On 2016-12-19 18:35, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sat, 17 Dec 2016
14:22:20 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-16 09:50, wrote:

[...]

... They have the luxury of getting to work
rapidly and then sitting at a desk for the rest of the day. And if
you eat some protein you can limit the muscle damage.

Where I live is different. If I get a job in the area I want I could
be commuting 50 km each way. And because of the traffic I could even
be faster counting both the stop and go traffic and the more direct
path I could take as a bicyclist.


That's over 30mi each way. A lot. Not sure if I'd do that but if not
many hills probably yes.

The furthest I've commuted was a daily trip of 21 miles each way, but
I know of one cyclist who commuted about double that for several
years, from Dunstable to central London.


We hired away a UK engineer, a very skinny guy. He had a commute
somewhere north of 30mi, also near London. This guy rode a bike every
day even in the driving rain. When he and his family arrived here in the
US he no longer rode. Considering the absence of bike facilities this
was fully understandable back then since that also caused me to stop riding.

Now that bike infrastructure is gradually being put in people start
riding bikes. Including myself. I guess for the auto industry that is
not a good thing because my yearly car mileage is down to 1200mi. 4000mi
on the bikes.

Almost none of that commute from Dunstable has any dedicated cycling
infrastructure - it was all on roads with speed limits outside towns
and villages of either 60 or 70mph.
My own former 21 mile commute had precisely zero dedicated cycling
infrastructure, and was almost all on single carriageway roads with 1
lane each way and a 60mph speed limit, but varying lane widths (some
easily adequate for a pair of tractor trailers to pass without
slowing, others which required one of them to pull over for anything
bigger than a Fiat 500 - or more likely, force the oncoming car to
pull over!).

Your problem is that you have the cart ahead of the horse.


No, this is the way the vast majority of people here think and for good
reasons.


When there are enough cyclists, there are also enough of them to be a
significant voting block, and cycling infrastructure gets funded,
particularly as it's seen as a way to speed the flow of motor traffic
by getting all those pesky cyclists (for whom the roads were
originally sealed and who use the roads by right) out of the way of
the motorists (who only use the roads by permit and under strict
conditions).


In this day and age it only works if the planning guys take a leap of
faith and build it. Like they did in Folsom, with resounding success.
Same in Manhattan, and Portland, and ...


As long as there are very few cyclists, you don't get any pressure
from either the motorists (who perceive, usually wrongly, delays from
having to wait to pass cyclists - it's only less time waiting in the
next queue of motor traffic, after all) or from the timid or less
capable road cyclists, who don't know how to ride in motor traffic
safely (or those who worry on their behalf, regardless of real danger,
just because of perceived danger based on their own competence level
instead of that of the rider or that of the overwhelming majority of
motorists).


Smart cyclists know of the real danger. They know how to ride correctly
and as the law demands. It does demand AFRAP here unless taking the lane
is allowed.

Example: I was riding a road like the one you described above every
week, a "utility ride". There is one narrow bridge where I always took
the lane. Until one fine day when a guy gunned it, passed me, realized
opposing traffic and almost pushed me over the railing of that bridge.
Since that day I use the car unless a bush road is passable via MTB (it
floods a lot and I have to show up non-muddy). It's safer.

Countless other examples. Some ended fatally for the cyclists, hit from
behind at high speed. Sticking the head into the sand and hoping it's
not going to happen to you might work. Or it might not. For those of us
who have to provide for families it's not just about our lives.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/