Making America into Amsterdam

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:56:02 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 23/07/2018 2:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:45:52 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 10:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:33:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

Well, SMS is talking about trails created by a local planning authority -- a home rule city or county, and you're talking about rails-to-trails conservancy projects, which are a different thing. The two major rail-trail projects in my area get lots of bike traffic, e.g. https://bikeportland.org/2017/12/19/...the-u-s-261628 Two of our rail trails have a morning bike rush hour.

I think the close-in portions of these trails are rather unique because useful rail rights of way remain in use -- or the smart landowners take back theproperty when the right of way is abandoned, and cities don't have the money to buy them -- or they think they own them, build facilities and then get a wake up call, like the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle -- which goes right through the UW and gets lots of bicycle traffic. A lot of rail-trails, however, are in the middle of nowhere, and it is probably the rare rail-trail that gets as much use as in PDX or Seattle.

You have to look at each project and decide whether it was a good idea based on objective criteria and not wishful thinking. Again, I'm fine with roads and think the best bang for the buck is bike lanes.

I'm actually not restricting my comments to rails-to-trails conservancy
projects. Again, I was on a statewide committee evaluating 53 different
grants. Many were not rails-to-trails, but I don't remember even one
that I'd expect to carry more than a tiny percentage of utility cycling.

I understand there are paths in certain locales that one could cherry
pick, showing high utility use. But even city or suburban paths (and
bike lanes) I'm aware of get very little utility use. It's almost all
recreation cyclists.

BTW, we were recently talking to a travel agent about a possible trip,
and I asked one question about bringing our folding bikes, and/or other
bike access. She immediately told us that she would never ride a bike
even on a bike trail, because bicycles are far too dangerous. She goes
to a spinning class instead. Oh, and of course she knows two women whose
helmets saved their lives. :-(


--
- Frank Krygowski

In a city near me they are going to improve the main road through a section of town. One of those improvements is a bicycle lane. Great, except... The vast majority of the bike lanes in that city are right in the door zone of the parked cars next to the bike lane = more dangerous to ride the bike lane than it is to ride in the traffic lane further away from parked cars.

Many people simply do NOT realize how far an open car door extends into a bike lane.

Nearby there is a 75kms long rail-trail that one weekdays hardly has anyone on it except in the early evenings and most of those people riding it have their cars parked in the parking lot at the trail head and those people don't ride very far = about 10 kilometers in one direction if that. One the weekends in summer it's far faster and safer to use the nearby road to get to the next town that the rail-trail connects to. On weekends the rail-trail is full of dog walkers with dogs on long thin retractable leashes that can't be sen stretching across the trail and with the walkers wearing earbuds/headphones with the volume so high they can not hear a bell or yell.

Cheers


The new Quebec Highway Code caught people's attention because the fines
for missing reflectors went from 15 bucks to 60. Given the 6 required,
that's a $360 fine. And with road bikes not having pedals to mount the
required reflectors, it was an issue. They've modified it to allow
reflective tape to replace these.

What was generally missed is where the law used to say that we had to
ride to the far right except when turning left, it now stipulates
"except to avoid hazards and defines the door zone as a hazard."

We'll see what happens. Last year they added the 1 or 1.5m passing rule
and increased fines for dooring. But as far as I can determine, no one
has been fined for these things.


I read about the 1 M (1.5 M) rule but has anyone been convicted under
that law?

Unless one either has measuring sticks mounted on the vehicle (Or
rider) or wants to accept a by-stander's estimate, I can't see how the
law can be enforced.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:13:21 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-22 21:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 20:32:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

But, I wonder. Isn't most bike riding primarily recreation. I'm sure
it is, at least here.


When I lived in the Netherlands it sure wasn't. For me, now in the US,
it is partially for sports and training (not so much recreation) but
there are also plenty of utility rides. Like the ride today.


In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.


We do have two cars in the garage. Each sees around 1000mi/year. I
assume you can guess why those numbers are so low, mine used to be much
higher.


Before feeling too virtuous have a look at the Bayley's pages. they
ride between 10,000 and 14,000 (Pamela) or 17,000 (John) miles
annually and apparently have never owned a car.


If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?


Have you ever tried to haul half a ton of wood pellets, firewood,
construction lumber and whatnot on a bicycle, uphill? With uphill I mean
some serious hills.

Why ever not? Small loads and many trips, just as you would if you
were walking. The argument, "OH! It is too big for my bike", is just
that an argument for using the car.



