the city less
car friendly. Make it inconvenient to drive.
Some strategies that have been used are lowering speed
limits, reducing
"through" access (especially in residential
neighborhoods), reducing
parking space counts, increasing cost of parking,
imposing congestion
pricing or other fees for entering the city, etc.
Strategies like those directly attack the negative
aspects of cars in
cities. They are direct disincentives to car use.
Instead we're continuing to design cities for the
convenience of
motorists over everyone else, with wide fast roads, acres
of asphalt
parking, low density development etc. It's silly to do
that, then hope
that some nice bike lanes will cause lots of folks to
abandon their very
convenient cars.
Here's the problem with disincentives for motorists: Most
voters are
motorists. They may want the _other_ drivers to switch to
bikes or
walking or mass transit or whatever. But if you restrict
their _own_
driving or parking, they'll vote you out of office.
size of London cars
aren’t the biggest mode share and the idea of driving into
central london
is frankly you’d tell your grandchildren of such a tale!
Ie it’s a
monumentally bad idea and universally known.
In other words, London has built-in disincentives for
motoring. And it's still had to add more.
Typical U.S. cities have no such disincentives. That means
adding fancy bike facilities are not likely to tempt many
people out of their cars.
On 2/8/2024 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Yeah, Californians don't need that steenkin concrete, or
the jobs, taxes and whatnot. Californians are happy to
live in yurts made from prairie grasses (no animal
skins!)and cook with dung fires. 'Closer to The Earth'
donchaknow.
It was the decision of the owners to shut down rather than
comply with the environmental regulations, which other
cement plants, including others that they own, do comply
with. When it's only profitable if you can dump your toxic
waste, including mercury, into creeks then it's time to call
it quits.
On 2/9/2024 10:13 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2024 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Yeah, Californians don't need that steenkin concrete, or the jobs,
taxes and whatnot. Californians are happy to live in yurts made from
prairie grasses (no animal skins!)and cook with dung fires. 'Closer
to The Earth' donchaknow.
It was the decision of the owners to shut down rather than comply with
the environmental regulations, which other cement plants, including
others that they own, do comply with. When it's only profitable if you
can dump your toxic waste, including mercury, into creeks then it's
time to call it quits.
AFAIK mercury would be from a coal-fired cement/concrete facility. Do
you still have coal plants in CA? Here in the midwest, they're all
gas-fired, despite Illinois coal being very available and cheap to
transport (at a punitive regulatory cost).
On 2/9/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 22:43:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Let's review. Scharf implies that all I know is my own suburban village. >>>>
I respond that I've ridden very extensively in many, many places.
John, read this slowly: That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village.
Got that?
"That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village."??
What in the world is the old fool going on about? Does he mean that he
rides "right pedal - left pedal" at home and "left pedal- right pedal"
when in foreign territory?
If John thinks there's nothing more to competent bicycling besides
pedaling, he is ignorant indeed!
On 2/9/2024 11:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/9/2024 10:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
... London has built-in disincentives for motoring. Andit's still had to add more.
Typical U.S. cities have no such disincentives. That means adding
fancy bike facilities are not likely to tempt many people out of their
cars.
Damned Romans plunked it right across a river. Not very
traffic-friendly move.
Street grids work better on prairies:
http://www.map-of-the-world.info/mapserver/texas-maps/interactive-maps/1km/lubbock.gif
Plenty of parallel alternates!
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to have grid street
plans like that. Cities and suburbs built after ~ 1960 tend to have a >spaghetti street plan instead of a grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
I think the motivation was mainly to confuse and deter cut-through or >rat-running motorists, and confine motorists to larger streets and
roads. But it makes it harder for cyclists.
On 2/9/2024 11:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/9/2024 10:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
... London has built-in disincentives for motoring. Andit's still had to add more.
Typical U.S. cities have no such disincentives. That
means adding fancy bike facilities are not likely to
tempt many people out of their cars.
Damned Romans plunked it right across a river. Not very
traffic-friendly move.
Street grids work better on prairies:
http://www.map-of-the-world.info/mapserver/texas-maps/interactive-maps/1km/lubbock.gif
Plenty of parallel alternates!
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to have
grid street plans like that. Cities and suburbs built after
~ 1960 tend to have a spaghetti street plan instead of a
grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
I think the motivation was mainly to confuse and deter
cut-through or rat-running motorists, and confine motorists
to larger streets and roads. But it makes it harder for
cyclists.
On 2/9/2024 2:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2024 11:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/9/2024 10:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
... London has built-in disincentives for motoring. Andit's still had to add more.
Typical U.S. cities have no such disincentives. That
means adding fancy bike facilities are not likely to
tempt many people out of their cars.
Damned Romans plunked it right across a river. Not very
traffic-friendly move.
Street grids work better on prairies:
http://www.map-of-the-world.info/mapserver/texas-maps/interactive-maps/1km/lubbock.gif
Plenty of parallel alternates!
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to have
grid street plans like that. Cities and suburbs built after
~ 1960 tend to have a spaghetti street plan instead of a
grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
I think the motivation was mainly to confuse and deter
cut-through or rat-running motorists, and confine motorists
to larger streets and roads. But it makes it harder for
cyclists.
Yes it does, and not only.
Those serpentine spaghetti layouts which have become trendy
the last 40 years or so add structural inefficiency ($$$ !)
to utilities, city services such as trash removal and
plowing, emergency services (police/fire/medical), delivery
services, on and on.
Those of us who do not have the magic box tracking device
need particular attention to the map before locating an
address (my niece and her husband's new home) in those
hellholes.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 12:23:01 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 11:25:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/9/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 22:43:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Let's review. Scharf implies that all I know is my own suburban village. >>>>>>
I respond that I've ridden very extensively in many, many places.
John, read this slowly: That means my knowledge is much greater than >>>>>> just my village.
Got that?
"That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village."??
What in the world is the old fool going on about? Does he mean that he >>>> rides "right pedal - left pedal" at home and "left pedal- right pedal" >>>> when in foreign territory?
If John thinks there's nothing more to competent bicycling besides >>>pedaling, he is ignorant indeed!
Nothing that first and second grade kids can't do..
But "competent bicycling"??? You mean getting there and getting back?
My little 6 year old school girl does that so she must be "competent",
one must assume.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 04:11:37 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 12:23:01 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 11:25:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/9/2024 8:18 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 22:43:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Let's review. Scharf implies that all I know is my own suburban village.
I respond that I've ridden very extensively in many, many places. >>>>>>>
John, read this slowly: That means my knowledge is much greater than >>>>>>> just my village.
Got that?
"That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village."??
What in the world is the old fool going on about? Does he mean that he >>>>> rides "right pedal - left pedal" at home and "left pedal- right pedal" >>>>> when in foreign territory?
If John thinks there's nothing more to competent bicycling besides >>>>pedaling, he is ignorant indeed!
Nothing that first and second grade kids can't do..
But "competent bicycling"??? You mean getting there and getting back?
My little 6 year old school girl does that so she must be "competent",
one must assume.
Well, you do need to know how to keep your pant leg out of the chain.
Is that part of the bicycle instruction? I've also heard of people who
refuse to use clipless pedals because they never learned how to
unclip.
On 2/9/2024 11:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/9/2024 10:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
... London has built-in disincentives for motoring. Andit's still had to add more.
Typical U.S. cities have no such disincentives. That means adding
fancy bike facilities are not likely to tempt many people out of their
cars.
Damned Romans plunked it right across a river. Not very
traffic-friendly move.
Street grids work better on prairies:
http://www.map-of-the-world.info/mapserver/texas-maps/interactive-maps/1km/lubbock.gif
Plenty of parallel alternates!
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to have grid street
plans like that. Cities and suburbs built after ~ 1960 tend to have a spaghetti street plan instead of a grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
I think the motivation was mainly to confuse and deter cut-through or rat-running motorists, and confine motorists to larger streets and
roads. But it makes it harder for cyclists.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/9/2024 11:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/9/2024 10:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
... London has built-in disincentives for motoring. Andit's still had to add more.
Typical U.S. cities have no such disincentives. That means adding
fancy bike facilities are not likely to tempt many people out of their >>>> cars.
Damned Romans plunked it right across a river. Not very
traffic-friendly move.
Street grids work better on prairies:
http://www.map-of-the-world.info/mapserver/texas-maps/interactive-maps/1km/lubbock.gif
Plenty of parallel alternates!
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to have grid street
plans like that. Cities and suburbs built after ~ 1960 tend to have a
spaghetti street plan instead of a grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
I think the motivation was mainly to confuse and deter cut-through or
rat-running motorists, and confine motorists to larger streets and
roads. But it makes it harder for cyclists.
It’s more it’s size, it’s some 40/50 miles across it de facto spreads out
to the M25 a 117 mile almost circle and covers 1100 square miles, so yes folks have cars though this drops off rapidly as you move into the Center, and so it’s a fairly miserable experience driving in london, even before you add in a good public transport system, and that due to its size ie it’s swallowed towns and areas it’s quite a green city ie some big parks and what not, which helps walking which is one of the big mode shares forget cycling Londoners walk a lot!
As with most places it’s a bit disturbed by covid ie cars have had wee increase and public transport a dip down though both seem to be returning
to previous trends, and clearly more working from home as clearly for
office workers don’t need to be in the office every day and so on.
Roger Merriman
On 2/8/2024 2:31 PM, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2024 9:20 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
I'm sorry I don't find any usage numbers for those trails, similar to
<https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/229568/Analysis%20Report%20of%20Minnesota%20Bicycle%20%26%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Volume%20%282017-2020%29.pdf?sequence=1>
for Minnesota.
Do you think 800 bikes per weekday is nothing or a lot?
In my state, we need a minimum usage expectation of 2,000 daily
passenger miles per mile of trail for a state bike express route to be
built, and a minimum usage expectation of 1,500 for state subsidies of
a local bike express route.
I saw one article, from 2015, that said 2000 cyclists per morning
commute on the Stevens Creek Trail. If each one only rode 0.5 miles in
the morning and another 0.5 miles in the evening then that would be 2000
miles per day.
How many motorized vehicle miles per day for (roughly) that same corridor?
I just finished a ride for a social visit plus some utility shopping
that included a road with 30,000 vehicles per day through a five mile stretch. I mostly used parallel streets; but that figure is good for
context.
On 2/9/2024 4:27 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/9/2024 11:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/9/2024 10:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
... London has built-in disincentives for motoring. Andit's still had to add more.
Typical U.S. cities have no such disincentives. That means adding
fancy bike facilities are not likely to tempt many people out of their >>>>> cars.
Damned Romans plunked it right across a river. Not very
traffic-friendly move.
Street grids work better on prairies:
http://www.map-of-the-world.info/mapserver/texas-maps/interactive-maps/1km/lubbock.gif
Plenty of parallel alternates!
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to have grid street
plans like that. Cities and suburbs built after ~ 1960 tend to have a
spaghetti street plan instead of a grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
I think the motivation was mainly to confuse and deter cut-through or
rat-running motorists, and confine motorists to larger streets and
roads. But it makes it harder for cyclists.
It’s more it’s size, it’s some 40/50 miles across it de facto spreads out
to the M25 a 117 mile almost circle and covers 1100 square miles, so yes
folks have cars though this drops off rapidly as you move into the Center, >> and so it’s a fairly miserable experience driving in london, even before >> you add in a good public transport system, and that due to its size ie it’s
swallowed towns and areas it’s quite a green city ie some big parks and
what not, which helps walking which is one of the big mode shares forget
cycling Londoners walk a lot!
As with most places it’s a bit disturbed by covid ie cars have had wee
increase and public transport a dip down though both seem to be returning
to previous trends, and clearly more working from home as clearly for
office workers don’t need to be in the office every day and so on.
Roger Merriman
An old friend described driving in London as slowly rowing
it with the gear lever.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:27 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/9/2024 11:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/9/2024 10:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
... London has built-in disincentives for motoring. Andit's still had to add more.
Typical U.S. cities have no such disincentives. That means adding
fancy bike facilities are not likely to tempt many people out of their >>>>>> cars.
Damned Romans plunked it right across a river. Not very
traffic-friendly move.
Street grids work better on prairies:
http://www.map-of-the-world.info/mapserver/texas-maps/interactive-maps/1km/lubbock.gif
Plenty of parallel alternates!
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to have grid street >>>> plans like that. Cities and suburbs built after ~ 1960 tend to have a
spaghetti street plan instead of a grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
I think the motivation was mainly to confuse and deter cut-through or
rat-running motorists, and confine motorists to larger streets and
roads. But it makes it harder for cyclists.
It’s more it’s size, it’s some 40/50 miles across it de facto spreads out
to the M25 a 117 mile almost circle and covers 1100 square miles, so yes >>> folks have cars though this drops off rapidly as you move into the Center, >>> and so it’s a fairly miserable experience driving in london, even before >>> you add in a good public transport system, and that due to its size ie it’s
swallowed towns and areas it’s quite a green city ie some big parks and >>> what not, which helps walking which is one of the big mode shares forget >>> cycling Londoners walk a lot!
As with most places it’s a bit disturbed by covid ie cars have had wee >>> increase and public transport a dip down though both seem to be returning >>> to previous trends, and clearly more working from home as clearly for
office workers don’t need to be in the office every day and so on.
Roger Merriman
An old friend described driving in London as slowly rowing
it with the gear lever.
Due to the river central ish get number of ferries, less so further up
stream as so many locks so fine for pleasure boats but due to said locks fairly slow travel, though quite enjoyable.
Roger Merriman
On 2/9/2024 4:11 PM, John B. wrote:
But "competent bicycling"??? You mean getting there and getting back?
No, John. There's more to competence than not getting killed.
About a week ago, driving through the city at night I saw cars ahead of
me swerve left. Turns out it was because of a bike rider riding wrong
way with no lights. He didn't get killed, because so such thing was
mentioned in the news. But he was not competent.
There are many other factors in bicycling competence. Your ignorance of
that fact says a lot about your own level of competence. Perhaps you
rode like that guy, back when you did ride.
And about your oft-repeated 6 year old girl tales: I notice you provided
no documentation that she exists.
If you're demanding formal
documentation of everything I say, you should be providing your own >documentation.
On 2/9/2024 4:07 PM, John B. wrote:
But as for "if I mention something with no documentation"? I must say
that I can't remember Frankie ever providing any documentation...
You have memory problems, John.
On 2/9/2024 5:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
An old friend described driving in London as slowly rowing it with the
gear lever.
Vaguely related: The only time I've passed a Ferrari and kept ahead of
it was in New York City. I was walking.
crap culiminating in something called "protected bike line" in some
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to have grid street
plans like that. Cities and suburbs built after ~ 1960 tend to have a >spaghetti street plan instead of a grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
I think the motivation was mainly to confuse and deter cut-through or >rat-running motorists, and confine motorists to larger streets and
roads. But it makes it harder for cyclists.
I don't know if something like that would be possible in America. I
can't think of any use for eight or ten lane roads other than to emulate trains in the worst imaginable way.
On 2/10/2024 8:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
We can be absolutely certain that Frank has never ridden in Silicon
Valley with street traffic traveling 70 mph. Having done so even once
would have him thanking his lucky stars for bike facilities rather than
talking about taking the lane.
You're right, I haven't ridden in Silicon Valley. One can't ride
everywhere.
OTOH, John Forester, who did the most to develop and explain the
concepts of Vehicular Cycling, certainly did. IIRC he was from somewhere right around there. Possibly Sunnyvale. He absolutely rode there using
the techniques I've discussed.
Tom expresses such fear of using his legal right to the road!
On 2/8/2024 11:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
The last time I rode my bike on a dedicated bike facility in a major
city in a different state was roughly four months ago, IIRC. I think
that bike facility was maybe two years old. I believe I posted here
about a near-conflict with a woman on a cell phone driving across the
bike path.
But by definition that rules out a innovative segregated cycleway,
certainly the stuff built in london it’s very difficult for that to happen
or even impossible in some places, ie junctions and crossings having
infrastructure after all the junction is the danger zone.
Thank goodness a clueless driver with a cell phone never causes any
problems for cyclists riding with traffic!
But seriously, around here, for MUPs there are often at-grade crossings,
with crossing lights, initially, then as money is available there are overpasses or underpasses constructed, at least for heavily used MUPs.
For separated bike lanes, three of the unintended positive consequences
are 1) drivers slow down because they perceive the road as being
narrower, even though the lanes are the same width as when there was a painted bike lane, 2) drivers pay more attention to their driving
because they can't drift onto the shoulder anymore, 3) drivers can't
park in the bike lane anymore, even though it was never legal in the
first place.
Of course the biggest positive aspect of the separated infrastructure is increased safety. The second biggest is the increase in cycling that the
new infrastructure causes.
On 2/8/2024 6:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I thought I'd described the bi-directional "protected" bike lane
separated by concrete plus posts near the downtown. And a bi-directional >>> bike+ped sidepath along one of the more important downtown streets,
separated from the roadway by several feet of grass or something - I
forget. Those are both very trendy, and both very unused.
Unless you have a counter I’d park the unused even busy stuff can have
clear moments hence cities do tend to put in the counters to stop folks
doing the clickbate stuff.
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional
"protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any
local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure.
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months
old, in the downtown.
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is
useless and unused.
If those aren't sufficiently trendy, what exactly are you wanting built? >>>
You said wands and unprotected junctions.
Talk to me about unprotected junctions, because I don't understand your point. Are you saying that any bike facility has to have some fancy
special treatment at each intersection? What is your minimum acceptable standard for that special treatment? (And what does it cost?)
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so. So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France.
How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours?
Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:55:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
We can be absolutely certain that Frank has never ridden in Silicon Valley with street traffic traveling 70 mph. Having done so even once would have him thanking his lucky stars for bike facilities rather than talking about taking the lane.
You're right, I haven't ridden in Silicon Valley. One can't ride >>everywhere.
OTOH, John Forester, who did the most to develop and explain the
concepts of Vehicular Cycling, certainly did. IIRC he was from somewhere >>right around there. Possibly Sunnyvale. He absolutely rode there using
the techniques I've discussed.
<LOL> "Techniques?"
Tom expresses such fear of using his legal right to the road!
You express such fear of using your lrgal right to carry a gun.
On 2/10/2024 8:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
We can be absolutely certain that Frank has never ridden in Silicon Valley with street traffic traveling 70 mph. Having done so even once would have him thanking his lucky stars for bike facilities rather than talking about taking the lane.
You're right, I haven't ridden in Silicon Valley. One can't ride
everywhere.
OTOH, John Forester, who did the most to develop and explain the
concepts of Vehicular Cycling, certainly did. IIRC he was from somewhere >right around there. Possibly Sunnyvale. He absolutely rode there using
the techniques I've discussed.
Tom expresses such fear of using his legal right to the road!
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:33:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so. So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France.
How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours?
Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
More brags... about doing something millions of people do... how
pitiful.
On 2/11/2024 7:29 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:33:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding
conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so.
So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France.
How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours?
Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
More brags... about doing something millions of people do... how
pitiful.
More yapping at Franks heels begging for his attention.....pitiful
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:29 AM, John B. wrote:While this is indeed true there is a nugget of truth in that ones
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:33:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding
conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so. >>>>>> So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France.
How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours? >>>>> Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
More brags... about doing something millions of people do... how
pitiful.
More yapping at Franks heels begging for his attention.....pitiful
experience on holiday and probably last century? Is not the same as living
in an area.
And yes they are being bullies? Considering the average age must be 70 >something? A good look it is not!
Ive personally become more pro cycle infrastructure as Ive encountered >better quality infrastructure, some of which is newer some stuff I had no >cause to go that way and so new to me and so on.
Im still pragmatic than ideological though ie still some fairly woefully >stuff about and thats unlikely to change any time soon.
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:32:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:29 AM, John B. wrote:While this is indeed true there is a nugget of truth in that one’s
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:33:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding
conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so. >>>>>>> So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France.
How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours? >>>>>> Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
More brags... about doing something millions of people do... how
pitiful.
More yapping at Franks heels begging for his attention.....pitiful
experience on holiday and probably last century? Is not the same as living >> in an area.
And yes they are being bullies? Considering the average age must be 70
something? A good look it is not!
I’ve personally become more pro cycle infrastructure as I’ve encountered >> better quality infrastructure, some of which is newer some stuff I had no
cause to go that way and so new to me and so on.
I’m still pragmatic than ideological though ie still some fairly woefully >> stuff about and thats unlikely to change any time soon.
Roger Merriman
Krygowski talks and berates me for doing things thta have no tangible
effect on hi. Why shouldn't I mention what he does?
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:32:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:29 AM, John B. wrote:While this is indeed true there is a nugget of truth in that ones
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:33:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding
conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so. >>>>>>> So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France.
How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours? >>>>>> Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
More brags... about doing something millions of people do... how
pitiful.
More yapping at Franks heels begging for his attention.....pitiful
experience on holiday and probably last century? Is not the same as living >> in an area.
And yes they are being bullies? Considering the average age must be 70
something? A good look it is not!
