A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Build it and ... why aren't they coming?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old January 4th 19, 07:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,091
Default Build it and ... why aren't they coming?

" writes:

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 5:52:54 PM UTC-6, Radey Shouman wrote:
" writes:

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 2:21:29 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2019 2:09 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 9:10:57 AM UTC-6, jbeattie wrote:

I couldn't imagine living in the Mid West or some place where
there was snow on the ground for long periods of time and below
zero F on a regular basis. I'd move to Phoenix.

-- Jay Beattie.

Due to Global Warming, the Midwest has not had a real winter in
more than a decade. In Des Moines today, right in the middle of
the Midwest, its 36 degrees and Zero snow. Going to be in the 40s
or 50s highs for the next week. In early January??? It does snow
two or three times each winter. An inch or two that sticks around
for less than a week. But the roads are cleared in a few hours
and easily rideable with studded tires. You only need studs for a
few days of the year. Rest of the time rubber works perfectly.
If it wasn't dark for 16 hours a day, you would never even know it
was winter in the Midwest.

It varies. It's been warm in Ohio this winter, but examining weather
records, of the top 10 snowiest Januaries, six of them occurred since
2000. Likewise, seven of the 10 snowiest Februaries.

Records at that location have been kept since at least 1931 (maybe
longer) so that's nine decades. Those results are statistically odd.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Snow does not mean cold. Its snowed where I live when its 33-34-35
degrees. But 33-34-35 degrees is WARM for January and February. So
its very easy to have global warming and lots of snow. I suspect all
the extra warmth in the air causes the water in oceans and lakes to
heat up and evaporate into the air. And then once the water is in the
air, it has to fall out of the air by either rain or snow. And it
seems we have two or three hurricanes every year too. More evidence
of global warming.


On the other hand, 2018 saw the fewest (total) deaths from tornadoes in
the US since 1875.

https://weather.com/storms/tornado/n...est-since-1875

Italy seems to have had an unusual number, however.

Must be global warming.

--


https://www.statista.com/statistics/...us-since-1995/

Not sure the number of deaths from tornadoes means much. The above
website shows the number of tornadoes from 1995 to 2017. Total
tornadoes each year jump around a bit but seem to stay in a similar
range over the two decades. Deaths from tornadoes really depends on
where they happen to hit. If there are lots of tornadoes in Kansas
and Oklahoma, probably very few people will be killed because both
states don't have a lot of people. And all the people in those states
live in a few big cities. Otherwise its all empty farmland. You
could have thousands of tornadoes hitting empty farmland and kill no
one. Or one tornado hitting a big city and kill 1000 people.

Number of tornadoes and people killed by tornadoes is very different
than flooding and people killed by floods. With flooding you pretty
much know where its going to flood. If there is a flood, people will
likely die. You know where the people live and you know if they live
in a flood plain. But with tornadoes, you don't know where they will
hit and whether they hit where people live.


My point exactly. You said that it seems we have "two or three"
hurricanes a year, which is quite a small number. Hence, I assume, you
really meant hurricanes that (a) strike land, (b) cause significant
damage (c) in the US.

Hurricanes at sea used to be a real problem for navigation, but in these
days of weather sattelites and radio, not so much. 2018 was a bad
hurricane year for Mexico, not to mention a bad cyclone season for Asia
and the Indian subcontinent. Had you been considering those I think
your "two or three" might have been "eight or nine".


--


Ads
  #42  
Old January 4th 19, 08:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default Build it and ... why aren't they coming?

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 6:18:04 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2019 8:01 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 12:14:16 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/

- Frank Krygowski


What is your point Frank? You want a pat on your shoulder? The main purpose of our bikepaths is to make cycling safer not increasing it.


Lou, for the last 15 years (at least) in America the bike facility
propaganda has been that building bike infra will increase cycling. "If
you build it, they will come!" was taken from the movie "Field of
Dreams" but in this context it means "If we just spend lots of money
building bike lanes... no, make that parking protected bike lanes... or
maybe bicycle freeways... then LOTS of people will stop driving cars and
ride bikes everywhere."