And before anyone argues "I gotta have a car" I remind you that Frank,
and undoubtedly many others, have ridden from one side of the country
to the other... on a bicycle. Good Lord, Lewis and Clark walked!

I need a car indeed.


That depends on your transportation needs. I even carry machine parts to
clients via bicycle. However, if they are too large or heavy I use the SUV.

Yet, some years ago someone - maybe Andrew - posted a photo of someone
hauling his new fridge home on a trailer, behind his bicycle. Are your
large and heavy parts larger then a household refrigerator?
I've seen farmers in Indonesia hauling 400 Kg. on a bicycle. Do your
parts weigh more then 400 kg?

This is not a black and white matter. It makes sense to have different
kinds of vehicles but to prefer the ones that improve personal fitness
and are better for the environment where possible. "Possible" is the
salient word here.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:38:23 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 2:25 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I'm often blinded at night by very bright bicycle strobe lights. I also often get blinded by those blue tinted super bright car headlights.

I get very irritated by motorists who refuse to dim their lights.
Unfortunately, sometimes when I'm riding at night an oncoming motorist
will actually turn on his brights. I don't think it's harassment. I
think it's "What the heck is that??" coupled with low IQ.

I now do much more night driving on rural roads than I used to. ISTM the
worst headlight offenders are pickup truck drivers. Their lights are
high, they seem to refuse to dim them more than most, and they very
often have auxiliary driving lights that they also leave on. "MFFY."

--
- Frank Krygowski

What I was referring to are those cars with very bright blue lights that are driving IN TOWN on well lit roads. I've been so blinded by some of those lights that i couldn't see parked cars ahead of me on my side of the road. Thus I had to either slow way down or even stop. Seems that lumen wars aren't restricted to makers of bicycle lights.

Cheers

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:27:30 -0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Yet, some years ago someone - maybe Andrew - posted a photo of someone
hauling his new fridge home on a trailer, behind his bicycle.

Man Carry a Fridge On His Shoulder While Riding a Bike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA40QqNn-1U

Moving a Refrigerator by Bike
https://www.bikesatwork.com/blog/moving-a-refrigerator-by-bike

Out and About 2 refrigerators, microwave and a rice cooker bicycle man
https://www.travelblog.org/Photos/5587408

Fridge on Bike
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-code/images/sec2_fridgebike.jpg

Barmy cyclist pedals along busy A-road with huge FRIDGE on the back of
his bike
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358359/A-barmy-cyclist-pedals-busy-A-road--balancing-huge-FRIDGE-FREEZER-bike.html

How to Carry Major Appliances on your Bike
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014...-on-your-bike/

Refrigerator Delivery
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drjohn01702/11327105055

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 9:08:02 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:56:02 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 23/07/2018 2:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:45:52 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 10:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:33:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

Well, SMS is talking about trails created by a local planning authority -- a home rule city or county, and you're talking about rails-to-trails conservancy projects, which are a different thing. The two major rail-trail projects in my area get lots of bike traffic, e.g. https://bikeportland.org/2017/12/19/...the-u-s-261628 Two of our rail trails have a morning bike rush hour.

I think the close-in portions of these trails are rather unique because useful rail rights of way remain in use -- or the smart landowners take back theproperty when the right of way is abandoned, and cities don't have the money to buy them -- or they think they own them, build facilities and then get a wake up call, like the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle -- which goes right through the UW and gets lots of bicycle traffic. A lot of rail-trails, however, are in the middle of nowhere, and it is probably the rare rail-trail that gets as much use as in PDX or Seattle.

You have to look at each project and decide whether it was a good idea based on objective criteria and not wishful thinking. Again, I'm fine with roads and think the best bang for the buck is bike lanes.

I'm actually not restricting my comments to rails-to-trails conservancy
projects. Again, I was on a statewide committee evaluating 53 different
grants. Many were not rails-to-trails, but I don't remember even one
that I'd expect to carry more than a tiny percentage of utility cycling.

I understand there are paths in certain locales that one could cherry
pick, showing high utility use. But even city or suburban paths (and
bike lanes) I'm aware of get very little utility use. It's almost all
recreation cyclists.