Ive personally become more pro cycle infrastructure as Ive encountered >> better quality infrastructure, some of which is newer some stuff I had no
cause to go that way and so new to me and so on.
Im still pragmatic than ideological though ie still some fairly woefully >> stuff about and thats unlikely to change any time soon.
Roger Merriman
Krygowski talks and berates me for doing things thta have no tangible
effect on hi. Why shouldn't I mention what he does?
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:32:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>And? So your argument is he started it? Or similar again not a good look!
wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:29 AM, John B. wrote:While this is indeed true there is a nugget of truth in that one?s
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:33:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding >>>>>>>> conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so. >>>>>>>> So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France. >>>>>>>How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours? >>>>>>> Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
More brags... about doing something millions of people do... how >>>>>> pitiful.
More yapping at Franks heels begging for his attention.....pitiful
experience on holiday and probably last century? Is not the same as living >>> in an area.
And yes they are being bullies? Considering the average age must be 70
something? A good look it is not!
I?ve personally become more pro cycle infrastructure as I?ve encountered >>> better quality infrastructure, some of which is newer some stuff I had no >>> cause to go that way and so new to me and so on.
I?m still pragmatic than ideological though ie still some fairly woefully >>> stuff about and thats unlikely to change any time soon.
Roger Merriman
Krygowski talks and berates me for doing things thta have no tangible
effect on hi. Why shouldn't I mention what he does?
And no Im not claiming Frank is with out fault but he is at least civil.
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 17:42:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:32:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>And? So your argument is he started it? Or similar again not a good look!
wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:29 AM, John B. wrote:While this is indeed true there is a nugget of truth in that one?s
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:33:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding >>>>>>>>> conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so. >>>>>>>>> So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France. >>>>>>>>How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours? >>>>>>>> Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
More brags... about doing something millions of people do... how >>>>>>> pitiful.
More yapping at Franks heels begging for his attention.....pitiful
experience on holiday and probably last century? Is not the same as living >>>> in an area.
And yes they are being bullies? Considering the average age must be 70 >>>> something? A good look it is not!
I?ve personally become more pro cycle infrastructure as I?ve encountered >>>> better quality infrastructure, some of which is newer some stuff I had no >>>> cause to go that way and so new to me and so on.
I?m still pragmatic than ideological though ie still some fairly woefully >>>> stuff about and thats unlikely to change any time soon.
Roger Merriman
Krygowski talks and berates me for doing things thta have no tangible
effect on hi. Why shouldn't I mention what he does?
And no Im not claiming Frank is with out fault but he is at least civil. >>
Roger Merriman
Civil?
Nope:
"Which does not mean it's safe for everybody in every situation. Many
people are just not safe, due
mostly to their knowledge and behavior on a bike. But, as they say,
ignorance can be fixed. There are
organizations that teach even very timid people to ride on normal
roads among traffic. For example,
https://cyclingsavvy.org/"
"That does not mean you must ride on roads. If you lack the competence
or minimal courage and
are unwilling to learn, keep trucking your pedal vehicle to a bike
path and riding back and forth.
That's too boring for me, but maybe someday I'll be in the same state. Although I hope not."
- Frank Krygowski https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qYtFPpL3AAAJ
Many more.... He's just getting back what he does.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 17:42:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:32:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>And? So your argument is he started it? Or similar again not a good look!
wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:29 AM, John B. wrote:While this is indeed true there is a nugget of truth in that one?s
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:33:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding >>>>>>>>> conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so. >>>>>>>>> So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France. >>>>>>>>How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours? >>>>>>>> Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
More brags... about doing something millions of people do... how >>>>>>> pitiful.
More yapping at Franks heels begging for his attention.....pitiful
experience on holiday and probably last century? Is not the same as living >>>> in an area.
And yes they are being bullies? Considering the average age must be 70 >>>> something? A good look it is not!
I?ve personally become more pro cycle infrastructure as I?ve encountered >>>> better quality infrastructure, some of which is newer some stuff I had no >>>> cause to go that way and so new to me and so on.
I?m still pragmatic than ideological though ie still some fairly woefully >>>> stuff about and thats unlikely to change any time soon.
Roger Merriman
Krygowski talks and berates me for doing things thta have no tangible
effect on hi. Why shouldn't I mention what he does?
And no I’m not claiming Frank is with out fault but he is at least civil. >>
Roger Merriman
Civil?
Nope:
"Which does not mean it's safe for everybody in every situation. Many
people are just not safe, due
mostly to their knowledge and behavior on a bike. But, as they say,
ignorance can be fixed. There are
organizations that teach even very timid people to ride on normal
roads among traffic. For example,
https://cyclingsavvy.org/"
"That does not mean you must ride on roads. If you lack the competence
or minimal courage and
are unwilling to learn, keep trucking your pedal vehicle to a bike
path and riding back and forth.
That's too boring for me, but maybe someday I'll be in the same state. Although I hope not."
- Frank Krygowski https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qYtFPpL3AAAJ
Many more.... He's just getting back what he does.
How _does_ one notorize a Usenet post? ;-)
--
- Frank Krygowski
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional
"protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any
local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's
pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure.
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months
old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and
stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is
useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones arent good indicators...
OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my
bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike
club say nobody uses it.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 17:42:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>Hes not threatening to punch people (like Tom has and does) but he is >disagreeing with you he mosty doesnt use disparaging language etc.
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:32:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>And? So your argument is he started it? Or similar again not a good look! >>>
wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 7:29 AM, John B. wrote:While this is indeed true there is a nugget of truth in that one?s
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:33:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/10/2024 8:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
... a VACATION ride does not expose you to real everyday riding >>>>>>>>>> conditions. But he shows not the slightest intgensions of doing so. >>>>>>>>>> So a rent-a-bike stroll around Paris tells him all about France. >>>>>>>>>How about riding my own bike around Paris? And Nantes? Angers? Tours? >>>>>>>>> Ambois? Lyon? Dijon? Troyes? Would those count?
More brags... about doing something millions of people do... how >>>>>>>> pitiful.
More yapping at Franks heels begging for his attention.....pitiful >>>>>>
experience on holiday and probably last century? Is not the same as living
in an area.
And yes they are being bullies? Considering the average age must be 70 >>>>> something? A good look it is not!
I?ve personally become more pro cycle infrastructure as I?ve encountered >>>>> better quality infrastructure, some of which is newer some stuff I had no >>>>> cause to go that way and so new to me and so on.
I?m still pragmatic than ideological though ie still some fairly woefully >>>>> stuff about and thats unlikely to change any time soon.
Roger Merriman
Krygowski talks and berates me for doing things thta have no tangible
effect on hi. Why shouldn't I mention what he does?
And no I?m not claiming Frank is with out fault but he is at least civil. >>>
Roger Merriman
Civil?
Nope:
"Which does not mean it's safe for everybody in every situation. Many
people are just not safe, due
mostly to their knowledge and behavior on a bike. But, as they say,
ignorance can be fixed. There are
organizations that teach even very timid people to ride on normal
roads among traffic. For example,
https://cyclingsavvy.org/"
"That does not mean you must ride on roads. If you lack the competence
or minimal courage and
are unwilling to learn, keep trucking your pedal vehicle to a bike
path and riding back and forth.
That's too boring for me, but maybe someday I'll be in the same state.
Although I hope not."
- Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qYtFPpL3AAAJ >>
Many more.... He's just getting back what he does.
He Disagrees with me as well frequently so! now clearly hes wrong but I >dont take it as personal insult!
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:32:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional
"protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any
local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's >>>> pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure.
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months
old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and
stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is
useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones arent good indicators...
OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my
bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike
club say nobody uses it.
..or so you say....
another undocumented claim from Krygoeski
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional
"protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any
local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's
pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure.
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months
old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and
stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is
useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones aren’t good indicators...
OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my
bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike
club say nobody uses it. But you probably know better ...
Talk to me about unprotected junctions, because I don't understand yourI’m suggesting that some bike lane (painted) gaining some wands isn’t most
point. Are you saying that any bike facility has to have some fancy
special treatment at each intersection? What is your minimum acceptable
standard for that special treatment? (And what does it cost?)
folks idea of segregated bike lane, particularly as such stuff tends to
stop at junctions/giveway’s.
I have one on my commute like that the wands stop traffic wandering across >> but it stops just before the junction so is hardly that much use, compared >> to the cycleway that uses lights and underpasses to bypass junctions. Let
alone stuff built this century.
It’s a very different thing or to put it bluntly a few random wands don’t
cut it, and is broadly in line with some painted cycleways ie tick box
exercises.
Those paragraphs are a great example of bike segregation fans' ever increasing demands! As I've said, the demands started with painted bike
lane stripes, escalated to buffered bike lane stripes, then green paint,
then posts or wands, then concrete and/or parked cars as barriers.
But yes, all that "protection" must end at intersections, which is where
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen. And bike segregation adds complications and surprises to intersections, which is why some studies
find no great safety advantage to segregation - or in some cases,
serious disadvantages.
So now you're saying that we need bike underpasses at intersections?
Do you not understand the costs and other detriments of underpasses? Do
you not understand how unreasonable it is to demand them?
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:32:17 -0500, Frank KrygowskiTo be fair how would he document it? Even stuff like Strava wouldnt >differentiate between a cyclist on the road and the cyclelane.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional
"protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any
local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's >>>>> pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure. >>>>> And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months >>>>> old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and >>>> stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is
useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones aren?t good indicators...
OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my
bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike >>> club say nobody uses it.
..or so you say....
another undocumented claim from Krygoeski
I will note though that bikes are much more efficient than cars and so
unless you have huge mode shares even busy cycle infrastructure is fairly >clear as well the bikes have passed through, 20/30 bikes at Westminster
clear as soon as the lights go, cars dont clear the junction so have to
wait for the lights to change again and so on.
Could ask if there has been a survey?
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:56:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:32:17 -0500, Frank KrygowskiTo be fair how would he document it? Even stuff like Strava wouldnt >>differentiate between a cyclist on the road and the cyclelane.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional
"protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any >>>>>> local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's >>>>>> pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure. >>>>>> And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months >>>>>> old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and >>>>> stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is >>>>>> useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones aren?t good indicators...
OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my
bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike >>>> club say nobody uses it.
..or so you say....
another undocumented claim from Krygoeski
To be fair, why would even make the claim. Does he really expect
people to believe him?
I will note though that bikes are much more efficient than cars and so >>unless you have huge mode shares even busy cycle infrastructure is fairly >>clear as well the bikes have passed through, 20/30 bikes at Westminster >>clear as soon as the lights go, cars dont clear the junction so have to >>wait for the lights to change again and so on.
Could ask if there has been a survey?
Yeah, those are loads and load of honesty.
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:42:59 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:56:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:32:17 -0500, Frank KrygowskiTo be fair how would he document it? Even stuff like Strava wouldnt
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional >>>>>>> "protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any >>>>>>> local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's >>>>>>> pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure. >>>>>>> And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months >>>>>>> old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and >>>>>> stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is >>>>>>> useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones aren?t good indicators...
OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my >>>>> bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike >>>>> club say nobody uses it.
..or so you say....
another undocumented claim from Krygoeski
differentiate between a cyclist on the road and the cyclelane.
To be fair, why would even make the claim. Does he really expect
people to believe him?
I will note though that bikes are much more efficient than cars and so
unless you have huge mode shares even busy cycle infrastructure is fairly >>> clear as well the bikes have passed through, 20/30 bikes at Westminster
clear as soon as the lights go, cars dont clear the junction so have to >>> wait for the lights to change again and so on.
Could ask if there has been a survey?
Yeah, those are loads and load of honesty.
Roger Merriman
Have you not noticed that no matter what topic has been posted,
Krygowsi always has a personal ancdotal story that either disputes or supports it? Everything has to be about him.
On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 3:56:47 p.m. UTC-6, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:No one ever though white paint was good it’s always tic box exercise, and >> there are examples of much older segregation cycleways some 100 or so years >> old, ie concrete kerbs etc barriers aren’t new, segregation or something >> like it has always been the aim campaigns may have accepted paint and so
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional
"protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any
local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's >>>>> pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure. >>>>> And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months >>>>> old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and >>>> stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is
useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones aren’t good indicators...
OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my
bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike >>> club say nobody uses it. But you probably know better ...
Talk to me about unprotected junctions, because I don't understand your >>>>> point. Are you saying that any bike facility has to have some fancyI’m suggesting that some bike lane (painted) gaining some wands isn’t most
special treatment at each intersection? What is your minimum acceptable >>>>> standard for that special treatment? (And what does it cost?)
folks idea of segregated bike lane, particularly as such stuff tends to >>>> stop at junctions/giveway’s.
I have one on my commute like that the wands stop traffic wandering across >>>> but it stops just before the junction so is hardly that much use, compared >>>> to the cycleway that uses lights and underpasses to bypass junctions. Let >>>> alone stuff built this century.
It’s a very different thing or to put it bluntly a few random wands don’t
cut it, and is broadly in line with some painted cycleways ie tick box >>>> exercises.
Those paragraphs are a great example of bike segregation fans' ever
increasing demands! As I've said, the demands started with painted bike
lane stripes, escalated to buffered bike lane stripes, then green paint, >>> then posts or wands, then concrete and/or parked cars as barriers.
on, but the idea they where happy with paint is a fantasy.
Segregation worried the CTC as though they would end up being mandated to
use them, for the uk this was probably unjustified as removing rights of
passage (ie using a road) would require a huge political effort and that
parliament would give time for various bills to pass, see also helmet laws. >>
Which is a significant high bar to reach hence neither has happened in the >> uk at least.
No I’m saying the one I use on the commute has a few down its length, I’m
But yes, all that "protection" must end at intersections, which is where >>> the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen. And bike segregation adds
complications and surprises to intersections, which is why some studies
find no great safety advantage to segregation - or in some cases,
serious disadvantages.
So now you're saying that we need bike underpasses at intersections?
very sure I’ve been clear it’s not new or cutting edge or even that good >> it’s older than me for most part.
Not aware of any new underpasses being built for bikes or foot traffic as
you expect. But only tend to be around large car centric infrastructure of >> a certain era.
It’s a 50 year old cycleway along the line of road that was upgraded with >> an eye to be upgraded again to a motorway which never came to pass, the
Do you not understand the costs and other detriments of underpasses? Do
you not understand how unreasonable it is to demand them?
underpasses where for motor focus roads built decades ago, ie of its time
ie the idea was to only have motor traffic on such multi lane roads, such
underpasses are on gritty side as you’d expect.
This said it does mean it bypasses junctions such as crossing the M4
motorway where all non motorway traffic can only travel North/South and due >> to rights of way it would need some sort of crossing, it’s a 3 level
crossing large roundabout with motorway flyover overhead and the
cycleway/footpath crossing under that using the old road.
This are more long bridges than underpasses to be fair, clearly it’s an old
design could the cycleway have gone above? Yes but they would have not been >> able to use the old road, and had to have longer slip roads due to needing >> to keep a grade that HGV could accelerate up, so that would be
significantly more expensive and use more land.
Or the cycleway would have needed its set of lights to cross the roundabout >> but as pedestrians/bikes really have only one direction they can travel
that does seem overkill.
Particularly as due to its location it’s a bypass so it’s fast for cars but
for most cyclists it’s a significant distance/time out of their way. It
happens to be direct for me but I see very few using it, nor does it have
many using Strava (which is self selecting in it’s own way) to check
numbers, like lots of cycle infrastructure along side big bypass type roads >> it doesn’t start where people want or end where they want.
But frankly talking about money considering the cost of the motorway
flyover compared to a small bridge/underpass or even just the cost per mile >> of the multi lane road.
The cycleway even with in parts significant infrastructure is such a tiny
percentage of the roads cost’s particularly these sort of large high speed >> type roads.
Roger Merriman
It'd be fantastic if ll cities could have bicycling infrastructure and maintenance like Oulu Finland. It'd probably cost a fortune to implement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6EaJ1Zd8Kk
Cheers
On 2/11/2024 4:56 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:isn’t most
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I’m suggesting that some bike lane (painted) gaining some wands
acrossfolks idea of segregated bike lane, particularly as such stuff tends to >>>> stop at junctions/giveway’s.
I have one on my commute like that the wands stop traffic wandering
comparedbut it stops just before the junction so is hardly that much use,
junctions. Letto the cycleway that uses lights and underpasses to bypass
don’talone stuff built this century.
It’s a very different thing or to put it bluntly a few random wands
cut it, and is broadly in line with some painted cycleways ie tick box >>>> exercises.
Those paragraphs are a great example of bike segregation fans' ever
increasing demands! As I've said, the demands started with painted bike
lane stripes, escalated to buffered bike lane stripes, then green paint, >>> then posts or wands, then concrete and/or parked cars as barriers.
No one ever though white paint was good it’s always tic box exercise...
Sorry, I can't accept that. I've been interested in these issues for
many decades. In the 1980s, there were no pleas that I remember for
concrete barriers between bike lanes and motor vehicle traffic. The
pleas were for bike lanes, which at the time were defined as a space separated by a paint stripe. I don't remember anyone saying "those are
not good."
Only after those appeared on many hundreds of miles of streets
(admittedly, widely dispersed around our country) did comments appear
saying "Those aren't enough." Perhaps that was because those failed to produce the miracle explosion of bike mode share!
Segregation worried the CTC as though they would end up being mandated to
use them...
Which is not an unrealistic worry! As I recall, John Forester began his battle for rights to the road after he was ticketed for not riding on a sidewalk, or something similar! And I've ridden in places that had
mandatory sidepath laws. I was once stopped by a cop for not riding on
the shoulder - although there was no law saying I had to.
[much detail snipped]
But frankly talking about money considering the cost of the motorwayper mile
flyover compared to a small bridge/underpass or even just the cost
of the multi lane road.speed
The cycleway even with in parts significant infrastructure is such a tiny
percentage of the roads cost’s particularly these sort of large high
type roads.
I think your method of accounting is weak. Rationally, money spent on
public projects shouldn't be justified by saying "Well, it's cheaper
than a freeway, so it must be OK."
There needs to be some justification based on cost-vs-benefit - a subset
of the advantages vs. disadvantages I keep mentioning. Spend ten million
on something like a new freeway bridge, and you'll benefit hundreds of thousands of motorists within a few months. Spend one million on a new bicycle bridge, and you'll benefit a few hundred bicyclists in a few
months - provided it's not winter. That latter situation is much harder
to justify.
Most likely it’s asking for what they think they will get remember concrete >barriers ie kerbs are the original/oldest form of bike infrastructure paint >as infrastructure arrived in the 70/80?
Am Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:08:58 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Most likely it’s asking for what they think they will get remember concrete
barriers ie kerbs are the original/oldest form of bike infrastructure paint >> as infrastructure arrived in the 70/80?
Wrong. Roads are the original form of bike infrastructure and are still
the best. "Bicycle infrastructure" is a comparatively modern euphemism
for segregating cyclists for the convenience of motorists.
Roads are bicycle infrastructure.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pluspora/plainpostings/20220710t2157-bicycle_infrastructure.html>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/cycling101/roundabout.gif>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/cycling101/roundaboutquickandsafe_e960.mp4>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:42:59 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:56:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:32:17 -0500, Frank KrygowskiTo be fair how would he document it? Even stuff like Strava wouldn?t
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my >>>>>> bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional >>>>>>>> "protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any >>>>>>>> local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's
pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure. >>>>>>>> And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months >>>>>>>> old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and >>>>>>> stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty. >>>>>>>>
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is >>>>>>>> useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones aren?t good indicators... >>>>>>
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike >>>>>> club say nobody uses it.
..or so you say....
another undocumented claim from Krygoeski
differentiate between a cyclist on the road and the cyclelane.
To be fair, why would even make the claim. Does he really expect
people to believe him?
I will note though that bikes are much more efficient than cars and so >>>> unless you have huge mode shares even busy cycle infrastructure is fairly >>>> clear as well the bikes have passed through, 20/30 bikes at Westminster >>>> clear as soon as the lights go, cars don?t clear the junction so have to >>>> wait for the lights to change again and so on.
Could ask if there has been a survey?
Yeah, those are loads and load of honesty.
Roger Merriman
Have you not noticed that no matter what topic has been posted,
Krygowsi always has a personal ancdotal story that either disputes or
supports it? Everything has to be about him.
Yes that is the way he described things, to make his point. Different folks >have different ways of expressing themselves.
Roger Merriman
On 2/11/2024 4:56 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:some wands isn’t most
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I’m suggesting that some bike lane (painted) gaining
such stuff tends tofolks idea of segregated bike lane, particularly as
traffic wandering acrossstop at junctions/giveway’s.
I have one on my commute like that the wands stop
much use, comparedbut it stops just before the junction so is hardly that
bypass junctions. Letto the cycleway that uses lights and underpasses to
random wands don’talone stuff built this century.
It’s a very different thing or to put it bluntly a few
cycleways ie tick boxcut it, and is broadly in line with some painted
fans' everexercises.
