View Single Post
  #32  
Old February 21st 18, 04:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:


Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"?

Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
world there.


But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
properly in traffic?


Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High
School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even
purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course.

Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to
drive is no longer necessary?

And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend
on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars
per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to
its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It
makes no sense.


We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out
instruction
manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should
they not
instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?


Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving
school teachers if the family uses that avenue.


Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now
using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of
that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say
those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense.

We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount
educational
campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give
clearance
to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why
should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting
cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about
riding better?


Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah.


You're apparently in favor of ignorance.

Campaigns like that should use far more than prints and posters. We have
mass media - radio that people listen to while driving, TVs that people
watch at home. There are billboards along almost every roadside. There
are magazines and newspapers, both in print and online.

This country has education efforts about everything from "don't drive
drunk" to "vaccinate your kids" to "stay in school" to "take your dogs
inside in cold weather." None of them have had 100% success, but many
have helped significantly.

Yet you don't want to educate motorists about bicyclists. Instead, you
want to spend billions of dollars to build separate paths. You make no
sense.

You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over
the
place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially
because
truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.


Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I
show up on a bulldozer and do it myself.


You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies,
while ignoring much less costly improvements. You're not making sense.

And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have
to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists
who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and
motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You
shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They
don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to
learn about those complications.

You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff.


Don't pretend it's just _my_ "taking the lane" stuff. It's taught by
every nationally recognized cycling education course. It's written into
most state laws, including yours. Your failure to understand does not
invalidate the principles - both legal principles and traffic principles.

But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way
cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the
cyclists will
enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this
really look
good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067


In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no.


OK, let's start from that statement. So we should NOT do those cycle
tracks in a dense city, despite all the bike advocates who claim we need
them precisely there? Fine.

So instead, you want to do these million dollar per mile facilities out
in rural areas, where there are countless more miles to cover, and only
1/100 the number of cyclists who will ever use them?

Yet again, Joerg, you're not making sense.

And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They
are
increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by
hoping to
reduce 5%. It's nuts.


Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or
killed.

"A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is:
http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm

I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news.


sigh I've run across your mindset regarding other issues too. "It
doesn't matter what national data says. It doesn't matter what the
largest and most disciplined studies say. It doesn't matter what
competent engineers say. I've got a few anecdotes - but I won't say how
many! - and my anecdotes trump any and all science."

I honestly don't know how to respond to such deep ignorance except to say:

You're Not Making Sense.

--
Cheers,

John B.

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home