And in the last 10 years, when bicycling became trendy, every time a
city's bike mode share rose from 0.5% to 0.6%, those pushing facilities
have trumpeted this headline: "BIKE MODE SHARE INCREASES BY 20% IN ONE
YEAR!!" followed by "We MUST build more bike lanes everywhere!"

They've resolutely ignored those cases where (as in San Francisco) bike
mode share rose without any new bike facilities - that is, rose only due
to fashion. They've also resolutely ignored all those places where new
bike facilities caused no improvement, as well as those places where
bike mode share dropped.

My point? Let's look honestly at the whole picture, and at all the data.



And then what? Do bike facilities bother you so much that you point us to obscure articles that agree with you again and again. What do you expect from us? The same yes no discussion?


And BTW, the U.S. is and will always be much, much different from the
Netherlands.


Political? Thank god for that.

Lou


  #43  
Old January 4th 19, 09:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Build it and ... why aren't they coming?

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 7:01:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:

The main purpose of our bikepaths is to make cycling safer not increasing it.

Lou


I think those two, "safer", and "increase", can go together. They both help the other. If its safer, more separate bike trails, then its highly probable more people, "increase", will bicycle. And usually when something becomes more prevalent and more people are doing it, then it also becomes safer. In the USA when driving first started, back in the early 1900s, it was not very safe due to unsafe cars and bad roads and traffic control. But as more and more people took to driving, both the cars improved from a safety point, and the roads and control of the roads improved. Making driving safer. Increase and safe work together to bring both up.

In Des Moines, Iowa, we have hundreds of miles of paved bike trails through and around the city. During the summer months we have hundreds, thousands of people on bikes on these trails. I am convinced the trails encourage people to ride their bikes. Ride for fun, enjoyment, recreation. Not utility or commuting. Most people drive their car with their bike inside to the trails to ride their bike on the trails. But there are also hardcores like me who ride their bike to the trails and home. No car involved.

I think of trails as very similar to parks. City or state parks. They are for enjoyment purposes. Not functional, business, work purposes. I'm not convinced building trails on busy roads and into downtown commercial areas is the best use of resources and efforts. I think building trails into scenic remote areas is a better use of funds and effort. Be happy you are getting people on bikes and enjoying the exercise. Don't think you can solve commuting and congestion and parking problems with bikes. Be happy with half a loaf of bread, don't think you can get the whole loaf.
  #44  
Old January 4th 19, 10:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,872
Default Build it and ... why aren't they coming?

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:00:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Snipped

Snipped. I think building trails into scenic remote areas is a better use of funds and effort. Be happy you are getting people on bikes and enjoying the exercise. Don't think you can solve commuting and congestion and parking problems with bikes. Be happy with half a loaf of bread, don't think you can get the whole loaf.


I don't think that Canada or the U.S.A. will EVER get a lot of people commuting on bicycle lanes in big cities, or even small cities, where the existing infrastructure is old. That's because there simply is no where to put a bicycle lane that isn't in the door zone. On top of that just painting a bike lane between the parked cars and the traffic lane just narrows that traffic lane.

The city that I often ride through going south or coming back is talking about adding a bike lane to its main north south road that comes in from the west side of the city. The problem is that they can NOT widen the road to put in that bike lane. This means that the bike lane will be yet another door zone bike lane and as such bicyclists will not use it nor will it increase the number of bicyclists and that's because those bicyclist know that riding in the door zone of parked cars is dangerous.

So, if roads are too narrow for a safe bicycle lane and the sidewalks are already too narrow, how would a city put in safe and usable bike lanes into their business/downtown areas? That's the problem as I see it.

I wonder if a bicyclist riding in a door zone bicycle lane gets doored and injured if they could sue the city or whatever for building an unsafe route.. After all if a road does not meet Provincial standards the city can be sued by any motorist who has an accident on it.