Those paragraphs are a great example of bike segregation
with painted bikeincreasing demands! As I've said, the demands started
then green paint,lane stripes, escalated to buffered bike lane stripes,
barriers.then posts or wands, then concrete and/or parked cars as
No one ever though white paint was good it’s always ticbox exercise...
Sorry, I can't accept that. I've been interested in these
issues for many decades. In the 1980s, there were no pleas
that I remember for concrete barriers between bike lanes and
motor vehicle traffic. The pleas were for bike lanes, which
at the time were defined as a space separated by a paint
stripe. I don't remember anyone saying "those are not good."
Only after those appeared on many hundreds of miles of
streets (admittedly, widely dispersed around our country)
did comments appear saying "Those aren't enough." Perhaps
that was because those failed to produce the miracle
explosion of bike mode share!
Segregation worried the CTC as though they would end upbeing mandated to
use them...
Which is not an unrealistic worry! As I recall, John
Forester began his battle for rights to the road after he
was ticketed for not riding on a sidewalk, or something
similar! And I've ridden in places that had mandatory
sidepath laws. I was once stopped by a cop for not riding on
the shoulder - although there was no law saying I had to.
[much detail snipped]
But frankly talking about money considering the cost ofthe motorway
flyover compared to a small bridge/underpass or even justthe cost per mile
of the multi lane road.
The cycleway even with in parts significantinfrastructure is such a tiny
percentage of the roads cost’s particularly these sort oflarge high speed
type roads.
I think your method of accounting is weak. Rationally, money
spent on public projects shouldn't be justified by saying
"Well, it's cheaper than a freeway, so it must be OK."
There needs to be some justification based on
cost-vs-benefit - a subset of the advantages vs.
disadvantages I keep mentioning. Spend ten million on
something like a new freeway bridge, and you'll benefit
hundreds of thousands of motorists within a few months.
Spend one million on a new bicycle bridge, and you'll
benefit a few hundred bicyclists in a few months - provided
it's not winter. That latter situation is much harder to
justify.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months
old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and
stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:28:30 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:42:59 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:56:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:32:17 -0500, Frank KrygowskiTo be fair how would he document it? Even stuff like Strava wouldn?t >>>>> differentiate between a cyclist on the road and the cyclelane.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my >>>>>>> bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional >>>>>>>>> "protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any >>>>>>>>> local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's
pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure. >>>>>>>>> And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months >>>>>>>>> old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and
stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty. >>>>>>>>>
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in >>>>>>>>> conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is >>>>>>>>> useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones aren?t good indicators... >>>>>>>
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike
club say nobody uses it.
..or so you say....
another undocumented claim from Krygoeski
To be fair, why would even make the claim. Does he really expect
people to believe him?
I will note though that bikes are much more efficient than cars and so >>>>> unless you have huge mode shares even busy cycle infrastructure is fairly >>>>> clear as well the bikes have passed through, 20/30 bikes at Westminster >>>>> clear as soon as the lights go, cars don?t clear the junction so have to >>>>> wait for the lights to change again and so on.
Could ask if there has been a survey?
Yeah, those are loads and load of honesty.
Roger Merriman
Have you not noticed that no matter what topic has been posted,
Krygowsi always has a personal ancdotal story that either disputes or
supports it? Everything has to be about him.
Yes that is the way he described things, to make his point. Different folks >> have different ways of expressing themselves.
Roger Merriman
One individual's personal anecdote does not validate or invalidate
anything, even if it's true and documented. In this case, it's just
somebody needing to be included in the discussion.
Claiming that you've ridden a certain way for many years and never had
a bicycle accident doesn't validate claims that bicycling that certain
way is safe.
On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 3:56:47 p.m. UTC-6, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:No one ever though white paint was good it’s always tic box exercise, and >> there are examples of much older segregation cycleways some 100 or so years >> old, ie concrete kerbs etc barriers aren’t new, segregation or something >> like it has always been the aim campaigns may have accepted paint and so
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional
"protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any
local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's >>>>> pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure. >>>>> And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months >>>>> old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and >>>> stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is
useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones aren’t good indicators...
OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my
bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of
existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike >>> club say nobody uses it. But you probably know better ...
Talk to me about unprotected junctions, because I don't understand your >>>>> point. Are you saying that any bike facility has to have some fancyI’m suggesting that some bike lane (painted) gaining some wands isn’t most
special treatment at each intersection? What is your minimum acceptable >>>>> standard for that special treatment? (And what does it cost?)
folks idea of segregated bike lane, particularly as such stuff tends to >>>> stop at junctions/giveway’s.
I have one on my commute like that the wands stop traffic wandering across >>>> but it stops just before the junction so is hardly that much use, compared >>>> to the cycleway that uses lights and underpasses to bypass junctions. Let >>>> alone stuff built this century.
It’s a very different thing or to put it bluntly a few random wands don’t
cut it, and is broadly in line with some painted cycleways ie tick box >>>> exercises.
Those paragraphs are a great example of bike segregation fans' ever
increasing demands! As I've said, the demands started with painted bike
lane stripes, escalated to buffered bike lane stripes, then green paint, >>> then posts or wands, then concrete and/or parked cars as barriers.
on, but the idea they where happy with paint is a fantasy.
Segregation worried the CTC as though they would end up being mandated to
use them, for the uk this was probably unjustified as removing rights of
passage (ie using a road) would require a huge political effort and that
parliament would give time for various bills to pass, see also helmet laws. >>
Which is a significant high bar to reach hence neither has happened in the >> uk at least.
No I’m saying the one I use on the commute has a few down its length, I’m
But yes, all that "protection" must end at intersections, which is where >>> the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen. And bike segregation adds
complications and surprises to intersections, which is why some studies
find no great safety advantage to segregation - or in some cases,
serious disadvantages.
So now you're saying that we need bike underpasses at intersections?
very sure I’ve been clear it’s not new or cutting edge or even that good >> it’s older than me for most part.
Not aware of any new underpasses being built for bikes or foot traffic as
you expect. But only tend to be around large car centric infrastructure of >> a certain era.
It’s a 50 year old cycleway along the line of road that was upgraded with >> an eye to be upgraded again to a motorway which never came to pass, the
Do you not understand the costs and other detriments of underpasses? Do
you not understand how unreasonable it is to demand them?
underpasses where for motor focus roads built decades ago, ie of its time
ie the idea was to only have motor traffic on such multi lane roads, such
underpasses are on gritty side as you’d expect.
This said it does mean it bypasses junctions such as crossing the M4
motorway where all non motorway traffic can only travel North/South and due >> to rights of way it would need some sort of crossing, it’s a 3 level
crossing large roundabout with motorway flyover overhead and the
cycleway/footpath crossing under that using the old road.
This are more long bridges than underpasses to be fair, clearly it’s an old
design could the cycleway have gone above? Yes but they would have not been >> able to use the old road, and had to have longer slip roads due to needing >> to keep a grade that HGV could accelerate up, so that would be
significantly more expensive and use more land.
Or the cycleway would have needed its set of lights to cross the roundabout >> but as pedestrians/bikes really have only one direction they can travel
that does seem overkill.
Particularly as due to its location it’s a bypass so it’s fast for cars but
for most cyclists it’s a significant distance/time out of their way. It
happens to be direct for me but I see very few using it, nor does it have
many using Strava (which is self selecting in it’s own way) to check
numbers, like lots of cycle infrastructure along side big bypass type roads >> it doesn’t start where people want or end where they want.
But frankly talking about money considering the cost of the motorway
flyover compared to a small bridge/underpass or even just the cost per mile >> of the multi lane road.
The cycleway even with in parts significant infrastructure is such a tiny
percentage of the roads cost’s particularly these sort of large high speed >> type roads.
Roger Merriman
It'd be fantastic if ll cities could have bicycling infrastructure and maintenance like Oulu Finland. It'd probably cost a fortune to implement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6EaJ1Zd8Kk
Cheers
speed limits are not particularly useful indicators of how safe a road is
or feel. The road on my commute that I use a cycleway next to, is a fairly horrible road to use bike/car due to the traffic levels and chaotic nature
of said traffic due to number of it being on the clock I’d guess ie in a rush.
Compared to other big roads with similar size and possibly higher speeds
and equally busy don’t feel so worrying, I generally drive around than take it rush hour as it’s such a tedious road.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:28:30 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:42:59 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:56:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:32:17 -0500, Frank KrygowskiTo be fair how would he document it? Even stuff like Strava wouldn?t >>>>>> differentiate between a cyclist on the road and the cyclelane.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 5:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:OK. I drive by that facility about once every couple weeks. I ride my >>>>>>>> bike past it a little less often. In its two or three years of >>>>>>>> existence, I've seen only one bicyclist ever use it. Members of our bike
Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional >>>>>>>>>> "protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any >>>>>>>>>> local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's
pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure.
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months >>>>>>>>>> old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and
stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty. >>>>>>>>>>
Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in >>>>>>>>>> conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is >>>>>>>>>> useless and unused.
Bike clubs particularly old school ones aren?t good indicators... >>>>>>>>
club say nobody uses it.
..or so you say....
another undocumented claim from Krygoeski
To be fair, why would even make the claim. Does he really expect
people to believe him?
I will note though that bikes are much more efficient than cars and so >>>>>> unless you have huge mode shares even busy cycle infrastructure is fairly
clear as well the bikes have passed through, 20/30 bikes at Westminster >>>>>> clear as soon as the lights go, cars don?t clear the junction so have to >>>>>> wait for the lights to change again and so on.
Could ask if there has been a survey?
Yeah, those are loads and load of honesty.
Roger Merriman
Have you not noticed that no matter what topic has been posted,
Krygowsi always has a personal ancdotal story that either disputes or
supports it? Everything has to be about him.
Yes that is the way he described things, to make his point. Different folks >>> have different ways of expressing themselves.
Roger Merriman
One individual's personal anecdote does not validate or invalidate
anything, even if it's true and documented. In this case, it's just
somebody needing to be included in the discussion.
Claiming that you've ridden a certain way for many years and never had
a bicycle accident doesn't validate claims that bicycling that certain
way is safe.
In general cycling is safe perhaps not DH MTB to be fair! Where folks >rightly use all sorts of body armour I steer clear of such high risk stuff.
But utility cycling appears to be relatively safe, where I differ from
Frank is being pragmatic ie just because I was happy zipping along with the >cars down the embankment etc doesnt mean everyone was and so on.
Ie its more than just safety
Roger Merriman
On 2/11/2024 1:33 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
speed limits are not particularly useful indicators of how safe a road is
or feel. The road on my commute that I use a cycleway next to, is a fairly >> horrible road to use bike/car due to the traffic levels and chaotic nature >> of said traffic due to number of it being on the clock I’d guess ie in a >> rush.
Compared to other big roads with similar size and possibly higher speeds
and equally busy don’t feel so worrying, I generally drive around than take
it rush hour as it’s such a tedious road.
The only roads, in Silicon Valley, where bicycles are allowed, and you'd
be likely to see 70MPH traffic, are a couple of expressways (different
from freeways) where the speed limit is 45-50 MPH. Because these
expressways have relatively few intersections, and also have a wide
shoulder, some cyclists like to use them despite most of them being
somewhat unpleasant, but you don't see many cyclists.
Foothill Expressway, built on an old railroad right-of-way, is an
exception and it's heavily used by cyclists. It goes from Palo Alto to Cupertino and then turns into other useful cycling roads on both ends—to the northeast it continues to Stanford University, to the southwest into
the foothills, see <https://i.imgur.com/Ttz7ECf.png>. It's both a
popular commute route and a popular recreational route. There is a wide shoulder for most of the way. There used to be three popular bike shops
along the route, including the closed Mike J.'s Chain Reaction, closed
in 2017 and the space in the shopping center is still empty), the closed Cupertino Bike Shop, and the still open Bicycle Outfitter. It's really
the only convenient SW to NE route without taking a maze of suburban
streets, or the horrible El Camino Real.
Considering his reputation I’m not sure I’d use John Forester to back up any argument!
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2
Second Avenue subway extension came in at $1.6 million per foot.
Marginal rate is 44% plus whatever local land tax https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/Finland/Individual/Taxes-on-personal-income
On 2/12/2024 3:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Considering his reputation I’m not sure I’d use John
Forester to back up
any argument!
LOL, Frank’s Corollary to Godwin's Law: “Anyone that cites
John Forester in a discussion on rec.bicycles.tech has lost
the argument.”
On 2/12/2024 4:28 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Have you not noticed that no matter what topic has been posted,
Krygowsi always has a personal ancdotal story that either disputes or
supports it? Everything has to be about him.
Yes that is the way he described things, to make his point. Different folks >> have different ways of expressing themselves.
I have lots of friends, I've done lots of things. When some of those are >relevant, I mention them.
I'm sorry if those facts make others jealous. But it's not my problem.
On 2/12/2024 8:54 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/11/2024 2:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months
old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and
stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
"...just a few months old" and Frank already wants to declare it a failure.
I strongly suspect it's going to attract no more cyclists than the other >nearby facility that's several years old. That is, roughly zero.
Aside from the design deficiencies, the simple fact is neither one was >needed. The adjacent streets are perfectly fine for cycling. The
mentality that says "You gotta have some place _special_ or you can't
ride a bike" is very, very weird.
On 2/12/2024 6:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2024 4:56 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Sorry, I can't accept that. I've been interested in these issues for
No one ever though white paint was good its always tic box exercise... >>
many decades. In the 1980s, there were no pleas that I remember for
concrete barriers between bike lanes and motor vehicle traffic. The
pleas were for bike lanes, which at the time were defined as a space
separated by a paint stripe. I don't remember anyone saying "those are
not good."
Only after those appeared on many hundreds of miles of streets
(admittedly, widely dispersed around our country) did comments appear
saying "Those aren't enough." Perhaps that was because those failed to
produce the miracle explosion of bike mode share!
Most likely its asking for what they think they will get rememberconcrete
barriers ie kerbs are the original/oldest form of bike infrastructurepaint
as infrastructure arrived in the 70/80?
?? I'm not aware of ANY concrete or curb separated bikeways in the 1970s
or 1980s. There were certainly none in the cities I lived in, visited
and bicycled in during those times.
In those days there were also very few paint stripe bike lanes; but
that's all people were asking for, as they were saying they would get
lots of people on bikes. I never heard a hint that those proposed bike
lanes were only a temporary stepping stone to far more expensive
facilities.
Heck, look at Portland, Oregon's facility history. That city probably
spent more on bike facilities than any other American city. The great
bulk was paint. Until maybe 5-10 years ago, almost none of the bike
lanes were "protected." There was lots of bragging about what they had,
and no hint by the proud segregation advocates that it was all misguided.
mandated toSegregation worried the CTC as though they would end up being
use them...
Which is not an unrealistic worry! As I recall, John Forester began his
battle for rights to the road after he was ticketed for not riding on a
sidewalk, or something similar! And I've ridden in places that had
mandatory sidepath laws. I was once stopped by a cop for not riding on
the shoulder - although there was no law saying I had to.
Considering his reputation Im not sure Id use John Forester to back up any argument!
Forester has been demonized by the bike segregation culture. They
couldn't defeat his ideas by logical argument so they turned to mockery
and lies. (Not unlike many of the discussions here!)
Admittedly, Forester had an abrasive personality that enabled some of
those attacks. But he was intensely intelligent and very perceptive.
Most of his analyses and positions were perfectly valid, and quite a few
were brilliant.
Have you read much of his work? Or are you basing your view on his
opponents propaganda?
On 2/12/2024 10:03 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/12/2024 3:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Considering his reputation Im not sure Id use John
Forester to back up
any argument!
LOL, Franks Corollary to Godwin's Law: Anyone that cites
John Forester in a discussion on rec.bicycles.tech has lost
the argument.
I disagree strongly with that conclusion.
On 2/12/2024 10:58 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/12/2024 5:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Marginal rate is 44% plus whatever local land tax
https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/Finland/Individual/Taxes-on-personal-income
Actually, for Finland, it's 33.71% on average (13.7% for the highest
bracket for federal, and an average of 20.01% for local income tax (as
high as 23.5%)).
What percentage do you think someone in the U.S. pays between State and
Federal income tax, Medicare, Social Security, and SDI? For us, in 2022,
State & Federal taxes were about 23%, then add about 8% for SSI and
Medicare and SDI and you're at 31%. Then there are a plethora of added
fees and taxes added to property taxes to cover the costs that income
taxes and sales don't cover, for us, this tax year it comes to $1031 or
another 0.374% for sewers, libraries, flood control, schools, vector
control, storm drains, and water infrastructure.
Where the European countries really sock it to you is in the VAT. In
Finland it's 24% (14% for food and for restaurants). In the U.S., state
and local sales tax varies by city and state, from 0% in most of Oregon,
to up to 10.25% in some U.S. cities. Actually though, in the U.S. you
have to add another 15-20% for tips so restaurant add-ons are actually
higher in the U.S.. Restaurants have also taken to adding "junk fees"
but in California these will no longer be legal after July 1, 2024.
ISTM that bellyaching about taxes comes down to "If I had lower taxes my
life would be much better." It's an idea founded on "More money would
make me a lot happier."
In general, neither idea is true. Once a person has enough money to take
care of necessary living expenses and some minor luxuries (a second or
third bike, a dinner & movie date, an occasional vacation), more money
does little to make one happier.
OTOH, higher taxed European countries remove a lot of anxiety from the >citizens. For example, they don't worry about losing their homes due to
huge medical bills. They get more vacation time, which decreases work
stress. They're not nearly as worried as Americans about crime,
especially gun crime. ISTM their societies simply run better for the
common citizen.
Reduce taxes so you can afford to buy another gun to defend yourself
while riding your bike? That's the American ideal. It's kind of weird.
On Sat Feb 10 22:55:36 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:others ride, blaming them for your problems is prfetty stupid sounding.
On 2/10/2024 8:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
We can be absolutely certain that Frank has never ridden in Silicon Valley with street traffic traveling 70 mph. Having done so even once would have him thanking his lucky stars for bike facilities rather than talking about taking the lane.
You're right, I haven't ridden in Silicon Valley. One can't ride
everywhere.
OTOH, John Forester, who did the most to develop and explain the
concepts of Vehicular Cycling, certainly did. IIRC he was from somewhere
right around there. Possibly Sunnyvale. He absolutely rode there using
the techniques I've discussed.
Tom expresses such fear of using his legal right to the road!
--
- Frank Krygowski
If you think that I'm afraid of using my rights to the road, WHY do I put in so many more miles than you? Not to mention so much more climbing where the difference in speeds between cars an bikes is so large? When you have so many problems with the way
On 2/12/2024 10:03 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/12/2024 3:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Considering his reputation I’m not sure I’d use John Forester to back up
any argument!
LOL, Frank’s Corollary to Godwin's Law: “Anyone that cites John
Forester in a discussion on rec.bicycles.tech has lost the argument.”
I disagree strongly with that conclusion.
On 2/12/2024 6:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:concrete
On 2/11/2024 4:56 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Sorry, I can't accept that. I've been interested in these issues for
No one ever though white paint was good it’s always tic box exercise... >>>
many decades. In the 1980s, there were no pleas that I remember for
concrete barriers between bike lanes and motor vehicle traffic. The
pleas were for bike lanes, which at the time were defined as a space
separated by a paint stripe. I don't remember anyone saying "those are
not good."
Only after those appeared on many hundreds of miles of streets
(admittedly, widely dispersed around our country) did comments appear
saying "Those aren't enough." Perhaps that was because those failed to
produce the miracle explosion of bike mode share!
Most likely it’s asking for what they think they will get remember
barriers ie kerbs are the original/oldest form of bike infrastructurepaint
as infrastructure arrived in the 70/80?
?? I'm not aware of ANY concrete or curb separated bikeways in the 1970s
or 1980s. There were certainly none in the cities I lived in, visited
and bicycled in during those times.
In those days there were also very few paint stripe bike lanes; but
that's all people were asking for, as they were saying they would get
lots of people on bikes. I never heard a hint that those proposed bike
lanes were only a temporary stepping stone to far more expensive
facilities.
Heck, look at Portland, Oregon's facility history. That city probably
spent more on bike facilities than any other American city. The great
bulk was paint. Until maybe 5-10 years ago, almost none of the bike
lanes were "protected." There was lots of bragging about what they had,
and no hint by the proud segregation advocates that it was all misguided.
mandated toSegregation worried the CTC as though they would end up being
use them...
Which is not an unrealistic worry! As I recall, John Forester began his
battle for rights to the road after he was ticketed for not riding on a
sidewalk, or something similar! And I've ridden in places that had
mandatory sidepath laws. I was once stopped by a cop for not riding on
the shoulder - although there was no law saying I had to.
Considering his reputation I’m not sure I’d use John Forester to back up >> any argument!
Forester has been demonized by the bike segregation culture. They
couldn't defeat his ideas by logical argument so they turned to mockery
and lies. (Not unlike many of the discussions here!)
Admittedly, Forester had an abrasive personality that enabled some of
those attacks. But he was intensely intelligent and very perceptive.
Most of his analyses and positions were perfectly valid, and quite a few
were brilliant.
Have you read much of his work? Or are you basing your view on his
opponents propaganda?