BTW, we were recently talking to a travel agent about a possible trip,
and I asked one question about bringing our folding bikes, and/or other
bike access. She immediately told us that she would never ride a bike
even on a bike trail, because bicycles are far too dangerous. She goes
to a spinning class instead. Oh, and of course she knows two women whose
helmets saved their lives. :-(


--
- Frank Krygowski

In a city near me they are going to improve the main road through a section of town. One of those improvements is a bicycle lane. Great, except.... The vast majority of the bike lanes in that city are right in the door zone of the parked cars next to the bike lane = more dangerous to ride the bike lane than it is to ride in the traffic lane further away from parked cars.

Many people simply do NOT realize how far an open car door extends into a bike lane.

Nearby there is a 75kms long rail-trail that one weekdays hardly has anyone on it except in the early evenings and most of those people riding it have their cars parked in the parking lot at the trail head and those people don't ride very far = about 10 kilometers in one direction if that. One the weekends in summer it's far faster and safer to use the nearby road to get to the next town that the rail-trail connects to. On weekends the rail-trail is full of dog walkers with dogs on long thin retractable leashes that can't be sen stretching across the trail and with the walkers wearing earbuds/headphones with the volume so high they can not hear a bell or yell.

Cheers


The new Quebec Highway Code caught people's attention because the fines
for missing reflectors went from 15 bucks to 60. Given the 6 required,
that's a $360 fine. And with road bikes not having pedals to mount the
required reflectors, it was an issue. They've modified it to allow
reflective tape to replace these.

What was generally missed is where the law used to say that we had to
ride to the far right except when turning left, it now stipulates
"except to avoid hazards and defines the door zone as a hazard."

We'll see what happens. Last year they added the 1 or 1.5m passing rule
and increased fines for dooring. But as far as I can determine, no one
has been fined for these things.


I read about the 1 M (1.5 M) rule but has anyone been convicted under
that law?

Unless one either has measuring sticks mounted on the vehicle (Or
rider) or wants to accept a by-stander's estimate, I can't see how the
law can be enforced.

Well, there's this: https://www.citylab.com/life/2015/06...-bikes/397055/

I agree that serious enforcement is rare. I suppose the value is in teaching
motorists that they should obey that minimum passing distance. Many will
think "Huh. I didn't know that," and actually improve their behavior.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 19:18:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:27:30 -0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Yet, some years ago someone - maybe Andrew - posted a photo of someone
hauling his new fridge home on a trailer, behind his bicycle.

Man Carry a Fridge On His Shoulder While Riding a Bike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA40QqNn-1U

Moving a Refrigerator by Bike
https://www.bikesatwork.com/blog/moving-a-refrigerator-by-bike

Out and About 2 refrigerators, microwave and a rice cooker bicycle man
https://www.travelblog.org/Photos/5587408

Fridge on Bike
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-code/images/sec2_fridgebike.jpg

Barmy cyclist pedals along busy A-road with huge FRIDGE on the back of
his bike
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358359/A-barmy-cyclist-pedals-busy-A-road--balancing-huge-FRIDGE-FREEZER-bike.html

How to Carry Major Appliances on your Bike
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014...-on-your-bike/

Refrigerator Delivery
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drjohn01702/11327105055


As I previously said, if one has a bike one doesn't need a car :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:38:23 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 2:25 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I'm often blinded at night by very bright bicycle strobe lights. I also
often get blinded by those blue tinted super bright car headlights.

I get very irritated by motorists who refuse to dim their lights.
Unfortunately, sometimes when I'm riding at night an oncoming motorist
will actually turn on his brights. I don't think it's harassment. I
think it's "What the heck is that??" coupled with low IQ.

I now do much more night driving on rural roads than I used to. ISTM the
worst headlight offenders are pickup truck drivers. Their lights are
high, they seem to refuse to dim them more than most, and they very
often have auxiliary driving lights that they also leave on. "MFFY."

--
- Frank Krygowski

What I was referring to are those cars with very bright blue lights that
are driving IN TOWN on well lit roads. I've been so blinded by some of
those lights that i couldn't see parked cars ahead of me on my side of
the road. Thus I had to either slow way down or even stop. Seems that
lumen wars aren't restricted to makers of bicycle lights.

Cheers


Maybe those headlights aren’t as popular in the states. Even when driving
they bother me. I think they’re worse because of the height of some of the
SUVs.

--
duane

On 23/07/2018 9:07 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:56:02 -0400, Duane
snip
We'll see what happens. Last year they added the 1 or 1.5m passing rule
and increased fines for dooring. But as far as I can determine, no one
has been fined for these things.