Cheers
  #45  
Old January 5th 19, 05:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,537
Default Build it and ... why aren't they coming?

On 1/4/2019 2:11 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 6:18:04 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2019 8:01 AM,
wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 12:14:16 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/

- Frank Krygowski

What is your point Frank? You want a pat on your shoulder? The main purpose of our bikepaths is to make cycling safer not increasing it.


Lou, for the last 15 years (at least) in America the bike facility
propaganda has been that building bike infra will increase cycling. "If
you build it, they will come!" was taken from the movie "Field of
Dreams" but in this context it means "If we just spend lots of money
building bike lanes... no, make that parking protected bike lanes... or
maybe bicycle freeways... then LOTS of people will stop driving cars and
ride bikes everywhere."

And in the last 10 years, when bicycling became trendy, every time a
city's bike mode share rose from 0.5% to 0.6%, those pushing facilities
have trumpeted this headline: "BIKE MODE SHARE INCREASES BY 20% IN ONE
YEAR!!" followed by "We MUST build more bike lanes everywhere!"

They've resolutely ignored those cases where (as in San Francisco) bike
mode share rose without any new bike facilities - that is, rose only due
to fashion. They've also resolutely ignored all those places where new
bike facilities caused no improvement, as well as those places where
bike mode share dropped.

My point? Let's look honestly at the whole picture, and at all the data.



And then what? Do bike facilities bother you so much that you point us to obscure articles that agree with you again and again. What do you expect from us? The same yes no discussion?


My expectation would be that people who find the article interesting
would discuss it. People who do not find the article interesting would
go do something else. Maybe disassemble and reassemble all the links of
their chain? Whatever you like, Lou.

But _bad_ bike facilities do bother me, and there are many, many of
those being promoted in the U.S. (I haven't put up links to the latest
fatalities caused by door zone bike lanes. Want to see those?)

I have seen bad bike facilities excused on the theory that even if some
riders are injured (they never mention killed) it will be worth it,
because facilities will attract more cyclists and get more people
exercising. Some have claimed that despite increased injuries there will
be net gains in public health. In other words, they're willing to
recruit victims by false promises of safety. To me this is immoral.

For those and other reasons, when people (like Joerg, for instance)
claim that putting in bike facilities will cause miraculous changes in
American transportation, I'm willing to show contrary data.

If you don't like it, I suggest you don't read it.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #47  
Old January 5th 19, 07:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 224
Default Build it and ... why aren't they coming?

On Fri, 04 Jan 2019 23:38:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


But _bad_ bike facilities do bother me, and there are many, many of
those being promoted in the U.S.


Not just in the USA. It is the norm in Australia. A lot of white paint
"facilities" and anything decent is a shared pedestrian/bike path.

  #49  
Old January 5th 19, 07:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 550
Default Build it and ... why aren't they coming?

On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 23:38:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/4/2019 2:11 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 6:18:04 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2019 8:01 AM,
wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 12:14:16 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/

- Frank Krygowski

What is your point Frank? You want a pat on your shoulder? The main purpose of our bikepaths is to make cycling safer not increasing it.

Lou, for the last 15 years (at least) in America the bike facility
propaganda has been that building bike infra will increase cycling. "If
you build it, they will come!" was taken from the movie "Field of
Dreams" but in this context it means "If we just spend lots of money
building bike lanes... no, make that parking protected bike lanes... or
maybe bicycle freeways... then LOTS of people will stop driving cars and
ride bikes everywhere."

And in the last 10 years, when bicycling became trendy, every time a
city's bike mode share rose from 0.5% to 0.6%, those pushing facilities
have trumpeted this headline: "BIKE MODE SHARE INCREASES BY 20% IN ONE
YEAR!!" followed by "We MUST build more bike lanes everywhere!"

They've resolutely ignored those cases where (as in San Francisco) bike
mode share rose without any new bike facilities - that is, rose only due
to fashion. They've also resolutely ignored all those places where new
bike facilities caused no improvement, as well as those places where
bike mode share dropped.