On 2/12/2024 8:54 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/11/2024 2:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months
old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and
stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
"...just a few months old" and Frank already wants to declare it a failure.
I strongly suspect it's going to attract no more cyclists than the other nearby facility that's several years old. That is, roughly zero.
Aside from the design deficiencies, the simple fact is neither one was needed. The adjacent streets are perfectly fine for cycling. The
mentality that says "You gotta have some place _special_ or you can't
ride a bike" is very, very weird.
Are the adjacent streets as direct? Or where folks want to go? London did
try quiet ways ie marked back streets and so on, but they failed, they
where not direct or where folks wanted to go often meandering routes, particularly for women cyclists could feel a bit too quiet and iffy.
In general needs to be direct and easy to use, these are neither, parks low traffic neighbourhoods can offer filters though places which is a different to routing cyclist off on back streets.
On 2/12/2024 9:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/12/2024 10:03 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/12/2024 3:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Considering his reputation I’m not sure I’d use John
Forester to back up
any argument!
LOL, Frank’s Corollary to Godwin's Law: “Anyone that
cites John Forester in a discussion on rec.bicycles.tech
has lost the argument.”
I disagree strongly with that conclusion.
"Important to remember that the Vehicular Cycling guy (John
Forester) was heavily supported by CalTrans and AAHSTO and
that's why his ideas had so much power in the US. He was
basically a token "cyclist" they could trot out who would
say "everything the traffic engineers do is good and correct
and it's the cyclists who are wrong." There's little
evidence he was ever much of a cyclist and virtually all of
his theories about cycling were disproven during his
lifetime but he never changed his tune.
It's fun to watch some of his talks from later in life where
the mask really came off, he had no qualms about calling
cyclists stupid and weak for not wanting to share the road
with cars, and truly did not care about the safety of
children, elderly, or differently abled people who might not
be able to keep up.
I don't think you could point to any single other person
who's so effectively killed cyclists and set cycling back in
the US. Anti-bike crusaders could only dream of being so
effective as Effective Cycling has been."
On 2/12/2024 2:26 PM, sms wrote:
On 2/12/2024 9:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/12/2024 10:03 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/12/2024 3:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Considering his reputation Im not sure Id use John Forester to
back up
any argument!
LOL, Franks Corollary to Godwin's Law: Anyone that cites John
Forester in a discussion on rec.bicycles.tech has lost the argument.
I disagree strongly with that conclusion.
"Important to remember that the Vehicular Cycling guy (John Forester)
was heavily supported by CalTrans and AAHSTO and that's why his ideas
had so much power in the US."
Officials at CalTrans and AASHTO didn't consider Forester a god who must
be obeyed. They examined the facts that he provided and decided he was
right. After all, CalTrans and AASHTO are largely staffed by engineers. >Engineers tend to deal in logic and reality.
The facts should not be controversial. Things like "Bicyclists do have a >legal right to the road." Principles like "It's dangerous for bicyclists
to ride contraflow." Or "At an intersection, one's position should
correspond to one's destination - for example, no left turns from the >gutter." Things like "Sidepaths produce conflicts at every intersection."
Forester laid out these facts in a logical manner. Those who respected
facts and logic more than missionary idealism agreed with him.
Unfortunately, there are still plenty of missionary idealists; and these >days, they're well funded. They're promoting fashionable myths.
According to them, with the VERY latest, VERY trendiest, "this year's
most innovative" bike facilities, we'll finally get our bike mode share
above 1%
That's despite their promises failing for over 30 years now.
On 2/12/2024 5:31 PM, John B. wrote:
It must be wonderful to be so superior.
"there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed,
know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling."
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/phkWDoYngY0/m/sSpJLrQKvKQJ >>
But my little 6 year old girl is still chasing her brother in the
village. Perhaps Frankie can give lessons on how to better chase your
brother down a village lane?
Isn't it a liberal dogma that everyone is exactly as good as everyone
else, so there's no need to try to educate oneself or increase one's >competence?
All the children are above average, and everyone gets the same sized
gold plated trophy "for participation." Even if they weren't really there!
And don't ever hint that anyone might know a little bit less. Why, it
might hurt their feelings!
On Mon Feb 5 11:53:14 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Maybe ten years ago there were some pretty prominent (at least, in bike
advocacy circles) prosecutions of cyclists who really needed to use
roadways for transportation to work. See
https://road.cc/content/news/130546-kentucky-cyclist-repeatedly-arrested-%E2%80%93-commuting-road
Despite pleas for legal assistance, the LAB pretended she didn't
exist. As I recall, she eventually had to move out of the area.
Another guy I've met was in a very similar situation in some New England
state. He was able to persist in his battle against the cops and finally
win. But again, LAB took no interest in preserving his right to the road.
And I'll note, neither of those cases involved bike facilities! The
battles were over fundamental ability to use the road at all!
The Ohio Bicycle Federation was able to modify Ohio law to say that bike
lanes, etc. cannot be mandatory. I don't know how many other states have
similar laws.
We both know that because of the difference in cities
between here and Europe that large scale commuting via
bicycles is highly ujnlikely as long as people can afford a
car.
On 2/12/2024 4:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
?? I'm not aware of ANY concrete or curb separated bikeways in the 1970s >>> or 1980s. There were certainly none in the cities I lived in, visited
and bicycled in during those times.
My old cycleway was built or at least 1st section as it was only built
along side the roads. But the first bit was done in late 60s your
Separated by a kerb and in all but one location verge.
But its far from the first are segregated cycleways in london and uk back >> to the 1930s maybe earlier.
See <https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/41590/>
I don't doubt that there were some antique attempts at "protected"
on-road bike lanes. I didn't think any were used in the '70s or '80s. As
I remembered after my post, one was tried in Davis CA in the 1960s, but
I don't think it survived into the 1970s because of increased crash
counts. I don't know what year (or maybe years?) the one in Columbus
Ohio briefly existed before it was removed due to increased crashes.
Ive read enough.
Forester has been demonized by the bike segregation culture. They
couldn't defeat his ideas by logical argument so they turned to mockery
and lies. (Not unlike many of the discussions here!)
Admittedly, Forester had an abrasive personality that enabled some of
those attacks. But he was intensely intelligent and very perceptive.
Most of his analyses and positions were perfectly valid, and quite a few >>> were brilliant.
Have you read much of his work? Or are you basing your view on his
opponents propaganda?
Did you make it through any of his books? What specifically did you
object to?
Am Mon, 12 Feb 2024 18:34:18 GMT schrieb Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>:
On Mon Feb 5 11:53:14 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Maybe ten years ago there were some pretty prominent (at least, in bike
advocacy circles) prosecutions of cyclists who really needed to use
roadways for transportation to work. See
https://road.cc/content/news/130546-kentucky-cyclist-repeatedly-arrested-%E2%80%93-commuting-road
Despite pleas for legal assistance, the LAB pretended she didn't
exist. As I recall, she eventually had to move out of the area.
Another guy I've met was in a very similar situation in some New England >>> state. He was able to persist in his battle against the cops and finally >>> win. But again, LAB took no interest in preserving his right to the road. >>>
And I'll note, neither of those cases involved bike facilities! The
battles were over fundamental ability to use the road at all!
The Ohio Bicycle Federation was able to modify Ohio law to say that bike >>> lanes, etc. cannot be mandatory. I don't know how many other states have >>> similar laws.
We both know that because of the difference in cities
between here and Europe that large scale commuting via
bicycles is highly ujnlikely as long as people can afford a
car.
I don't know about you, but IMHO this difference is not as big as you
seem to think. Even in Europe, commuting by bike on a large scale is
rare. Short distance cycling, easier than and mostly substituting
walking, is ubiquitous in small, tiny costal countries like the
Netherlands and costal cities like for example Copenhagen, but outside
of that, in larger, less dense populated regions, where distances are
longer and hills have to be climbed, people commuting by bike exists,
but it is rare. This is somewhat compensated by people who ride their
road bikes there for fun and enjoyment. Many younger people do it as a compensation for a mostly sedentary office job, some retired people like
me do it just to stay fit and to prolong the ability to participate in
that kind of enjoyment.
In either case, "bicycle infrastructure"is a detriment. In the best
case, rarely that is, it is just superfluous and unnecessary, in the
more frequent case it is dangerous, inconvenient to use and, of course, mandatory.
Pictures from a 118 km ride in 2022 show an example at the border
between North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220808/DSC01017.jpg> <https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220808/DSC01021.jpg> <https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220821/DSC01267.jpg>
This is a broad, somewhat old and almost unused and very bikeable road, sidelined by a strip of heavily broken concrete plates marked as a
footpath and bidirectional mandatory bike path. I've used that road
often in the past, when frequenting the nearby Effelsberg radio
telescope, but have, with one exeption, never seen any pedestrians there
- and not that many cyclists, either.
These mandatory paths have two main purposes
- politics, they are used to boost the statistics of cycle path
kilometers.
Every new kilometer of unused cycle paths makes bike paths look more
safe. If not, who cares? Get cyclists out of the way for the convenience
of motorists and perhaps get better accident statistics at the same
time, so you look better in the eyes of the general public, as a
politican! Win Win!)
- to obtain federal funds, which are only given for mandatory cycle
paths. With other words, your tax money at work for prohibiting you from using roads you already paid for.
Whether these bike paths are used by cyclists or not is mostly
irrelevant, in both cases, and it shows.
For more context and more pictures, have a look at
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pluspora/plainpostings/2022_08_08_bonn_effelsberg_willerscheid_by_racing_bike.html>
This is an adhoc translation of a posting originally written in German language.
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:...
Am Mon, 12 Feb 2024 18:34:18 GMT schrieb Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>:
On Mon Feb 5 11:53:14 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
We both know that because of the difference in cities
between here and Europe that large scale commuting via
bicycles is highly ujnlikely as long as people can afford a
car.
I don't know about you, but IMHO this difference is not as big as you
seem to think. Even in Europe, commuting by bike on a large scale is
rare. Short distance cycling, easier than and mostly substituting
walking, is ubiquitous in small, tiny costal countries like the
Netherlands and costal cities like for example Copenhagen, but outside
of that, in larger, less dense populated regions, where distances are
longer and hills have to be climbed, people commuting by bike exists,
but it is rare. This is somewhat compensated by people who ride their
road bikes there for fun and enjoyment. Many younger people do it as a
compensation for a mostly sedentary office job, some retired people like
me do it just to stay fit and to prolong the ability to participate in
that kind of enjoyment.
It’s hardly rare! Bikes are a common sight to see on roads and cycleways be >that london or the hills of mid Wales. Ie that you see a bike isn’t a rare >sight.
And in most cities they are used and hills absolutely do not put folks off, >Bristol/Bath are both in a steep valley and are “cycling city’s” with there
cycling culture and so on.
In either case, "bicycle infrastructure"is a detriment. In the best
case, rarely that is, it is just superfluous and unnecessary, in the
more frequent case it is dangerous, inconvenient to use and, of course,
mandatory.
Not in all Europe?
Uk for one no mandatory bike infrastructure and to the
best of my knowledge transport for london claims that cycling numbers grow >faster closer to segregation infrastructure such as I’ve ridden today to >see Hammersmith bridge and it’s temporary cycle lane across it.
....Pictures from a 118 km ride in 2022 show an example at the border
between North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220808/DSC01017.jpg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220808/DSC01021.jpg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220821/DSC01267.jpg>
This is a broad, somewhat old and almost unused and very bikeable road,
sidelined by a strip of heavily broken concrete plates marked as a
footpath and bidirectional mandatory bike path. I've used that road
often in the past, when frequenting the nearby Effelsberg radio
telescope, but have, with one exeption, never seen any pedestrians there
- and not that many cyclists, either.
For more context and more pictures, have a look at
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pluspora/plainpostings/2022_08_08_bonn_effelsberg_willerscheid_by_racing_bike.html>
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:21:45?AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/12/2024 4:28 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Sol...@old.bikers.org> wrote:I have lots of friends, I've done lots of things. When some of those are
Have you not noticed that no matter what topic has been posted,
Krygowsi always has a personal ancdotal story that either disputes or
supports it? Everything has to be about him.
Yes that is the way he described things, to make his point. Different folks
have different ways of expressing themselves.
relevant, I mention them.
I'm sorry if those facts make others jealous. But it's not my problem.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank, it is nice that you have friends, but their experiences aren't yours and your referring to their expertise is silly because you don't actually know what it is.
On 2/12/2024 4:35 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/12/2024 8:54 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/11/2024 2:48 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months >>>>>> old, in the downtown.
Which is why it was installed in london, to demonstrate the numbers and >>>>> stop the Vincent Stops of the world from claiming it was empty.
"...just a few months old" and Frank already wants to declare it a failure.
I strongly suspect it's going to attract no more cyclists than the other >>> nearby facility that's several years old. That is, roughly zero.
Aside from the design deficiencies, the simple fact is neither one was
needed. The adjacent streets are perfectly fine for cycling. The
mentality that says "You gotta have some place _special_ or you can't
ride a bike" is very, very weird.
Are the adjacent streets as direct? Or where folks want to go?
"As direct?" Absolutely! They are right along the roads I occasionally
ride. One of the two facilities I'm describing uses the existing street pavement. They just separated its pavement from normal traffic lanes by concrete curbs and posts. The second facility, a few months old, runs essentially where the pedestrian sidewalk used to run, immediately
adjacent to the road.
Are they where people want to go? I think they hoped the first would
help lure people from the downtown to the nearby metropark. I ride it
for that reason, and our bike club has some rides that use that as a bit
of their route. But there's been no great crowd of bike users with or
without the facility. The newer bi-directional sidewalk bike path has an entertainment amphitheater and a city park adjacent, but I doubt many
people are going to ride bikes to, say, a Monster Truck show.
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:17:07 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:...
Am Mon, 12 Feb 2024 18:34:18 GMT schrieb Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>:
On Mon Feb 5 11:53:14 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
We both know that because of the difference in cities
between here and Europe that large scale commuting via
bicycles is highly ujnlikely as long as people can afford a
car.
I don't know about you, but IMHO this difference is not as big as you
seem to think. Even in Europe, commuting by bike on a large scale is
rare. Short distance cycling, easier than and mostly substituting
walking, is ubiquitous in small, tiny costal countries like the
Netherlands and costal cities like for example Copenhagen, but outside
of that, in larger, less dense populated regions, where distances are
longer and hills have to be climbed, people commuting by bike exists,
but it is rare. This is somewhat compensated by people who ride their
road bikes there for fun and enjoyment. Many younger people do it as a
compensation for a mostly sedentary office job, some retired people like >>> me do it just to stay fit and to prolong the ability to participate in
that kind of enjoyment.
It’s hardly rare! Bikes are a common sight to see on roads and cycleways be
that london or the hills of mid Wales. Ie that you see a bike isn’t a rare >> sight.
Riding short distances in densely populated cities, where cycling is
often much faster than using a car or public transport in the inner
areas, is common. The common reaction to that, trying to get cycling
out of the way of motorists, is also popular with politicians. They can easily sell it to both conflicting parties! Scare the cyclists to death
and sell their escape to the reservates to the others as an advantage.
But that's somewhat beside the point. My remark was about "larger, less
dense populated regions, where distances are longer and hills have to be climbed". I Don't know about Wales, and don't know what counts as rare
in your opinion. When I leave town, cyclist density changes from
"almost more cyclists than cars" to "not that many cyclists". Cycleways don't change any of that.
And in most cities they are used and hills absolutely do not put folks off, >> Bristol/Bath are both in a steep valley and are “cycling city’s” with there
cycling culture and so on.
Many cities are "in a steep valley", even Bonn, where we live, is
located in such a valley, have a look at the 3D rendering in my linked article. But most cyclists never leave their valley. At least they
don't do it by cycling.
Some people put their bike on the rear rack of their car and drive
twenty kilometers into the countryside to do a few effortless kilometers riding in circles on the plateau. Some now do this on a motorized bike, instead of riding a bicycle. This isn't traffic, it's similar to
visiting an amusement park.
Did you see any cyclists in the pictures shown by me, attracted by that wonderful cycle path?
In either case, "bicycle infrastructure"is a detriment. In the best
case, rarely that is, it is just superfluous and unnecessary, in the
more frequent case it is dangerous, inconvenient to use and, of course,
mandatory.
Not in all Europe?
In those parts of Europe where we cycled long enough and far enough.
This includes large parts of Germany, France and some parts of Italy.
Uk for one no mandatory bike infrastructure and to the
best of my knowledge transport for london claims that cycling numbers grow >> faster closer to segregation infrastructure such as I’ve ridden today to >> see Hammersmith bridge and it’s temporary cycle lane across it.
People claim that here, too. Most often, they conveniently confuse
cause and effect. Segregation infrastructure is either built after the
fact, to get those pesty cyclists out of the way for the convenience of motorists, or it is built and they never come.
While it is nice to hear that the UK doesn't have mandatory cycling infrastructure, frankly, I don't care. We are plagued by that. Outside
the most bizare cases it is almost impossible to cancel the obligation,
and even for not mandatory infrastructure motorists have enough ways of enforcing an imaginary rule, anyway.
For context, shortened
....Pictures from a 118 km ride in 2022 show an example at the border
between North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220808/DSC01017.jpg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220808/DSC01021.jpg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20220821/DSC01267.jpg>
This is a broad, somewhat old and almost unused and very bikeable road,
sidelined by a strip of heavily broken concrete plates marked as a
footpath and bidirectional mandatory bike path. I've used that road
often in the past, when frequenting the nearby Effelsberg radio
telescope, but have, with one exeption, never seen any pedestrians there >>> - and not that many cyclists, either.
For more context and more pictures, have a look at
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pluspora/plainpostings/2022_08_08_bonn_effelsberg_willerscheid_by_racing_bike.html>
Not going to find any cycleways or similar as the population density is so >low, unlikely to see any utility cycling out on the hills though might well >see roadies or MTB types.
On 2/13/2024 7:40 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 23:15:06 -0500, Frank KrygowskiYou don't know much about kids, do you. And before you ,post some
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/12/2024 5:31 PM, John B. wrote:
"there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed, >>>>>> know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling."
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/phkWDoYngY0/m/sSpJLrQKvKQJ
It must be wonderful to be so superior.
But my little 6 year old girl is still chasing her brother in the
village. Perhaps Frankie can give lessons on how to better chase your >>>>> brother down a village lane?
Isn't it a liberal dogma that everyone is exactly as good as everyone
else, so there's no need to try to educate oneself or increase one's
competence?
All the children are above average, and everyone gets the same sized
gold plated trophy "for participation." Even if they weren't really there! >>
inane argument your posting above certainly makes it obvious.
Nope, the girl is determined to overtake her big brother and beat him
down the hill..
Your point seemed to be that since a 6 year old girl can ride a bike,
there's nothing to learn about riding a bike. Is that not what you implied?
My point is that not all bicyclists are equally competent. As with
driving, engineering, bicycle work and pretty much everything else, it's >possible to study, learn and gain skills and competence; and an adult
should certainly be more competent than a 6 year old. Aren't you?
But it's not mandatory. Some people prefer living in their own personal >walled garden, bound by their limitations and ignorance. Some disparage >people with more initiative, saying it's silly to gain more knowledge
and competence than they have.
I think that's a pitiful way to live.
It’s hardly rare! Bikes are a common sight to see on roads and cycleways be that london or the hills of mid Wales. Ie that you see a bike isn’t a rare sight.
And in most cities they are used and hills absolutely do not put folks off, Bristol/Bath are both in a steep valley and are “cycling city’s” with there
cycling culture and so on.
On 2/13/2024 7:40 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 23:15:06 -0500, Frank KrygowskiYou don't know much about kids, do you. And before you ,post some
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/12/2024 5:31 PM, John B. wrote:
"there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed, >>>>>> know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling."
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/phkWDoYngY0/m/sSpJLrQKvKQJ
It must be wonderful to be so superior.
But my little 6 year old girl is still chasing her brother in the
village. Perhaps Frankie can give lessons on how to better chase your >>>>> brother down a village lane?
Isn't it a liberal dogma that everyone is exactly as good as everyone
else, so there's no need to try to educate oneself or increase one's
competence?
All the children are above average, and everyone gets the same sized
gold plated trophy "for participation." Even if they weren't really there! >>
inane argument your posting above certainly makes it obvious.
Nope, the girl is determined to overtake her big brother and beat him
down the hill..
Your point seemed to be that since a 6 year old girl can ride a bike,
there's nothing to learn about riding a bike. Is that not what you implied?
My point is that not all bicyclists are equally competent. As with
driving, engineering, bicycle work and pretty much everything else, it's possible to study, learn and gain skills and competence; and an adult
should certainly be more competent than a 6 year old. Aren't you?
But it's not mandatory. Some people prefer living in their own personal walled garden, bound by their limitations and ignorance. Some disparage people with more initiative, saying it's silly to gain more knowledge
and competence than they have.
I think that's a pitiful way to live.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/13/2024 7:40 AM, John B. wrote:Well indeed I have fresh Green Gravel riders at the club, they are all
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 23:15:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/12/2024 5:31 PM, John B. wrote:
"there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed, >>>>>>> know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling."