I read about the 1 M (1.5 M) rule but has anyone been convicted under
that law?

Unless one either has measuring sticks mounted on the vehicle (Or
rider) or wants to accept a by-stander's estimate, I can't see how the
law can be enforced.

Didn't I just say that no one has been fined?

As far a enforcement, it's pretty easy IMO. The guy that passed me 2"
from my elbow in plain sight of the cop was obviously in violation.

The idea that you need to know the exact distance is a red herring.
It's the close passes that concern most people. Not whether it was 970
cm or 1.0 meters.

On 7/23/2018 8:27 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:13:21 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-22 21:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 20:32:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

But, I wonder. Isn't most bike riding primarily recreation. I'm sure
it is, at least here.


When I lived in the Netherlands it sure wasn't. For me, now in the US,
it is partially for sports and training (not so much recreation) but
there are also plenty of utility rides. Like the ride today.


In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.


We do have two cars in the garage. Each sees around 1000mi/year. I
assume you can guess why those numbers are so low, mine used to be much
higher.


Before feeling too virtuous have a look at the Bayley's pages. they
ride between 10,000 and 14,000 (Pamela) or 17,000 (John) miles
annually and apparently have never owned a car.


If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?


Have you ever tried to haul half a ton of wood pellets, firewood,
construction lumber and whatnot on a bicycle, uphill? With uphill I mean
some serious hills.

Why ever not? Small loads and many trips, just as you would if you
were walking. The argument, "OH! It is too big for my bike", is just
that an argument for using the car.



And before anyone argues "I gotta have a car" I remind you that Frank,
and undoubtedly many others, have ridden from one side of the country
to the other... on a bicycle. Good Lord, Lewis and Clark walked!

I need a car indeed.


That depends on your transportation needs. I even carry machine parts to
clients via bicycle. However, if they are too large or heavy I use the SUV.

Yet, some years ago someone - maybe Andrew - posted a photo of someone
hauling his new fridge home on a trailer, behind his bicycle. Are your
large and heavy parts larger then a household refrigerator?
I've seen farmers in Indonesia hauling 400 Kg. on a bicycle. Do your
parts weigh more then 400 kg?

This is not a black and white matter. It makes sense to have different
kinds of vehicles but to prefer the ones that improve personal fitness
and are better for the environment where possible. "Possible" is the
salient word here.

Viet Minh moved mountain guns (designed for mule transport)
up mountains on jungle paths with bicycles.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2018-07-23 18:27, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:13:21 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-22 21:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:

[...]


In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.


We do have two cars in the garage. Each sees around 1000mi/year. I
assume you can guess why those numbers are so low, mine used to be much
higher.


Before feeling too virtuous have a look at the Bayley's pages. they
ride between 10,000 and 14,000 (Pamela) or 17,000 (John) miles
annually and apparently have never owned a car.


If you have everything big delivered that's possible. However, then you
must count the miles and environmental impact of all the delivery vehicles.


If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?


Have you ever tried to haul half a ton of wood pellets, firewood,
construction lumber and whatnot on a bicycle, uphill? With uphill I mean
some serious hills.

Why ever not? Small loads and many trips, just as you would if you
were walking. The argument, "OH! It is too big for my bike", is just
that an argument for using the car.


Obviously you have never hauled four cords of firewood from a location
that is 1400ft lower than where you live. That's eight tons.

Or just 30 bags of pellets at 50lbs each. Yeah, you could make 30 trips
while sweating profusely. However, some of us still need to work and
earn money.


And before anyone argues "I gotta have a car" I remind you that Frank,
and undoubtedly many others, have ridden from one side of the country
to the other... on a bicycle. Good Lord, Lewis and Clark walked!

I need a car indeed.


That depends on your transportation needs. I even carry machine parts to
clients via bicycle. However, if they are too large or heavy I use the SUV.

Yet, some years ago someone - maybe Andrew - posted a photo of someone
hauling his new fridge home on a trailer, behind his bicycle. Are your
large and heavy parts larger then a household refrigerator?
I've seen farmers in Indonesia hauling 400 Kg. on a bicycle. Do your
parts weigh more then 400 kg?


I have hauled a bed that couldn't be disassembled, together with a
friend, using two road bikes. We got into a discussion with the
authorities at the border from Germany to the Netherlands. They didn't
want to let us ride on. A wee problem out here is that this would cause
a major traffic jam on a throroughfare. Upon which a sheriff's deputy
would show up.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/