My point? Let's look honestly at the whole picture, and at all the data.



And then what? Do bike facilities bother you so much that you point us to obscure articles that agree with you again and again. What do you expect from us? The same yes no discussion?


My expectation would be that people who find the article interesting
would discuss it. People who do not find the article interesting would
go do something else. Maybe disassemble and reassemble all the links of
their chain? Whatever you like, Lou.

But _bad_ bike facilities do bother me, and there are many, many of
those being promoted in the U.S. (I haven't put up links to the latest
fatalities caused by door zone bike lanes. Want to see those?)

I have seen bad bike facilities excused on the theory that even if some
riders are injured (they never mention killed) it will be worth it,
because facilities will attract more cyclists and get more people
exercising. Some have claimed that despite increased injuries there will
be net gains in public health. In other words, they're willing to
recruit victims by false promises of safety. To me this is immoral.

For those and other reasons, when people (like Joerg, for instance)
claim that putting in bike facilities will cause miraculous changes in
American transportation, I'm willing to show contrary data.

If you don't like it, I suggest you don't read it.


Frankly I doubt that improved bicycle facilities will result in more
then a minimal increase in the number of cyclists assuming that the
numbers are calculated in a per capita basis.

Looking at the Transportation Energy Data Book edition 36, the total
percentage of workers who traveled to work on a bicycle were 1980
Census - 0.5%, 1990 - 0.4%, 2000 - 0.4% and 2016 - 0.6%. The numbers
were 468,000 workers riding bicycles in 1980, 467,000 in 1990, 488,000
in 2000 and 487,000 in 2016 while total workers (in thousands) were
96,616, 115,069, 126,279 and 145,861.

While these numbers represent only those that rode a bicycle to work I
suggest that the numbers of recreational riders are likely to be in
proportion to the above numbers.

cheers,

John B.


  #50  
Old January 5th 19, 07:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 637
Default Build it and ... why aren't they coming?

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 1:20:48 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:00:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Snipped

Snipped. I think building trails into scenic remote areas is a better use of funds and effort. Be happy you are getting people on bikes and enjoying the exercise. Don't think you can solve commuting and congestion and parking problems with bikes. Be happy with half a loaf of bread, don't think you can get the whole loaf.


I don't think that Canada or the U.S.A. will EVER get a lot of people commuting on bicycle lanes in big cities, or even small cities, where the existing infrastructure is old. That's because there simply is no where to put a bicycle lane that isn't in the door zone. On top of that just painting a bike lane between the parked cars and the traffic lane just narrows that traffic lane.

The city that I often ride through going south or coming back is talking about adding a bike lane to its main north south road that comes in from the west side of the city. The problem is that they can NOT widen the road to put in that bike lane. This means that the bike lane will be yet another door zone bike lane and as such bicyclists will not use it nor will it increase the number of bicyclists and that's because those bicyclist know that riding in the door zone of parked cars is dangerous.

So, if roads are too narrow for a safe bicycle lane and the sidewalks are already too narrow, how would a city put in safe and usable bike lanes into their business/downtown areas? That's the problem as I see it.

I wonder if a bicyclist riding in a door zone bicycle lane gets doored and injured if they could sue the city or whatever for building an unsafe route. After all if a road does not meet Provincial standards the city can be sued by any motorist who has an accident on it.

Cheers


Well, the hard thing in California is the sheer distance. If I was to get a job in Palo Alto it is 25 miles away, still a little north of Silicon Valley and the traffic is so bad that I could get there on a bicycle a half hour before I could get there driving. And the bridge fare is now $7 a day in a car.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 5 September 14th 06 09:59 AM
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 0 August 25th 06 11:05 PM
Why you aren't a pro [email protected] Racing 18 August 26th 05 05:14 AM
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions osobailo Techniques 2 October 5th 04 01:55 PM
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? Andrew Short Techniques 16 August 4th 03 04:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.