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/phkWDoYngY0/m/sSpJLrQKvKQJ
It must be wonderful to be so superior.
But my little 6 year old girl is still chasing her brother in the
village. Perhaps Frankie can give lessons on how to better chase your >>>>>> brother down a village lane?
Isn't it a liberal dogma that everyone is exactly as good as everyone >>>>> else, so there's no need to try to educate oneself or increase one's >>>>> competence?
All the children are above average, and everyone gets the same sized >>>>> gold plated trophy "for participation." Even if they weren't really there!
You don't know much about kids, do you. And before you ,post some
inane argument your posting above certainly makes it obvious.
Nope, the girl is determined to overtake her big brother and beat him
down the hill..
Your point seemed to be that since a 6 year old girl can ride a bike,
there's nothing to learn about riding a bike. Is that not what you implied? >>
My point is that not all bicyclists are equally competent. As with
driving, engineering, bicycle work and pretty much everything else, it's
possible to study, learn and gain skills and competence; and an adult
should certainly be more competent than a 6 year old. Aren't you?
But it's not mandatory. Some people prefer living in their own personal
walled garden, bound by their limitations and ignorance. Some disparage
people with more initiative, saying it's silly to gain more knowledge
and competence than they have.
I think that's a pitiful way to live.
fitter than I but I have quite a large technical skill advantage, due to my >MTB background.
The gap is closing as they learn but remains ie Im better at picking my
line though stuff and my weight/position so on.
Roger Merriman
On 2/13/2024 10:25 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 7:55:41?PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>> On 2/10/2024 8:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
You're right, I haven't ridden in Silicon Valley. One can't ride
We can be absolutely certain that Frank has never ridden in Silicon Valley with street traffic traveling 70 mph. Having done so even once would have him thanking his lucky stars for bike facilities rather than talking about taking the lane.
everywhere.
OTOH, John Forester, who did the most to develop and explain the
concepts of Vehicular Cycling, certainly did. IIRC he was from somewhere >>> right around there. Possibly Sunnyvale. He absolutely rode there using
the techniques I've discussed.
Tom expresses such fear of using his legal right to the road!
--
- Frank Krygowski
John Forrester road in Silicon Valley with a population 1/8th what it is now. But apparently you don't think that makes a difference.
It may. I don't know the area at all.
But I recall many posts here over the years with one similar theme: "You >don't know how dangerous it is where _I_ ride!! It's terrible here!!"
But the _Cycling Savvy_ education program was founded near Orlando,
Florida, a place many people claim is deadly for cycling. >https://cyclingsavvy.org/
And of course I've gotten similar comments about roads in my area: "I
would _never_ ride on that road!! It's too dangerous!!" Yet I have
ridden those local roads, and I've ridden in some of those other areas.
Some places are nicer than others, of course. But also, some people are
more competent than others. Some people are less fearful than others.
Do whatever makes you comfortable, Tom. It doesn't matter to me.
Had a look at the heat map of Youngstown (Strava) by a staggering amount Fifth Avenue is clearly the main way such cyclists travel note this is
folks using Strava so folks with a performance interest.
And seems to have some sort of cycle infrastructure using satellite view
now, though doesn’t show on street view yet.
On 2/13/2024 5:17 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
It’s hardly rare! Bikes are a common sight to see on roads and cycleways be
that london or the hills of mid Wales. Ie that you see a bike isn’t a rare >> sight.
And in most cities they are used and hills absolutely do not put folks off, >> Bristol/Bath are both in a steep valley and are “cycling city’s” with there
cycling culture and so on.
San Francisco is full of hills and cycling rates have greatly increased
since more bicycle infrastructure has been built.
On 2/13/2024 10:28 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:17:07 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
In either case, "bicycle infrastructure"is a detriment. In the best
case, rarely that is, it is just superfluous and unnecessary, in the
more frequent case it is dangerous, inconvenient to use and, of course, >>>> mandatory.
Not in all Europe?
In those parts of Europe where we cycled long enough and far enough.
This includes large parts of Germany, France and some parts of Italy.
I'm curious about the enforcement of mandatory sidepaths. I've ridden in France, and just a bit in Italy and Germany, but nobody told me anything about having to use a sidepath.
What would be the likely result of riding on the road you photographed, ignoring the ugly looking sidepath? Would motorists be abusive? Would
police be called and issue you fines?
On 2/13/2024 9:00 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Had a look at the heat map of Youngstown (Strava) by a staggering amount
Fifth Avenue is clearly the main way such cyclists travel note this is
folks using Strava so folks with a performance interest.
And seems to have some sort of cycle infrastructure using satellite view
now, though doesn’t show on street view yet.
Looks like they just painted a bicycle symbol on the regular traffic lanes.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:44:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Not going to find any cycleways or similar as the population density is so >>low, unlikely to see any utility cycling out on the hills though might well >>see roadies or MTB types.
There's a 29+ bike trail that runs through "the green swamp."
https://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recreation/green-swamp-wilderness-preserve
It's a great place to ride. Lots of birds, gaters, snakes, deer, etc.
I've ridden it up and back on occasion, and not seen another human.
Lately, it seems to have gotten more popular.
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:15:30 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder ><Soloman@old.bikers.org>:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:44:48 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Not going to find any cycleways or similar as the population density is so >>>low, unlikely to see any utility cycling out on the hills though might well >>>see roadies or MTB types.
There's a 29+ bike trail that runs through "the green swamp."
What have some trails in an unpopulated nature preservation park far far
away have to do with cycling where one lives or where one stays during a >vacation? Or with where and how to ride a bike to visit a family member
or a friend living in another city?
https://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recreation/green-swamp-wilderness-preserve
It's a great place to ride. Lots of birds, gaters, snakes, deer, etc.
I've ridden it up and back on occasion, and not seen another human.
Lately, it seems to have gotten more popular.
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy
visit.
Germany is quite car centric it feels, think also the German bike light >regulations and so on.
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:27:33 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Germany is quite car centric it feels, think also the German bike light
regulations and so on.
Not as car centric as the Netherlands and the German bike light
regulations aren't that bad. These became a lot better, a while ago.
They still leave a few things to be desired, but early on they caused
the development of some quite effective generator powered lights.
Remove compulsory bike paths from StVO, allow high beams like those in
cars to StVZO, wait a decade, and it becomes almost paradiese, here.
On 2/13/2024 10:28 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:17:07 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
In either case, "bicycle infrastructure"is a detriment. In the best
case, rarely that is, it is just superfluous and unnecessary, in the
more frequent case it is dangerous, inconvenient to use and, of course, >>>> mandatory.
Not in all Europe?
In those parts of Europe where we cycled long enough and far enough.
This includes large parts of Germany, France and some parts of Italy.
I'm curious about the enforcement of mandatory sidepaths. I've ridden in >France, and just a bit in Italy and Germany, but nobody told me anything >about having to use a sidepath.
What would be the likely result of riding on the road you photographed, >ignoring the ugly looking sidepath? Would motorists be abusive?
Would
police be called and issue you fines?
From a uk perspective the size of the road though the city centre is
totally out of proportion particularly considering the size (or lack of it) of Youngstown.
Indeed it’s one of the things that is just said no evidence for it
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:34:01 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:09:55 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:21:45?AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>> On 2/12/2024 4:28 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Sol...@old.bikers.org> wrote:I have lots of friends, I've done lots of things. When some of those are >>>> relevant, I mention them.
Have you not noticed that no matter what topic has been posted,
Krygowsi always has a personal ancdotal story that either disputes or >>>> >> supports it? Everything has to be about him.
Yes that is the way he described things, to make his point. Different folks
have different ways of expressing themselves.
I'm sorry if those facts make others jealous. But it's not my problem. >>>>
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank, it is nice that you have friends, but their experiences aren't yours and your referring to their expertise is silly because you don't actually know what it is.
Krygowski hasn't really done lots of things. All he claims to have
done is stand in front of a classroom and ride bicycles. Yeah, he says
he rode in lots of different places, but really, riding a bicycle is
simply riding a bicycle, not matter where you do it.
I don't know of any adult who has done less than Krygowski.
Well, bicycling is very much a matter of "right foot - left foot", so
maybe Frankie does it "Left foot - right foot". Different, you know.
On 2/13/2024 10:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
From a uk perspective the size of the road though the
city centre is
totally out of proportion particularly considering the
size (or lack of it)
of Youngstown.
Youngstown's population fell from a peak of about 179,000 in
the 1930's to about 59,000 today. No doubt that the roads
were built for the much larger population in the past.
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:27:33 GMT schrieb Roger MerrimanI thought some of the E bike powered lights had a high beam? Perhaps it’s >intended for off road only or other loop hole?
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Germany is quite car centric it feels, think also the German bike light
regulations and so on.
Not as car centric as the Netherlands and the German bike light
regulations aren't that bad. These became a lot better, a while ago.
They still leave a few things to be desired, but early on they caused
the development of some quite effective generator powered lights.
Remove compulsory bike paths from StVO, allow high beams like those in
cars to StVZO, wait a decade, and it becomes almost paradiese, here.
My old commute light has a high/low remote toggle very handy really.
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy
visit.
Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
On 2/13/2024 10:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
From a uk perspective the size of the road though the city centre is
totally out of proportion particularly considering the size (or lack of it) >> of Youngstown.
Youngstown's population fell from a peak of about 179,000 in the 1930's
to about 59,000 today. No doubt that the roads were built for the much
larger population in the past.
On 2/13/2024 7:48 PM, sms wrote:
On 2/13/2024 10:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
From a uk perspective the size of the road though the
city centre is
totally out of proportion particularly considering the
size (or lack of it)
of Youngstown.
Youngstown's population fell from a peak of about 179,000 in
the 1930's to about 59,000 today. No doubt that the roads
were built for the much larger population in the past.
Youngstown is also where two Interstates and other highways
intersect, plus urban loops for those:
https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/168038417/display_1500/stock-vector-youngstown-ohio-area-map-168038417.jpg
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:07:35 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:27:33 GMT schrieb Roger MerrimanI thought some of the E bike powered lights had a high beam? Perhaps it’s >> intended for off road only or other loop hole?
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Germany is quite car centric it feels, think also the German bike light >>>> regulations and so on.
Not as car centric as the Netherlands and the German bike light
regulations aren't that bad. These became a lot better, a while ago.
They still leave a few things to be desired, but early on they caused
the development of some quite effective generator powered lights.
Remove compulsory bike paths from StVO, allow high beams like those in
cars to StVZO, wait a decade, and it becomes almost paradiese, here.
I don't own an E-Bike and don't intend to buy one in the foreseeable
future, so I don't know or care whether these fulfill my requirement or
not. AFAIK, most need to be powered by one of those large 36V/48V
batteries necessary for powering a 250W+-Motor.
I guess it will take another decade until somebody builds and sells a
similar legal light for biycles. An frankly, I don't need to ride in darkness, anymore.
My old commute light has a high/low remote toggle very handy really.
In 1995, I built an automatic switch based on a Microchip
microcontroller, switching between generator and a lead acid battery on
the input side, and between two headlamps on the output side, low beam
and high beam, using a 5,2V 0,85A halogen bulb for the high beam.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/licht/lichtc1.jpeg>
only the upper is visible in that picture.
In 2007, when I cleaned out the cellar , I finally got rid of a lot of
old stuff, but took a few pictures.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/licht/IMG_2494.jpg>
The device worked quite well for a while, during my commute, but it was somewhat fragile, mechanically. I didn't have enough time to redo some
of the components, so I just replaced the light with something I bought,
when it finally broke.
Even so 180k is hardly a large city dual 6 lanes of traffic really isn’t justified by any means, that’s essentially Motorway width bar central reservation for a street? To say it’s overkill is something else.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/2024 10:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Even so 180k is hardly a large city dual 6 lanes of traffic really isn’t justified by any means, that’s essentially Motorway width bar central reservation for a street? To say it’s overkill is something else.
From a uk perspective the size of the road though the city centre is
totally out of proportion particularly considering the size (or lack of it) >>> of Youngstown.
Youngstown's population fell from a peak of about 179,000 in the 1930's
to about 59,000 today. No doubt that the roads were built for the much
larger population in the past.
Roger Merriman
On 2/14/2024 11:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/2024 10:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Even so 180k is hardly a large city dual 6 lanes of traffic really isn’t >> justified by any means, that’s essentially Motorway width bar central
From a uk perspective the size of the road though the city centre is
totally out of proportion particularly considering the size (or lack of it)
of Youngstown.
Youngstown's population fell from a peak of about 179,000 in the 1930's
to about 59,000 today. No doubt that the roads were built for the much
larger population in the past.
reservation for a street? To say it’s overkill is something else.
Roger Merriman
I must have missed the link to a Youngstown street view.
This thread goes back to the beginning of February with a
lot of snips along the way.
On 2/14/2024 10:41 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:07:35 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
My old commute light has a high/low remote toggle very handy really.
In 1995, I built an automatic switch based on a Microchip
microcontroller, switching between generator and a lead acid battery on
the input side, and between two headlamps on the output side, low beam
and high beam, using a 5,2V 0,85A halogen bulb for the high beam.
I experimented with multiple halogen lights for several years,
switchable A or B or A+B, with and without the taillight. Mine was the
only bicycle I knew of with a wiring diagram!
Once I bought a B&M Cyo LED headlamp I stopped experimenting. I
considered the problem solved well enough.
But I can appreciate that some riders, like mountain bikers, might
benefit from a high beam. I don't need one.
[Wolfgang wrote]: frankly, I don't need to ride in
darkness, anymore.
I don't need to, but I really enjoy it!
On 2/14/2024 9:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Even so 180k is hardly a large city dual 6 lanes of traffic really isn’t >> justified by any means, that’s essentially Motorway width bar central
reservation for a street? To say it’s overkill is something else.
Not really. I'm thinking of my area where the road between Sunnyvale (145,302) and Cupertino (57,134) has had a six to eight lane divided
road between them for years, even when the population was a lot smaller.
It's likely that that road in Youngstown is a remnant of when the city
was a big steel producer and the population was much larger. See <https://pittsburghquarterly.com/articles/what-happened-to-youngstown/>.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 9:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Even so 180k is hardly a large city dual 6 lanes of traffic really isn’t >>> justified by any means, that’s essentially Motorway width bar central
reservation for a street? To say it’s overkill is something else.
Not really. I'm thinking of my area where the road between Sunnyvale
(145,302) and Cupertino (57,134) has had a six to eight lane divided
road between them for years, even when the population was a lot smaller.
It's likely that that road in Youngstown is a remnant of when the city
was a big steel producer and the population was much larger. See
<https://pittsburghquarterly.com/articles/what-happened-to-youngstown/>.
I don’t doubt that it has lost population but from a European perspective the size of an urban road that large just beggars belief. Particularly with the known thing that large roads attract traffic and so on.
Roger Merriman
On 2/14/2024 1:42 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 9:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Even so 180k is hardly a large city dual 6 lanes of traffic really isn’t >>>> justified by any means, that’s essentially Motorway width bar central >>>> reservation for a street? To say it’s overkill is something else.
Not really. I'm thinking of my area where the road between Sunnyvale
(145,302) and Cupertino (57,134) has had a six to eight lane divided
road between them for years, even when the population was a lot smaller. >>>
It's likely that that road in Youngstown is a remnant of when the city
was a big steel producer and the population was much larger. See
<https://pittsburghquarterly.com/articles/what-happened-to-youngstown/>. >>>
I don’t doubt that it has lost population but from a European perspective >> the size of an urban road that large just beggars belief. Particularly with >> the known thing that large roads attract traffic and so on.
Roger Merriman
Expressway to Chicago's main airport: https://photos.com/featured/chicago-i-294-jcastro.html
Milwaukee: http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/wisconsin/images/w94at418940918c.jpg
Los Angeles: https://www.dreamstime.com/image-shows-aerial-view-looking-south-interstate-highway-i-i-interchange-taken-airplane-seconds-image221020764
On 2/14/2024 2:38 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I must have missed the link to a Youngstown street view.
This thread goes back to the beginning of February with a
lot of snips along the way.
Talking about Fifth Avenue which has apparently some bike
infrastructure
now? And is judging by the heat maps shown by Strava is by
far and away
most used road by cyclists.
Though that’s not saying much!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Sx8jQVLkBhK2QcMA7?g_st=ic
I don't have detailed access to Strava heat maps. I'm not a
Stravite. But if Strava riders use Fifth a lot, they are
unusual. University bike commuters are much more likely to
use parallel streets that are much quieter, especially
heading uphill i.e. north.
But Fifth Avenue received a serious "road diet" a few years
ago. It's now one lane north, one lane south, with pockets
for left turns and bus stops. It has sharrows. One design
concept, a bi-directional sidewalk bike lane on the east
(i.e. university) side would probably have killed fast
downhill riders riding contraflow into intersections where
coeds exiting parking decks looked only left as they chatted
on their cell phones.
The facility I've talked about more, the oh-so-modern curb
and post "protected" bike lane that nobody uses, is on
Mahoning Ave. Here's a street view:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XWiwbB2R7EQ46vqK9
You can't see the debris that's always in it. But you get a
hint that the roadway has always been plenty wide for safe
sharing. Traffic is rarely heavy. The street's always been
fine for cycling.
And facility riders heading in the direction shown find
themselves stopped at the facility's end, facing oncoming
traffic with no clues about how to proceed except, I
suppose, to ride on facing traffic.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 11:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/2024 10:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Even so 180k is hardly a large city dual 6 lanes of traffic really isn’t >>> justified by any means, that’s essentially Motorway width bar central
From a uk perspective the size of the road though the city centre is >>>>> totally out of proportion particularly considering the size (or lack of it)
of Youngstown.
Youngstown's population fell from a peak of about 179,000 in the 1930's >>>> to about 59,000 today. No doubt that the roads were built for the much >>>> larger population in the past.
reservation for a street? To say it’s overkill is something else.
Roger Merriman
I must have missed the link to a Youngstown street view.
This thread goes back to the beginning of February with a
lot of snips along the way.
Talking about Fifth Avenue which has apparently some bike infrastructure
now? And is judging by the heat maps shown by Strava is by far and away
most used road by cyclists.
Though that’s not saying much!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Sx8jQVLkBhK2QcMA7?g_st=ic
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:00:00 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 2/13/2024 10:28 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:17:07 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
In either case, "bicycle infrastructure"is a detriment. In the best
case, rarely that is, it is just superfluous and unnecessary, in the >>>>> more frequent case it is dangerous, inconvenient to use and, of course, >>>>> mandatory.
Not in all Europe?
In those parts of Europe where we cycled long enough and far enough.
This includes large parts of Germany, France and some parts of Italy.
I'm curious about the enforcement of mandatory sidepaths. I've ridden in >>France, and just a bit in Italy and Germany, but nobody told me anything >>about having to use a sidepath.
It is easy to avoid being fined as a cyclist during vacations. Vacations usually aren't that long. We had essentially two weeks of vacation days
per year usable for riding, that ten days at max, given that one has to
get to the vacation accommodation. For comparison, I commuted for about
200 days per year in good times, rest where business trips etc. Thats
about twenty as many chances for fining, even more so because riding in
dense traffic during rush hour has much more potential for conflict than riding on empty country roads over the day.
On 2/14/2024 2:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2024 2:38 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:I don't have detailed access to Strava heat maps. I'm not a
I must have missed the link to a Youngstown street view.
This thread goes back to the beginning of February with a
lot of snips along the way.
Talking about Fifth Avenue which has apparently some bike
infrastructure
now? And is judging by the heat maps shown by Strava is by far and
away
most used road by cyclists.
Though that’s not saying much!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Sx8jQVLkBhK2QcMA7?g_st=ic
Stravite. But if Strava riders use Fifth a lot, they are
unusual. University bike commuters are much more likely to
use parallel streets that are much quieter, especially heading
uphill i.e. north.
But Fifth Avenue received a serious "road diet" a few years
ago. It's now one lane north, one lane south, with pockets for left
turns and bus stops. It has sharrows. One design concept, a
bi-directional sidewalk bike lane on the east (i.e. university) side
would probably have killed fast downhill riders riding contraflow
into intersections where coeds exiting parking decks looked only
left as they chatted on their cell phones.
The facility I've talked about more, the oh-so-modern curb
and post "protected" bike lane that nobody uses, is on Mahoning
Ave. Here's a street view:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XWiwbB2R7EQ46vqK9
You can't see the debris that's always in it. But you get a
hint that the roadway has always been plenty wide for safe
sharing. Traffic is rarely heavy. The street's always been
fine for cycling.
And facility riders heading in the direction shown find
themselves stopped at the facility's end, facing oncoming traffic
with no clues about how to proceed except, I suppose, to ride on
facing traffic.
I see two traffic lanes, parking/loading lanes and center turn
lanes. meh, doesn't look exceptional to me.
aerial view video: https://www.axiomimages.com/aerial-stock-footage/view/AX106_102 https://www.axiomimages.com/aerial-stock-footage/view/AX106_102
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiyWell, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
visit.
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> writes:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:00:00 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 2/13/2024 10:28 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:17:07 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
In either case, "bicycle infrastructure"is a detriment. In the best >>>>>> case, rarely that is, it is just superfluous and unnecessary, in the >>>>>> more frequent case it is dangerous, inconvenient to use and, of course, >>>>>> mandatory.
Not in all Europe?
In those parts of Europe where we cycled long enough and far enough.
This includes large parts of Germany, France and some parts of Italy.
I'm curious about the enforcement of mandatory sidepaths. I've ridden in >>> France, and just a bit in Italy and Germany, but nobody told me anything >>> about having to use a sidepath.
[ ... ]
It is easy to avoid being fined as a cyclist during vacations. Vacations
usually aren't that long. We had essentially two weeks of vacation days
per year usable for riding, that ten days at max, given that one has to
get to the vacation accommodation. For comparison, I commuted for about
200 days per year in good times, rest where business trips etc. Thats
about twenty as many chances for fining, even more so because riding in
dense traffic during rush hour has much more potential for conflict than
riding on empty country roads over the day.
This is an essential point. Riding on vacation is not the same as
riding to work. On vacation one is free to eat breakfast and watch the traffic during rush hour, instead of mixing in with it. On vacation one
can choose a destination with a scenic and pleasant route, instead of choosing the best available route for where one has to go.
Not to mention that riding to work as a university professor, who has a
great deal of choice in his own schedule, is not quite like riding to
work and punching a clock.
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
This is an essential point. Riding on vacation is not the same as
riding to work. On vacation one is free to eat breakfast and watch the
traffic during rush hour, instead of mixing in with it. On vacation one
can choose a destination with a scenic and pleasant route, instead of
choosing the best available route for where one has to go.
Not to mention that riding to work as a university professor, who has a
great deal of choice in his own schedule, is not quite like riding to
work and punching a clock.
All of that can be true and relevant, depending on the context of
discussion. It can also be false and/or irrelevant.
I've mentioned my varied riding experience mostly in response to charges
that I know nothing about riding outside my suburban village. If someone wants to insert more details - like, perhaps, "You know nothing about
riding in Pittsburgh in 5 PM Friday rush hour traffic during a pouring thunderstorm" - then we can discuss details.
But actually, I have ridden in just that set of conditions.
About my commuting schedule: True, I had much more than normal control
over my commuting times. Since I very frequently taught hours after 5
PM, I seldom rode in at 8 or 9 AM. But depending on my schedule for the
term and family activities ("You have to take her to her lesson!") there
were plenty of times I rode home during rush hour.
And that varied schedule meant I probably did more commuting in darkness
than most bike commuters.
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> writes:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 11:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/2024 10:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:Even so 180k is hardly a large city dual 6 lanes of traffic really isn’t >>>> justified by any means, that’s essentially Motorway width bar central >>>> reservation for a street? To say it’s overkill is something else.
From a uk perspective the size of the road though the city centre is >>>>>> totally out of proportion particularly considering the size (or lack of it)
of Youngstown.
Youngstown's population fell from a peak of about 179,000 in the 1930's >>>>> to about 59,000 today. No doubt that the roads were built for the much >>>>> larger population in the past.
Roger Merriman
I must have missed the link to a Youngstown street view.
This thread goes back to the beginning of February with a
lot of snips along the way.
Talking about Fifth Avenue which has apparently some bike infrastructure
now? And is judging by the heat maps shown by Strava is by far and away
most used road by cyclists.
Though that’s not saying much!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Sx8jQVLkBhK2QcMA7?g_st=ic
You picked a spot with turn lanes, just a few blocks up it's only one
lane each way.
On 2/14/2024 2:38 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I must have missed the link to a Youngstown street view.
This thread goes back to the beginning of February with a
lot of snips along the way.
Talking about Fifth Avenue which has apparently some bike infrastructure
now? And is judging by the heat maps shown by Strava is by far and away
most used road by cyclists.
Though that’s not saying much!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Sx8jQVLkBhK2QcMA7?g_st=ic
I don't have detailed access to Strava heat maps. I'm not a Stravite.
But if Strava riders use Fifth a lot, they are unusual. University bike commuters are much more likely to use parallel streets that are much
quieter, especially heading uphill i.e. north.
But Fifth Avenue received a serious "road diet" a few years ago. It's
now one lane north, one lane south, with pockets for left turns and bus stops. It has sharrows. One design concept, a bi-directional sidewalk
bike lane on the east (i.e. university) side would probably have killed
fast downhill riders riding contraflow into intersections where coeds
exiting parking decks looked only left as they chatted on their cell
phones.
The facility I've talked about more, the oh-so-modern curb and post "protected" bike lane that nobody uses, is on Mahoning Ave. Here's a
street view:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XWiwbB2R7EQ46vqK9
You can't see the debris that's always in it. But you get a hint that
the roadway has always been plenty wide for safe sharing. Traffic is
rarely heavy. The street's always been fine for cycling.
And facility riders heading in the direction shown find themselves
stopped at the facility's end, facing oncoming traffic with no clues
about how to proceed except, I suppose, to ride on facing traffic.
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
This is an essential point. Riding on vacation is not the same as
riding to work. On vacation one is free to eat breakfast and watch the
traffic during rush hour, instead of mixing in with it. On vacation one
can choose a destination with a scenic and pleasant route, instead of
choosing the best available route for where one has to go.
Not to mention that riding to work as a university professor, who has a
great deal of choice in his own schedule, is not quite like riding to
work and punching a clock.
All of that can be true and relevant, depending on the context of
discussion. It can also be false and/or irrelevant.
I've mentioned my varied riding experience mostly in response to charges
that I know nothing about riding outside my suburban village. If someone >wants to insert more details - like, perhaps, "You know nothing about
riding in Pittsburgh in 5 PM Friday rush hour traffic during a pouring >thunderstorm" - then we can discuss details.
But actually, I have ridden in just that set of conditions.
About my commuting schedule: True, I had much more than normal control
over my commuting times. Since I very frequently taught hours after 5
PM, I seldom rode in at 8 or 9 AM. But depending on my schedule for the
term and family activities ("You have to take her to her lesson!") there
were plenty of times I rode home during rush hour.
And that varied schedule meant I probably did more commuting in darkness
than most bike commuters.
On 2/14/2024 5:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy >>>>> visit.Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
You have family in Cologne?
Nope. But as we've seen, for some it's scary to venture onto any normal >roads.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
This is an essential point. Riding on vacation is not the same as
riding to work. On vacation one is free to eat breakfast and watch the
traffic during rush hour, instead of mixing in with it. On vacation one >>> can choose a destination with a scenic and pleasant route, instead of
choosing the best available route for where one has to go.
Not to mention that riding to work as a university professor, who has a
great deal of choice in his own schedule, is not quite like riding to
work and punching a clock.
All of that can be true and relevant, depending on the context of
discussion. It can also be false and/or irrelevant.
I've mentioned my varied riding experience mostly in response to charges
that I know nothing about riding outside my suburban village. If someone
wants to insert more details - like, perhaps, "You know nothing about
riding in Pittsburgh in 5 PM Friday rush hour traffic during a pouring
thunderstorm" - then we can discuss details.
But actually, I have ridden in just that set of conditions.
Another undocumented brag from Krygowski.
About my commuting schedule: True, I had much more than normal control
over my commuting times. Since I very frequently taught hours after 5
PM, I seldom rode in at 8 or 9 AM. But depending on my schedule for the
term and family activities ("You have to take her to her lesson!") there
were plenty of times I rode home during rush hour.
And that varied schedule meant I probably did more commuting in darkness
than most bike commuters.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:47:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 5:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy >>>>>> visit.Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
You have family in Cologne?
Nope. But as we've seen, for some it's scary to venture onto any normal
roads.
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:47:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 5:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy >>>>>> visit.Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
You have family in Cologne?
Nope. But as we've seen, for some it's scary to venture onto any normal
roads.
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:47:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 5:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy >>>>>>> visit.Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
You have family in Cologne?
Nope. But as we've seen, for some it's scary to venture onto any normal
roads.
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that.
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:47:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 5:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy >>>>>>>> visit.Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
You have family in Cologne?
Nope. But as we've seen, for some it's scary to venture onto any normal >>>> roads.
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that.
Well indeed I used clipless for few years at least on the road bikes before saying well this is fine but not what I like, never had clipless moment ie fall sideways and all that.
But never loved them and I suspected the performance gain was overstated,
as indeed more science is done seems to back up that theory, ie if you have good cycling shoe be that clipless or flat pedals it works well.
I personally I like MTB flats and shoes on both my MTB/Gravel/commute
bikes.
I can see why roadies in particular use them as flats tend to be heavier
and a risk of pedal strike.
Roger Merriman
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 6:04:44 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/15/2024 8:22 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank KrygowskiAnother triggered response from the floriduh dumbass
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
This is an essential point. Riding on vacation is not the same as
riding to work. On vacation one is free to eat breakfast and watch the >>>>> traffic during rush hour, instead of mixing in with it. On vacation one >>>>> can choose a destination with a scenic and pleasant route, instead of >>>>> choosing the best available route for where one has to go.
Not to mention that riding to work as a university professor, who has a >>>>> great deal of choice in his own schedule, is not quite like riding to >>>>> work and punching a clock.
All of that can be true and relevant, depending on the context of
discussion. It can also be false and/or irrelevant.
I've mentioned my varied riding experience mostly in response to charges >>>> that I know nothing about riding outside my suburban village. If someone >>>> wants to insert more details - like, perhaps, "You know nothing about
riding in Pittsburgh in 5 PM Friday rush hour traffic during a pouring >>>> thunderstorm" - then we can discuss details.
But actually, I have ridden in just that set of conditions.
Another undocumented brag from Krygowski.
--
About my commuting schedule: True, I had much more than normal control >>>> over my commuting times. Since I very frequently taught hours after 5
PM, I seldom rode in at 8 or 9 AM. But depending on my schedule for the >>>> term and family activities ("You have to take her to her lesson!") there >>>> were plenty of times I rode home during rush hour.
And that varied schedule meant I probably did more commuting in darkness >>>> than most bike commuters.
Add xx to reply
Another comment from the little boy.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:45:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
This is an essential point. Riding on vacation is not the same as
riding to work. On vacation one is free to eat breakfast and watch the >>>> traffic during rush hour, instead of mixing in with it. On vacation one >>>> can choose a destination with a scenic and pleasant route, instead of
choosing the best available route for where one has to go.
Not to mention that riding to work as a university professor, who has a >>>> great deal of choice in his own schedule, is not quite like riding to
work and punching a clock.
All of that can be true and relevant, depending on the context of
discussion. It can also be false and/or irrelevant.
I've mentioned my varied riding experience mostly in response to charges >>> that I know nothing about riding outside my suburban village. If someone >>> wants to insert more details - like, perhaps, "You know nothing about
riding in Pittsburgh in 5 PM Friday rush hour traffic during a pouring
thunderstorm" - then we can discuss details.
But actually, I have ridden in just that set of conditions.
Another undocumented brag from Krygowski.
How exactly would he document such as report?
Riding in a thunderstorm
isnt really much of brag, possibly wet depending how well your waterproofs >cope or the how accurate the weather report is.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:47:25 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI have no idea of Frank uses clipless or not yes he has an old bike but >clipless isnt that new technology by any means.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 5:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy >>>>>>> visit.Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
You have family in Cologne?
Nope. But as we've seen, for some it's scary to venture onto any normal
roads.
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
Roger Merriman
On 2/15/2024 4:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Its more a bit of concrete and few cones doesnt seem to have useful
The facility I've talked about more, the oh-so-modern curb and post
"protected" bike lane that nobody uses, is on Mahoning Ave. Here's a
street view:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XWiwbB2R7EQ46vqK9
entry/exits and doesnt do junctions is far from modern or so on design
irrespective of when it was built.
You're helping to demonstrate the ever-increasing demands.
First it was "we need bike lane stripes." Then "We need buffered bike
lane stripes." Then "We need green paint." Then "We need posts for >protection." Then "We need concrete for protection."
Now "a bit of concrete and posts" is not enough?
The street was perfectly fine before that mess was installed. It's worse
now because of it.
On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:14:55 AM UTC-8, Catrike Ryder wrote:make ends meet.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 22:53:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I'm well aware of why Krygowski is so intent on trying to berate me.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<ne...@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy >>>>> visit.
Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
The explanation is explained below by a professional:
*******************************************************************
"For narcissists, people can broadly be divided into two groups:
targets of their own envy and sources of real or imagined inflating
envy from others. [...]
But in addition to self-enhancing identification comes a painful sense
of frustration. Why does he or she have all this? Why not me? This
mobilizes the hostile, bitter component of the envious emotion, in
which the object envied needs to be diminished in order to lessen the
distance between self and other. For the narcissist, this gap may
elicit what has been called “narcissistic injury,” a poignant reminder >> of shameful inadequacies that he or she tries desperately to deny. "
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shame-guilt-and-their-defenses/202012/the-roots-narcissistic-envy
*******************************************************************
There's also a professional's explanation for why he attempts to tag
me with labels such as "timid," which he knows, full well, does not
apply to me.
*******************************************************************
"Ironically, narcissists’ labels reveal more about the narcissist than
their target. One hallmark of narcissism is the frequent use of the
defense mechanism of projection. Projection is when we unconsciously
attribute to others feelings and judgments that we cannot tolerate
recognizing within ourselves. Narcissists’ most-used labels tend to
show their deepest fears about themselves."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/narcissism-demystified/202109/8-ways-narcissists-seek-manipulate-and-dehumanize-you
*******************************************************************
I also assume that Krygowski is generally afraid to face me directly,
knowing that I can handle his attacks and turn them back on him. Thus,
he hides under his peek-a-boo blanky expressing his resentment to
other people.
When I mentioned my investments he immediately said that the college was taking well care of him. Since I ride with retired college professors I know that to be a lie. One of them has to take jobs returning commercial trucks from Arizona and Texas to
I just got the following from UC Berkeley: "Tom,
Your background and work experience stood out to us as someone who could be a great match for the Berkeley Haas Full-time MBA program.
Here are a few things that differentiate the Berkeley Haas Full-time program:
Top-Ranked: #7 global MBA program by Financial Times (2023).
Collaborative Culture: The Defining Leadership principles create a supportive environment where students learn from each other's diverse set of perspectives.
Innovative Curriculum: Leadership driven core and a wide variety of real-world experiential learning opportunities."
Do you suppose that Krygowski gets emails like that? Or Liebermann?
I also assume that Krygowski is generally afraid to face me directly,
knowing that I can handle his attacks and turn them back on him. Thus,
he hides under his peek-a-boo blanky expressing his resentment to
other people.
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that.
The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his feelings of
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every way possible.
On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 8:14:55?AM UTC-8, Catrike Ryder wrote:make ends meet.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 22:53:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I'm well aware of why Krygowski is so intent on trying to berate me.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<ne...@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy
visit.
Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
The explanation is explained below by a professional:
*******************************************************************
"For narcissists, people can broadly be divided into two groups:
targets of their own envy and sources of real or imagined inflating
envy from others. [...]
But in addition to self-enhancing identification comes a painful sense
of frustration. Why does he or she have all this? Why not me? This
mobilizes the hostile, bitter component of the envious emotion, in
which the object envied needs to be diminished in order to lessen the
distance between self and other. For the narcissist, this gap may
elicit what has been called narcissistic injury, a poignant reminder
of shameful inadequacies that he or she tries desperately to deny. "
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shame-guilt-and-their-defenses/202012/the-roots-narcissistic-envy
*******************************************************************
There's also a professional's explanation for why he attempts to tag
me with labels such as "timid," which he knows, full well, does not
apply to me.
*******************************************************************
"Ironically, narcissists labels reveal more about the narcissist than
their target. One hallmark of narcissism is the frequent use of the
defense mechanism of projection. Projection is when we unconsciously
attribute to others feelings and judgments that we cannot tolerate
recognizing within ourselves. Narcissists most-used labels tend to
show their deepest fears about themselves."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/narcissism-demystified/202109/8-ways-narcissists-seek-manipulate-and-dehumanize-you
*******************************************************************
I also assume that Krygowski is generally afraid to face me directly,
knowing that I can handle his attacks and turn them back on him. Thus,
he hides under his peek-a-boo blanky expressing his resentment to
other people.
When I mentioned my investments he immediately said that the college was taking well care of him. Since I ride with retired college professors I know that to be a lie. One of them has to take jobs returning commercial trucks from Arizona and Texas to
I just got the following from UC Berkeley:
"Tom,
Your background and work experience stood out to us as someone who could be a great match for the Berkeley Haas Full-time MBA program.
Here are a few things that differentiate the Berkeley Haas Full-time program:
Top-Ranked: #7 global MBA program by Financial Times (2023).
Collaborative Culture: The Defining Leadership principles create a supportive environment where students learn from each other's diverse set of perspectives.
Innovative Curriculum: Leadership driven core and a wide variety of real-world experiential learning opportunities."
Do you suppose that Krygowski gets emails like that? Or Liebermann?
On 2/15/2024 4:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It’s more a bit of concrete and few cones doesn’t seem to have useful
The facility I've talked about more, the oh-so-modern curb and post
"protected" bike lane that nobody uses, is on Mahoning Ave. Here's a
street view:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XWiwbB2R7EQ46vqK9
entry/exits and doesn’t do junctions is far from modern or so on design
irrespective of when it was built.
You're helping to demonstrate the ever-increasing demands.
First it was "we need bike lane stripes." Then "We need buffered bike
lane stripes." Then "We need green paint." Then "We need posts for protection." Then "We need concrete for protection."
Now "a bit of concrete and posts" is not enough?
The street was perfectly fine before that mess was installed. It's worse
now because of it.
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that.
The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his feelings of
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every way possible.
Our neighbors had a Yorkshire Terrier that was very similar.
About clipless: I've never wanted them. I'm certainly not afraid of
them; what's to fear anyway? I used old-style classic cycling shoes with cleats, toe clips and straps during time trials, back in the day. A
person who can handle those should have no problem with clipless.
As I've said many times, one of my priorities is to be able to use my
bikes with (almost) any shoes I own. If I ride to a store, to a library,
to visit a friend etc., I don't want to have to change shoes. For me,
toe clips and straps (usually fairly loose) work perfectly. YMMV.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:It’s the exiting from the clipless that seems to catch folks out ie slow to a stop, turn foot to un clip and it doesn’t so they ungracious fall sideways at least that’s the reputation.
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that.
The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his feelings of
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every way possible.
Our neighbors had a Yorkshire Terrier that was very similar.
About clipless: I've never wanted them. I'm certainly not afraid of
them; what's to fear anyway? I used old-style classic cycling shoes with
cleats, toe clips and straps during time trials, back in the day. A
person who can handle those should have no problem with clipless.
Clips are from memory a fair bit easier and less likely to catch one out.
At least in terms of not being able to remove your shoe from pedal.
As I've said many times, one of my priorities is to be able to use myFor similar reasons I use flats for the commute, thought much more performance oriented shoes for MTB/Gravel biking.
bikes with (almost) any shoes I own. If I ride to a store, to a library,
to visit a friend etc., I don't want to have to change shoes. For me,
toe clips and straps (usually fairly loose) work perfectly. YMMV.
Roger Merriman
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:48:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that.
The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his feelings of
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every way possible.
Yeah, I do enjoy making sure that everyone knows that the reason for
your braggs and other posting nonsense is because of your narcissism.
Consider it a free service.
On 2/15/2024 3:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:It’s the exiting from the clipless that seems to catch
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with
clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do
something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you
don't get that.
The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his
feelings of
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every
way possible.
Our neighbors had a Yorkshire Terrier that was very similar.
About clipless: I've never wanted them. I'm certainly not
afraid of
them; what's to fear anyway? I used old-style classic
cycling shoes with
cleats, toe clips and straps during time trials, back in
the day. A
person who can handle those should have no problem with
clipless.
folks out ie slow to
a stop, turn foot to un clip and it doesn’t so they
ungracious fall
sideways at least that’s the reputation.
Clips are from memory a fair bit easier and less likely to
catch one out.
At least in terms of not being able to remove your shoe
from pedal.
That's the opposite of my experience. I used toe clips when
I first started racing, then for about 5 years after than
until I switched to Look.
I remember thinking almost immediately how much better it
was getting in, getting out, more confidence that I wasn't
going to pop out. I never went back to toe clips after that
except on an urban bike I used to have (as Andrew notes,
just so I didn't have to change shoes). I rode those Look
pedals for about a year until I saw someone with Speedplay.
I started with those in 1993 and have used them ever since.
As I've said many times, one of my priorities is to beFor similar reasons I use flats for the commute, thought
able to use my
bikes with (almost) any shoes I own. If I ride to a
store, to a library,
to visit a friend etc., I don't want to have to change
shoes. For me,
toe clips and straps (usually fairly loose) work
perfectly. YMMV.
much more
performance oriented shoes for MTB/Gravel biking.
Roger Merriman
On 2/15/2024 3:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:It’s the exiting from the clipless that seems to catch
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with
clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do
something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you
don't get that.
The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his
feelings of
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every
way possible.
Our neighbors had a Yorkshire Terrier that was very similar.
About clipless: I've never wanted them. I'm certainly not
afraid of
them; what's to fear anyway? I used old-style classic
cycling shoes with
cleats, toe clips and straps during time trials, back in
the day. A
person who can handle those should have no problem with
clipless.
folks out ie slow to
a stop, turn foot to un clip and it doesn’t so they
ungracious fall
sideways at least that’s the reputation.
Clips are from memory a fair bit easier and less likely to
catch one out.
At least in terms of not being able to remove your shoe
from pedal.
That's the opposite of my experience. I used toe clips when
I first started racing, then for about 5 years after than
until I switched to Look.
I remember thinking almost immediately how much better it
was getting in, getting out, more confidence that I wasn't
going to pop out. I never went back to toe clips after that
except on an urban bike I used to have (as Andrew notes,
just so I didn't have to change shoes). I rode those Look
pedals for about a year until I saw someone with Speedplay.
I started with those in 1993 and have used them ever since.
As I've said many times, one of my priorities is to beFor similar reasons I use flats for the commute, thought
able to use my
bikes with (almost) any shoes I own. If I ride to a
store, to a library,
to visit a friend etc., I don't want to have to change
shoes. For me,
toe clips and straps (usually fairly loose) work
perfectly. YMMV.
much more
performance oriented shoes for MTB/Gravel biking.
Roger Merriman
On 2/15/2024 2:36 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/15/2024 3:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:It’s the exiting from the clipless that seems to catch folks out ie
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get
that.
The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his feelings of
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every way possible. >>>> Our neighbors had a Yorkshire Terrier that was very similar.
About clipless: I've never wanted them. I'm certainly not afraid of
them; what's to fear anyway? I used old-style classic cycling shoes
with
cleats, toe clips and straps during time trials, back in the day. A
person who can handle those should have no problem with clipless.
slow to
a stop, turn foot to un clip and it doesn’t so they ungracious fall
sideways at least that’s the reputation.
Clips are from memory a fair bit easier and less likely to catch one
out.
At least in terms of not being able to remove your shoe from pedal.
That's the opposite of my experience. I used toe clips when I first
started racing, then for about 5 years after than until I switched to
Look.
I remember thinking almost immediately how much better it was getting
in, getting out, more confidence that I wasn't going to pop out. I
never went back to toe clips after that except on an urban bike I used
to have (as Andrew notes, just so I didn't have to change shoes). I
rode those Look pedals for about a year until I saw someone with
Speedplay. I started with those in 1993 and have used them ever since.
As I've said many times, one of my priorities is to be able to use myFor similar reasons I use flats for the commute, thought much more
bikes with (almost) any shoes I own. If I ride to a store, to a
library,
to visit a friend etc., I don't want to have to change shoes. For me,
toe clips and straps (usually fairly loose) work perfectly. YMMV.
performance oriented shoes for MTB/Gravel biking.
Roger Merriman
You were late to that party.
Toeclips for competition largely ended the day Dave Grylls threw away a
gold medal when he pulled out of his clips at the start of the Team
Pursuit race, LA 1984.
https://www.olympedia.org/results/154547
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Its the exiting from the clipless that seems to catch folks out ie slow to
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that.
The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his feelings of
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every way possible.
Our neighbors had a Yorkshire Terrier that was very similar.
About clipless: I've never wanted them. I'm certainly not afraid of
them; what's to fear anyway? I used old-style classic cycling shoes with
cleats, toe clips and straps during time trials, back in the day. A
person who can handle those should have no problem with clipless.
a stop, turn foot to un clip and it doesnt so they ungracious fall
sideways at least thats the reputation.
Clips are from memory a fair bit easier and less likely to catch one out.
At least in terms of not being able to remove your shoe from pedal.
Roger Merriman
If they're friends with you, they probably aren't much brighter than you
so it makes sense they horribly mismanaged their life. An acquaintance
of mine is a retired professor of electrical and Computer Engineering at Boston university. He's living comfortable in Andover Massachusetts.
Your presupposition that every retired professor is broke is just
projection on your part.
On 2/15/2024 10:02 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
If they're friends with you, they probably aren't much
brighter than you so it makes sense they horribly
mismanaged their life. An acquaintance of mine is a
retired professor of electrical and Computer Engineering
at Boston university. He's living comfortable in Andover
Massachusetts. Your presupposition that every retired
professor is broke is just projection on your part.
I looked at the University of California pension calculator
and looked at the salaries of experienced tenured professors
(at Transparent California).
They take your average monthly earnings for the past 36
months, and factor in your age and years of employment to
calculate your monthly pension benefit.
An experienced professor at UC makes a little more than
$300,000 per year, or $25,000 per month (higher for the
college of law and college of medicine). If he or she
retires at age 60, with 30 years of service, their monthly
pension would be $18,750.
I know one professor who retired from San Jose City College
(a community college) in 2008. According to Transparent
California
<https://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/all/>, in 2022
his pension was over $150K per year.
Can't speak for other States of course, and other states are
not as transparent as California when it comes to public
records, but it's pretty safe to say that retired professors
are not suffering financially if they retire at a reasonable
age after a reasonable number of years of service.
When I was in college, I know that many electrical
engineering professors had summer gigs at tech companies
where I assume they were being well paid.
Makes free medical for illegals look cheap!
On 2/15/2024 1:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 4:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Its more a bit of concrete and few cones doesnt seem to have useful
The facility I've talked about more, the oh-so-modern curb and post
"protected" bike lane that nobody uses, is on Mahoning Ave. Here's a >>>>> street view:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XWiwbB2R7EQ46vqK9
entry/exits and doesnt do junctions is far from modern or so on design >>>> irrespective of when it was built.
You're helping to demonstrate the ever-increasing demands.
First it was "we need bike lane stripes." Then "We need buffered bike
lane stripes." Then "We need green paint." Then "We need posts for
protection." Then "We need concrete for protection."
Now "a bit of concrete and posts" is not enough?
Its more its not connected to the other cycle lanes on Fifth Avenue and
has fairly poor entry and exit Im assuming it is at least single
direction?
Nope. It's definitely bi-directional. It was shown that way right from
the beginning, in the conceptual drawings presented in a public meeting. >That's one of the many factors cyclists complained about from the start
when it was just a concept looking for grant funding.
On 2/15/2024 12:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:32:07 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
I have no idea of Frank uses clipless or not yes he has an old bike but
clipless isnt that new technology by any means.
He's said several times that he does not use clipless, and he seems to
profess the notion that the only reason that people don't do something
is because they're afraid to do it.
No, that's not true. I profess the notion that the only reason our
Florida tricycle rider doesn't do something is because he's afraid of
doing it. Most other people are much less timid. They usually have more >logical reasons for their choices.
On 2/15/2024 3:09 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Its the exiting from the clipless that seems to catch folks out ie slow to >> a stop, turn foot to un clip and it doesnt so they ungracious fall
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his feelings of
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that. >>>
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every way possible.
Our neighbors had a Yorkshire Terrier that was very similar.
About clipless: I've never wanted them. I'm certainly not afraid of
them; what's to fear anyway? I used old-style classic cycling shoes with >>> cleats, toe clips and straps during time trials, back in the day. A
person who can handle those should have no problem with clipless.
sideways at least thats the reputation.
Clips are from memory a fair bit easier and less likely to catch one out.
At least in terms of not being able to remove your shoe from pedal.
Yes, I use toe clips and straps with flat soled shoes, including my
cycling shoes.
But in my time trial days, I used toe clips and straps with cycling
shoes plus cleats - the blocky cleats that grabbed an edge of the pedal. >Something like this: >https://steel-vintage.com/products/classic-pedal-cleats-detail
With those, one had to reach down and loosen the leather strap before
freeing one's foot from the pedal. Since I used them only for the time >trials, it wasn't hard to remember. I'd have too little strength to
stand at the end of a time trial anyway, so I'd be riding in circles for
a while until I caught my breath. Plenty of time to loosen straps.
On 2/15/2024 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
He said he was "riding in Pittsburgh in 5 PM Friday rush hour traffic
during a pouring thunderstorm."
Why would anyone post such a detailed anecdote if not to brag.
I posted that because some people here had claimed I rode only in my
suburban village.
According to this yapping Floridian Yorkshire terrier, I'm not allowed
to refute lies.
On 2/15/2024 1:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 4:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It’s more a bit of concrete and few cones doesn’t seem to have useful >>>> entry/exits and doesn’t do junctions is far from modern or so on design >>>> irrespective of when it was built.
The facility I've talked about more, the oh-so-modern curb and post
"protected" bike lane that nobody uses, is on Mahoning Ave. Here's a >>>>> street view:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XWiwbB2R7EQ46vqK9
You're helping to demonstrate the ever-increasing demands.
First it was "we need bike lane stripes." Then "We need buffered bike
lane stripes." Then "We need green paint." Then "We need posts for
protection." Then "We need concrete for protection."
Now "a bit of concrete and posts" is not enough?
It’s more it’s not connected to the other cycle lanes on Fifth Avenue and
has fairly poor entry and exit I’m assuming it is at least single
direction?
Nope. It's definitely bi-directional. It was shown that way right from
the beginning, in the conceptual drawings presented in a public meeting. That's one of the many factors cyclists complained about from the start
when it was just a concept looking for grant funding.
Exit in particular looks like exiting the kerb? While checking
for turning traffic? Seems an accident waiting to happen really!
That's true of the exit heading east, toward town center, for those
wrong-way cyclists. BTW, those would be the least knowledgeable
cyclists, giving them a real puzzle. Those with better knowledge would
ride as I do, in the normal lanes.
North West Avenue seems to be where most cyclists would ride to/from
looking at the heat map.
Seems poorly implemented with the caveat of viewing by street view!
The street was perfectly fine before that mess was installed. It's worse >>> now because of it.
It is poor indeed.
On 2/14/2024 5:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy >>>>> visit.Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
You have family in Cologne?
Nope. But as we've seen, for some it's scary to venture onto any normal >roads.
On 2/15/2024 3:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Makes free medical for illegals look cheap!
The alternative is worse. That's why, in 1986, President Reagan signed
the law that requires hospitals to treat poor people and illegal aliens.
It was called the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act." It requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care
regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or legal status. It
applies to any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is nearly every hospital.
Hopefully you realize just exactly which entities are behind allowing
more illegal immigration into the U.S., and why. Agribusiness,
construction interests, and hospitality companies, contribute big bucks
to politicians to ensure constant flow of illegal immigrants that can be easily exploited.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:58:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
He said he was "riding in Pittsburgh in 5 PM Friday rush hour traffic
during a pouring thunderstorm."
Why would anyone post such a detailed anecdote if not to brag.
I posted that because some people here had claimed I rode only in my
suburban village.
...and you just had to add that you rode "in 5 PM Friday rush hour
traffic during a pouring thunderstorm," didn't you?
According to this yapping Floridian Yorkshire terrier, I'm not allowed
to refute lies.
Bragging and exaggerating is such second nature to a narcissist that
they don't even know when they're doing it.
On 2/16/2024 4:13 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:58:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
He said he was "riding in Pittsburgh in 5 PM Friday rush hour traffic
during a pouring thunderstorm."
Why would anyone post such a detailed anecdote if not to brag.
I posted that because some people here had claimed I rode only in my
suburban village.
...and you just had to add that you rode "in 5 PM Friday rush hour
traffic during a pouring thunderstorm," didn't you?
According to this yapping Floridian Yorkshire terrier, I'm not allowed
to refute lies.
Bragging and exaggerating is such second nature to a narcissist that
they don't even know when they're doing it.
lol...kitty yapping at frank once again begging for his attention and
acceptance
You chased him around looking for his latest posts and it this thread
posted three nonsensical whiny (and frankly embarrassing) posts designed
only to get his attention that you're so desperate for
4:09 AM
4:11 AM
4:13 am
Talk about having a life so pathetic and empty you have nothing better
to do that chase another person around the web.
Am Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:47:25 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 2/14/2024 5:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/13/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:55:07 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Fine. But that park won't get me from Bonn to Cologne, for a familiy >>>>>> visit.Well, that's not the kind of thing I want to do. Actually, it's
something I've never done, and likely will never do.
It's scary! :-)
You have family in Cologne?
Nope. But as we've seen, for some it's scary to venture onto any normal
roads.
Right. But it's little more complicated to explain, at least in this
case. Reason is, that very connection it almost optimal for establishing
the narrative told by segregation fans. But as always, the devil is in
the details.
Bonn and Cologne are located at the Rhine river. Rivers don't have
towpaths for a long time now, riverside ways are now popular, instead.
These most often are broad, free of crossings and are popular as wide promenades near and within cities, mostly car traffic free, for these reasons. You need a bridge to cross a river, though, spanning both this promenade and the river. In other words, the paths that run alongside
rivers, canals or coastlines deliver exactly what fans of cycle paths
want, namely ultimate separation.
Unfortunately, as one might easily guess, using that as a general model
for "biycle infrastructure" is grossly misleading, because most trips
neither start nor end at a river and even when they do, riding along a
river promenade most often isn't the best choice, or even good choice.
Often that route is neither continuous, nor safe, nor fast enough,
especially for longer trips. My long time commute crossing the Rhine,
for example, was essentially riding through the city to the central of
three bridges, crossing the river and then finally riding up an ascent
to a local hill at the edge of the Siebengebirge. Dig up a river and
they will come? Sorry, just kidding.
Earnestly, even in this almost ideal example for bike infrastructure advocates, finding an optimal route for a road bicyclce gets you a route
not touching that riverside course, because there are many better routes
that avoid the river meanders and avoid most of its twists and turns.
Unfortunately, those better roads often got inferiour, but mandatory
"bicycle infrastructure", and so are usuable only for those who have
enough thick skin (and riding capabilities) for handing the harrasments
to be expected.
In short: that very infrastructure creates a lot of pain and fear that
makes people cry for more.
It is quite easy to demonstrate this practically with a routing software
of your choice. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader, for now.
On 2/15/2024 3:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Makes free medical for illegals look cheap!
The alternative is worse. That's why, in 1986, President
Reagan signed the law that requires hospitals to treat poor
people and illegal aliens. It was called the "Emergency
Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act." It requires
hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care
regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or legal
status. It applies to any hospital that takes Medicare
funds, which is nearly every hospital.
Hopefully you realize just exactly which entities are behind
allowing more illegal immigration into the U.S., and why.
Agribusiness, construction interests, and hospitality
companies, contribute big bucks to politicians to ensure
constant flow of illegal immigrants that can be easily
exploited.
On 2/16/2024 1:10 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/15/2024 3:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Makes free medical for illegals look cheap!
The alternative is worse. That's why, in 1986, President
Reagan signed the law that requires hospitals to treat
poor people and illegal aliens. It was called the
"Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act." It
requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency
care regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or
legal status. It applies to any hospital that takes
Medicare funds, which is nearly every hospital.
Hopefully you realize just exactly which entities are
behind allowing more illegal immigration into the U.S.,
and why. Agribusiness, construction interests, and
hospitality companies, contribute big bucks to politicians
to ensure constant flow of illegal immigrants that can be
easily exploited.
+1
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2021/11/17/the-trump-organization-sought-to-hire-87-foreign-workers-at-mar-a-lago-this-year
Unfortunately, as one might easily guess, using that as a general model
for "biycle infrastructure" is grossly misleading, because most trips
neither start nor end at a river and even when they do, riding along a
river promenade most often isn't the best choice, or even good choice.
Often that route is neither continuous, nor safe, nor fast enough,
especially for longer trips. My long time commute crossing the Rhine,
for example, was essentially riding through the city to the central of
three bridges, crossing the river and then finally riding up an ascent
to a local hill at the edge of the Siebengebirge. Dig up a river and
they will come? Sorry, just kidding.
Essentially you can’t force folks to go a route they don’t wish to! See quiet ways and other meandering type routes, fine on a quiet day with time
to burn but hardly useful transport.
On 2/16/2024 5:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Essentially you can’t force folks to go a route they don’t wish to! See >> quiet ways and other meandering type routes, fine on a quiet day with time >> to burn but hardly useful transport.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can fix your meandering rivers by straightening them. "The Corps has straightened the river’s path by
cutting off meander bends, and has built multiple flood control
structures capable of diverting a portion of the river's flow." This was
done to make the river usable for barges.
"Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
much." "They were finding the main roads because they?re faster, but
they?re unpleasant to cycle on."
https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/
Kai Ryssdall interviewing Laura Laker, freelance journalist in London
writing about active transit and the author of the upcoming book,
?Potholes and Pavements: A bumpy ride on Britain?s National Cycle Network.?
About clipless: I've never wanted them. I'm certainly not afraid of
them; what's to fear anyway? I used old-style classic cycling shoes with >cleats, toe clips and straps during time trials, back in the day. A
person who can handle those should have no problem with clipless.
As I've said many times, one of my priorities is to be able to use my
bikes with (almost) any shoes I own.
If I ride to a store, to a library,
to visit a friend etc., I don't want to have to change shoes. For me,
toe clips and straps (usually fairly loose) work perfectly. YMMV.
On 2/15/2024 1:38 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:48:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his feelings of
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that. >>>
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every way possible.
Yeah, I do enjoy making sure that everyone knows that the reason for
your braggs and other posting nonsense is because of your narcissism.
Consider it a free service.
You certainly are free to make the world aware of your narcissism though >projection.
Essentially you can’t force folks to go a route they don’t wish to!
On 2/16/2024 4:36 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
<snip>
Unfortunately, as one might easily guess, using that as a general model
for "biycle infrastructure" is grossly misleading, because most trips
neither start nor end at a river and even when they do, riding along a
river promenade most often isn't the best choice, or even good choice.
Often that route is neither continuous, nor safe, nor fast enough,
especially for longer trips. My long time commute crossing the Rhine,
for example, was essentially riding through the city to the central of
three bridges, crossing the river and then finally riding up an ascent
to a local hill at the edge of the Siebengebirge. Dig up a river and
they will come? Sorry, just kidding.
We must be lucky in my area, Silicon Valley, because the bicycle >infrastructure that is alongside creeks and rivers is both continuous
and safe, and is especially suited for longer trips.
Am Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:48:58 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
About clipless: I've never wanted them. I'm certainly not afraid of
them; what's to fear anyway? I used old-style classic cycling shoes with
cleats, toe clips and straps during time trials, back in the day. A
person who can handle those should have no problem with clipless.
I never used pedals with toe clips like those <https://www.pinterest.com.mx/pin/371969250455779002/>
with their leather-straps. When I got my Peugeot PR60/L in 1978, I
removed the straps and rode without. My wife initially got clips called "lady clips" similar to these <https://fawkes-cycles.co.uk/mks-half-clip-steel-toe-clips-deep-with-leather-p14678>
on her 1978 randonneur and still uses similar clips made from plastic on
her current, very old, but somewhat newer utility bike
("Fahrradmanufaktur", Anglais frame, Sachs 3x7).
I switched to clipless pedals a long time ago for everything except a
Dutch bike, both for leisure rides and for my commute to work.
Peugeot PR60/L <https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/bilder/Alltagsraeder/images/janaufrad.jpg>
Sparta Cornwall
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/bild12.jpeg>.
My wife switched from lady clips to SPD, too, when we bought two new
racing bikes in early 2010.
As I've said many times, one of my priorities is to be able to use my
bikes with (almost) any shoes I own.
I'm able to use any of my bikes with almost any shoes, for short trips
on flat ground. But I rarely do, because most of my bicycle shoes are
good enough for walking and don't look much different from sneakers.
Perfect if you have an office job in a science-related field, as I did.
I even bought a special pair of SPD shoes for commuting in winter. <https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/winterausruestung/IMG_1272.jpeg>.
Those shoes of course had to be changed at the office.
As I have never practiced cycling as a competitive sport, there was no
reason to use anything other than SPD.
If I ride to a store, to a library,
to visit a friend etc., I don't want to have to change shoes. For me,
toe clips and straps (usually fairly loose) work perfectly. YMMV.
Our sons use Look compatible pedals on their racing bikes and SPD or
ordinary pedals on their other bikes.
Am Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:31:24 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Essentially you can’t force folks to go a route they don’t wish to!
Of course you can't do that. But you can roughly calculate that a long
but direct route on good asphalt, which is at the limit of what someone
can manage, is no longer manageable if you hold a meandering route with
high rolling resistance and many obstacles against it.
On 2/17/2024 10:34 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:31:24 GMT schrieb Roger MerrimanAt least locally the meandering type stuff are leisure routes and in a lot >> of cases more walking than cycles areas which is fine.
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Essentially you can’t force folks to go a route they don’t wish to! >>>Of course you can't do that. But you can roughly calculate that a long
but direct route on good asphalt, which is at the limit of what someone
can manage, is no longer manageable if you hold a meandering route with
high rolling resistance and many obstacles against it.
It's fine if your objective is to give people a place to putter about on
a bike for recreation. But usually, proponents of "innovative" bike infrastructure say it's to significantly increase bike mode share,
reduce motor vehicle congestion, reduce pollution, etc.
All that seems very unrealistic, at least for the U.S. But if the
promoted routes to traffic generators are too indirect, it seems
completely hopeless.
On 2/17/2024 8:30 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:48:58 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
As I've said many times, one of my priorities is to be able to use my
bikes with (almost) any shoes I own.
I'm able to use any of my bikes with almost any shoes, for short trips
on flat ground. But I rarely do, because most of my bicycle shoes are
good enough for walking and don't look much different from sneakers.
Perfect if you have an office job in a science-related field, as I did.
I'm sure it varies with one's personal choice of clothing style.
The most dedicated utility cyclist I know was, until he retired, a
history professor at our university. He and his wife were (and still
are) comfortable attending all sorts of functions in cycling-oriented clothing. They'll be the ones at the symphony performance in bright
yellow Gore-Tex jackets, surrounded by more formally dressed attendees.
But when he rode his bike to the university, he'd be in clothing more
suited for the classroom or other professional business, just as I was.
On 2/17/2024 10:34 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:31:24 GMT schrieb Roger MerrimanAt least locally the meandering type stuff are leisure routes and in a lot >> of cases more walking than cycles areas which is fine.
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Essentially you cant force folks to go a route they dont wish to!
Of course you can't do that. But you can roughly calculate that a long
but direct route on good asphalt, which is at the limit of what someone
can manage, is no longer manageable if you hold a meandering route with
high rolling resistance and many obstacles against it.
It's fine if your objective is to give people a place to putter about on
a bike for recreation. But usually, proponents of "innovative" bike >infrastructure say it's to significantly increase bike mode share,
reduce motor vehicle congestion, reduce pollution, etc.
All that seems very unrealistic, at least for the U.S. But if the
promoted routes to traffic generators are too indirect, it seems
completely hopeless.
On 2/17/2024 1:53 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I never heard the term "bike mode share" before RBT. I still don't
concern myself about it.
More succinctly, our tricycle guy means: "I don't know and I don't care."
Which is his right, of course.
But it makes one wonder why he bothers to
read, let alone post.
On 2/17/2024 1:53 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I never heard the term "bike mode share" before RBT. I
still don't
concern myself about it.
More succinctly, our tricycle guy means: "I don't know and I
don't care."
Which is his right, of course. But it makes one wonder why
he bothers to read, let alone post.
Am Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:44:03 -0500 schrieb Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>:
On 2/15/2024 1:38 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:48:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2024 9:06 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:Yeah, I do enjoy making sure that everyone knows that the reason for
On 2/15/2024 8:23 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:The Florida guy is desperately compensating for his feelings of
..and for some, as we've seen, it's scary to ride with clipless
pedals.
There's a big difference between being afraid to do something and
preferring not to do something. It's not surprising you don't get that. >>>>
inferiority. He yaps at me at every opportunity, in every way possible. >>>
your braggs and other posting nonsense is because of your narcissism.
Consider it a free service.
You certainly are free to make the world aware of your narcissism though
projection.
What's wrong with talking about ones preferences and the reasons
thereabout?
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:42:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2024 1:53 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I never heard the term "bike mode share" before RBT. I still don't
concern myself about it.
More succinctly, our tricycle guy means: "I don't know and I don't care."
Exactly...
Which is his right, of course.
Unlike you, little man, I don't try to get involved with things that
don't concern me.
But it makes one wonder why he bothers to
read, let alone post.
Ding goes the irony bell, again. Krykowski posts to make him feel
better about himself.
On 2/16/2024 5:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Essentially you can’t force folks to go a route they don’t wish to! See >> quiet ways and other meandering type routes, fine on a quiet day with
time
to burn but hardly useful transport.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can fix your meandering rivers by straightening them. "The Corps has straightened the river’s path by
cutting off meander bends, and has built multiple flood control
structures capable of diverting a portion of the river's flow." This was
done to make the river usable for barges.
On 2/13/2024 10:28 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:17:07 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
In either case, "bicycle infrastructure"is a detriment. In the best
case, rarely that is, it is just superfluous and unnecessary, in the
more frequent case it is dangerous, inconvenient to use and, of course, >>>> mandatory.
Not in all Europe?
In those parts of Europe where we cycled long enough and far enough.
This includes large parts of Germany, France and some parts of Italy.
I'm curious about the enforcement of mandatory sidepaths.
What would be the likely result of riding on the road you photographed, ignoring the ugly looking sidepath?
Would motorists be abusive?
Would police be called and issue you fines?
On 2/19/2024 7:13 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 2/17/2024 8:32 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
What's wrong with talking about ones preferences and the reasons
thereabout?
Nothing at all, except that the floriduh dumbass regularly criticizes
other for expressing their opinions and preferences.
... even while he's stating his own preferences.
On 2/9/2024 11:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/9/2024 10:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
... London has built-in disincentives for motoring. Andit's still had to add more.
Typical U.S. cities have no such disincentives. That means adding
fancy bike facilities are not likely to tempt many people out of
their cars.
Damned Romans plunked it right across a river. Not very
traffic-friendly move.
Street grids work better on prairies:
http://www.map-of-the-world.info/mapserver/texas-maps/interactive-maps/1km/lubbock.gif
Plenty of parallel alternates!
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to have grid street
plans like that. Cities and suburbs built after ~ 1960 tend to have a spaghetti street plan instead of a grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
On 2/19/2024 11:34 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.02.2024 um 21:16 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
IME, older cities built before auto dominance tend to
have grid street plans like that. Cities and suburbs
built after ~ 1960 tend to have a spaghetti street plan
instead of a grid, often with cul-de-sacs.
In the USA, the original 13 colonies were mostly
"organically grown" (i.e. random layout) whereas the
mid-West was mostly settled by engineers, partly in a
"local grid" layout and partly in a "compass" grid layout
(e.g. in Minneapolis, the City Cernter grid parallels the
river whereas further out it's a compass grid).
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/JFLk2PEH8Y1Ccvnk6>
My observations are built on cities founded much later than
1776, and primarily those whose terrain is not extreme.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has extreme hills that chop the
city up into "neighborhoods" at odd angles to each other.
But within neighborhoods, grid patters predominate: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4WpKPpivou1ronc57
Akron, Ohio and Columbus, Ohio have far less radical
terrain. Their layouts are dominated by grid streets.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qcqUBm1qzJerLwdMA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZUsNZsz6t1mR6eUN8
But one can see that the areas developed later, farther from
the city center, tend toward snaky street layouts.
BTW, about parallels: I heard recently that John Young,
founder of Youngstown, laid out the downtown streets to
align with sunset on June 21. According to this site, he was
perhaps a degree off https://www.suncalc.org/#/41.1013,-80.6493,15/2024.06.21/13:15/1/3
but it's an interesting idea.
Am 13.02.2024 um 19:00 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 2/13/2024 10:28 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:17:07 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
In either case, "bicycle infrastructure"is a detriment. In the best
case, rarely that is, it is just superfluous and unnecessary, in the >>>>> more frequent case it is dangerous, inconvenient to use and, of course, >>>>> mandatory.
Not in all Europe?
In those parts of Europe where we cycled long enough and far enough.
This includes large parts of Germany, France and some parts of Italy.
I'm curious about the enforcement of mandatory sidepaths.
What would be the likely result of riding on the road you photographed,
ignoring the ugly looking sidepath?
Would motorists be abusive?
Motorists can become abusive if they think there is a cycle path nearby;
they don't care about the legal siutation. It happened to me appox. 10
times in my life.
Would police be called and issue you fines?
I once had a police car use their loudspeakers hollering "The recumbant cyclist at the lights, you also must use the cycle path".
I have heared from others that police taking a routine check for other reasons might fine you but never have experienced this myself (maybe
because I mostly cycle in the suburbs rather than in the city center).
Other major cities are 'more or less' on compass direction but not
always exactly; Chicago aligns March 19 and September 22 with the
equinoxes while Manhattan's are May 29 and July 12, somewhat askew from anything of astronomical significance.
On 2/19/2024 10:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
Other major cities are 'more or less' on compass direction
but not always exactly; Chicago aligns March 19 and
September 22 with the equinoxes while Manhattan's are May
29 and July 12, somewhat askew from anything of
astronomical significance.
Supposedly San Francisco wanted a non-grid street pattern
that took into account the hills and worked around them.
Developers insisted on a grid pattern. The fallout of that
is some extremely steep streets, or, in some cases when the
angle is just too great, a stairway instead of the street
going through. Or of course the famous Lombard Street.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:18:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 7:13 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 2/17/2024 8:32 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
What's wrong with talking about ones preferences and the reasons
thereabout?
Nothing at all, except that the floriduh dumbass regularly criticizes
other for expressing their opinions and preferences.
... even while he's stating his own preferences.
<EYEROLL> The difference between Krogowski's and my posting is that,
outside of politics, I don't try to denigrate other people's opinions
and preferences.
On 2/17/2024 8:30 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:48:58 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
As I've said many times, one of my priorities is to be able to use my
bikes with (almost) any shoes I own.
I'm able to use any of my bikes with almost any shoes, for short trips
on flat ground. But I rarely do, because most of my bicycle shoes are
good enough for walking and don't look much different from sneakers.
Perfect if you have an office job in a science-related field, as I did.
I'm sure it varies with one's personal choice of clothing style.
The most dedicated utility cyclist I know was, until he retired, a
history professor at our university. He and his wife were (and still
are) comfortable attending all sorts of functions in cycling-oriented >clothing. They'll be the ones at the symphony performance in bright
yellow Gore-Tex jackets, surrounded by more formally dressed attendees.
But when he rode his bike to the university, he'd be in clothing more
suited for the classroom or other professional business, just as I was.
On 2/20/2024 7:19 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:39:25 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
But when he rode his bike to the university, he'd be in clothing more
suited for the classroom or other professional business, just as I was.
Like probably for most people, that wasn't a realistic option for me.
While I prefered clothing that avoided that stereotypical "competetive
cyclist look", my commute simply wasn't made for riding in clothing both
suitable for riding and for office work. So I compromised and wore
stuff like that
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20070919/IMG_3215.jpg>
during summer...
The man in question lived only about 1.5 miles from the university, and
it was downhill on the way in. He needed no special clothing. My commute
was 7 miles, downhill most of the way. The sweaty part was the ride home!
Nowadays, being retired, both my wife and I do our longer rides in the
standard race bike clothing, bibs etc., for practical reasons. However,
we ride wearing tastefully colored jerseys and without helmets.
As I recall, for his annual tours of the Alps, Jobst Brandt carried
almost no clothing except cycling clothes. His philosophy was something
like "You're a cyclist. Don't be afraid to look like one."
But in my time trial days, I used toe clips and straps with cycling
shoes plus cleats - the blocky cleats that grabbed an edge of the pedal. Something like this: https://steel-vintage.com/products/classic-pedal-cleats-detail
With those, one had to reach down and loosen the leather strap before
freeing one's foot from the pedal. Since I used them only for the time trials, it wasn't hard to remember. I'd have too little strength to
stand at the end of a time trial anyway, so I'd be riding in circles for
a while until I caught my breath. Plenty of time to loosen straps.
And then I realized that clipless pedals are not compatible with
walking shoes.
On 2/20/2024 7:19 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:39:25 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
But when he rode his bike to the university, he'd be in clothing more
suited for the classroom or other professional business, just as I was.
Like probably for most people, that wasn't a realistic option for me.
While I prefered clothing that avoided that stereotypical "competetive
cyclist look", my commute simply wasn't made for riding in clothing both
suitable for riding and for office work. So I compromised and wore
stuff like that
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20070919/IMG_3215.jpg>
during summer...
The man in question lived only about 1.5 miles from the university, and
it was downhill on the way in.
He needed no special clothing. My commute
was 7 miles, downhill most of the way. The sweaty part was the ride home!
Nowadays, being retired, both my wife and I do our longer rides in the
standard race bike clothing, bibs etc., for practical reasons. However,
we ride wearing tastefully colored jerseys and without helmets.
As I recall, for his annual tours of the Alps, Jobst Brandt carried
almost no clothing except cycling clothes. His philosophy was something
like "You're a cyclist. Don't be afraid to look like one."
On 2/19/2024 4:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 13.02.2024 um 19:00 schrieb Frank Krygowski:Germany seems a lot more aggressive to cyclists than even uk which has its >> own problems. But a police car doing that in the uk, would undoubtedly get >> itself into a whole world of trouble and into the news!
On 2/13/2024 10:28 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:17:07 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
I once had a police car use their loudspeakers hollering "The recumbant
cyclist at the lights, you also must use the cycle path".
I have heared from others that police taking a routine check for other
reasons might fine you but never have experienced this myself (maybe
because I mostly cycle in the suburbs rather than in the city center).
I once talked down and educated a state highway patrolman out west on
just such an issue.
And in Ohio, we once had an instance where a cop tasered and arrested a >bicyclist for, essentially, "riding a bicycle in the roadway." Here's a
long article on the incident: >https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20010907/road-rights-and-bicycle-advocacy/
Those charges were dismissed. But here's a brief article on the
resulting lawsuit, in which the cops' jurisdiction settled for an
undisclosed amount: >https://www.irontontribune.com/2010/07/08/lawsuit-by-tasered-biker-settled/
Am Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:56:46 -0500 schrieb Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid>:
And then I realized that clipless pedals are not compatible with
walking shoes.
Not necessarily.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/m323/m323lo.jpeg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/m323/m323lu.jpeg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/m323/1999-0716-070935AA.jpeg>
I bought these with a racing bike (Panasonic PR 3000) in 1995 and used
these for years, on a bicycle used for touring and during winter. AFAIK, similar products still exist.
Unfortunately, these pedals limited the lean angle when using the SPD
side. This can be dangerous if you're not used to it. After riding with
SPD pedals that can be used on both sides in the summer, I touched the
ground quite heavily a few times in a curve and replaced these pedals as
a result.
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:56:46 -0500 schrieb Joy BeesonBroadly similar experience, I found that the clips being one sided where >always in the wrong side, and the flat part wasn’t very good either, mind >you compared them to MTB flats ie stuff like this!
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid>:
And then I realized that clipless pedals are not compatible with
walking shoes.
Not necessarily.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/m323/m323lo.jpeg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/m323/m323lu.jpeg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/m323/1999-0716-070935AA.jpeg>
I bought these with a racing bike (Panasonic PR 3000) in 1995 and used
these for years, on a bicycle used for touring and during winter. AFAIK,
similar products still exist.
Unfortunately, these pedals limited the lean angle when using the SPD
side. This can be dangerous if you're not used to it. After riding with
SPD pedals that can be used on both sides in the summer, I touched the
ground quite heavily a few times in a curve and replaced these pedals as
a result.
https://www.dmrbikes.com/Catalogue/Pedals/V12-2/V12
In fairness about the same as a road flats ie pedals with or without the >clips.
So I used the M520 for number of years
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/deore-m6000/PD-M520.html
Which worked fine you can get it or rather SPD or similar with a cage
around it so easier to pedal not clipped in.
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/shimano/PD-M647.html
Which apparently will give one more support and will work with out being >clipped in, though I never used them or similar pedals, as eventually I
moved back to the Flat pedals and shoes which I prefer the feel of and >performance.
On 2/21/2024 8:54 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Wearing clothing neccessary for longer or more strenuous commutes,
including a reasonabble way to shower and/or change at the workplace is
valid concern for many people.
I know that many worry about that. I've always showered in the morning.
While I was often a little sweaty on arrival, there was no problem with
odor or anything else.
Am Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:59:36 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 2/21/2024 8:54 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Wearing clothing neccessary for longer or more strenuous commutes,
including a reasonabble way to shower and/or change at the workplace is
valid concern for many people.
I know that many worry about that. I've always showered in the morning.
While I was often a little sweaty on arrival, there was no problem with
odor or anything else.
My commute was uphill in the morning, after crossing a crowded inner
city during rushhour. You can try to do this without arriving dripping
wet, but it simply doesn't work in summer at the latest.
Ignoring a valid problem doesn't make it go away. The fact that many
people blame a problem they in fact don't have doesn't change that.
Am Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:28:43 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:56:46 -0500 schrieb Joy BeesonBroadly similar experience, I found that the clips being one sided where
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid>:
And then I realized that clipless pedals are not compatible with
walking shoes.
Not necessarily.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/m323/m323lo.jpeg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/m323/m323lu.jpeg>
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/technik/komponenten/m323/1999-0716-070935AA.jpeg>
I bought these with a racing bike (Panasonic PR 3000) in 1995 and used
these for years, on a bicycle used for touring and during winter. AFAIK, >>> similar products still exist.
Unfortunately, these pedals limited the lean angle when using the SPD
side. This can be dangerous if you're not used to it. After riding with
SPD pedals that can be used on both sides in the summer, I touched the
ground quite heavily a few times in a curve and replaced these pedals as >>> a result.
always in the wrong side, and the flat part wasn’t very good either, mind >> you compared them to MTB flats ie stuff like this!
https://www.dmrbikes.com/Catalogue/Pedals/V12-2/V12
In fairness about the same as a road flats ie pedals with or without the
clips.
So I used the M520 for number of years
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/deore-m6000/PD-M520.html
Which worked fine you can get it or rather SPD or similar with a cage
around it so easier to pedal not clipped in.
I bought a pair of those for the bike I built in early 2023 for my wife.
For mine I simply moved a pair of Garmin XC 200 over from the old bike
I bought in 2010.
<https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/658594/>
That old bike got its original pedals again (Shimano SPD from 2010,
similar to PD-M520, too lazy to look it up). It currently gets used on
the indoor trainer only, but could serve as a fallback.
https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/shimano/PD-M647.html
Which apparently will give one more support and will work with out being
clipped in, though I never used them or similar pedals, as eventually I
moved back to the Flat pedals and shoes which I prefer the feel of and
performance.
PD-M520 do work without being clipped in, too, good enough for picking
up bread rolls while on vacation. At home, we just switch to our
bicycles with flat pedals for shopping.
By the way, what about SH-SD501? I have a pair of those too, but have
only rarely used them when it was very hot in the summer. There is a
wide range of SPD shoes suitable for walking, not just from Shimano.
On 2/25/2024 8:27 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:59:36 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 2/21/2024 8:54 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Wearing clothing neccessary for longer or more strenuous commutes,
including a reasonabble way to shower and/or change at the workplace is >>>> valid concern for many people.
I know that many worry about that. I've always showered in the morning.
While I was often a little sweaty on arrival, there was no problem with
odor or anything else.
My commute was uphill in the morning, after crossing a crowded inner
city during rushhour. You can try to do this without arriving dripping
wet, but it simply doesn't work in summer at the latest.
Ignoring a valid problem doesn't make it go away. The fact that many
people blame a problem they in fact don't have doesn't change that.
I've only worked in one place in my entire career that didn't have a
shower (it was a start-up in an office condo). Even there I would
completely wash up in the bathroom when I got to work. I use my commutes
as workouts, so like you, the only times I wouldn't arrive at work
completely soaked with sweat is in very cold mornings, and even then depending on my training schedule...let's just say it wasn't a good idea
to stop for very long or else get a chill to the bone.
On 2/25/2024 8:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
I've only worked in one place in my entire career that didn't have a
shower (it was a start-up in an office condo). Even there I would
completely wash up in the bathroom when I got to work. I use my
commutes as workouts, so like you, the only times I wouldn't arrive at
work completely soaked with sweat is in very cold mornings, and even
then depending on my training schedule...let's just say it wasn't a
good idea to stop for very long or else get a chill to the bone.
For me, the workout was the ride home. As I've described, my method
depended on traffic lights. I started my stopwatch as I began riding
home. If I caught the first few lights green, I tried for a fast elapsed time. If I caught a couple red lights, I made it an easier day - but I
still had the climb out of the valley. I arrived home sweaty no matter
what.
I haven't put a stopwatch on that ride for over ten years now. I shudder
to think how my present times would compare. :-(
On 2/25/2024 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/25/2024 8:43 AM, zen cycle wrote:
I've only worked in one place in my entire career that didn't have a
shower (it was a start-up in an office condo). Even there I would
completely wash up in the bathroom when I got to work. I use my
commutes as workouts, so like you, the only times I wouldn't arrive at
work completely soaked with sweat is in very cold mornings, and even
then depending on my training schedule...let's just say it wasn't a
good idea to stop for very long or else get a chill to the bone.
For me, the workout was the ride home. As I've described, my method
depended on traffic lights. I started my stopwatch as I began riding
home. If I caught the first few lights green, I tried for a fast elapsed
time. If I caught a couple red lights, I made it an easier day - but I
still had the climb out of the valley. I arrived home sweaty no matter
what.
I haven't put a stopwatch on that ride for over ten years now. I shudder
to think how my present times would compare. :-(
I know its just me, but I have a _Really_ hard time taking easy during
my morning commutes. I read somewhere long ago that morning workouts for
men usually result in larger gains, partially due to the replenishment
of testosterone during sleep cycles, who knows how that 'science' may
have changed over time. I would use my rides home for Long Steady
Distance workouts - I can do a 2-3 hour ride on the way home, and not
worry about being late for a meeting: https://www.strava.com/activities/9359583882
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 82:23:09 |
| Calls: | 6,696 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,229 |
| Messages: | 5,347,852 |
