Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

In article ,
Duane Hébert wrote:

On 10/27/2010 7:28 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Morally speaking, you should be driving far more carefully in a car,
since you present a far higher threat to others.
On a bike, even if you are being a total plonker, the overwhelming
majority of the risk is to yourself. If the same was true of cars, I
suspect driving standards would improve dramatically.

Absolutely.

As someone with a motorcycle endorsement, I disagree. Even though
motorcycles overwhelmingly shift the "moral" burden of high-speed travel
danger to the rider (as insurance costs reflect), they seems to do
absolutely *nothing* to improve the driving standards. Humans will
always have a problem trying to react at inhuman speeds.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, astraweb.com,
and probably your server, too.

On 27/10/2010 20:35, damyth wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:43 am, Clive wrote:
On 27/10/2010 19:12, damyth wrote:









On Oct 27, 10:40 am, Clive wrote:
On 27/10/2010 17:57, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 9:17 am, wrote:
damyth wrote:
Let's say what's shown in the Assen pictures got transplanted over here
in CA. You'd have widespread motorist revolt. They'll literally
overthrow the government. There's no way they'd put up with one lane
(if a mechanical issue or accident happened).

You do mean this picture, right?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

In case of a mechanical issue or an accident people just stop their
vehicles and park in the grass. No problem.

Apparently you think I'm a rube and have no experience with such
roads. What if the road needs maintenance, or a utility (such as a
light) needs to get repaired?

Temporary traffic lights controlling the open lane. Happens on wide
roads too. It works just fine.

I can't believe you're somehow defending universally narrow roads are
superior in every way to wide roads.

You're the one saying they're awful - we're pointing out that actually,
they work just fine.

Don't ever drive somewhere like Scotland, where there are A roads with
just one lane!

Look, don't take this personally, OK?

But when the only thing you know is a cesspool, everything smells
wonderful.

Perhaps you ought to look at yourself when you say that.

I'm not saying _everything_ is wonderful where I live. But when it
comes to the quality of roads, CA makes NL and UK look like third
world countries. Why should anyone have to put up with a semaphored
single lane on a two way road if there's some routine maintenance,
like pruning the shrubbery or foliage?

I've driven on wide roads like you describe, and I've driven on the
narrower ones I describe. I've driven in countries all over the world.
And if I want to go for a fun drive, it's not going to be on the roads
you like. Ditto for a cycle - the smaller roads are way more fun.

The narrow roads we have work. I know that - I drive on them. You don't.

I'd not have a narrow 2 lane road to carry traffic between London and
Glasgow, for example. Fortunately we don't - we've got the motorway for
that.

But not everywhere needs motorway-level road. The highlands of Scotland
manage with single-lane A-roads with passing places. Roads are sized
according to need, and a wide road with shoulders isn't needed in that
many places.

You compared our roads to that of third world countries. How much
experience do you have of our roads? How much do you have of third world
countries? Which roads are safer, yours or ours? Which have more
cyclists on them, yours or ours?

Again, you seem to think I've never driven or ridden elsewhere. It
should be evident to you by now from what I wrote before that I've
lived in plenty of places, and that's not just in North America.
Lived, driven and rode in the Middle East, Far East, Latin America,
EU, Africa, RU and AU. It's should be clear to you I've given the
bike riding subject considerable thought.

As Lou Holtman stated earlier, there is NO bike riding on that road in
Assen. It's all done in the bike path. Your questions don't even
make any sense given that little fact. It is de-facto Jim Crow, as I
illustrated. The very same policy that gave rise to apartheid in
South Africa, perpetuated by their Dutch ancestors. At least have the
decency of showing some intellectual honesty.

Hang on, you're talking about something else here. I say roads that
narrow are bad, you tell me I'm supporting apartheid? Please don't
descend to such silliness.

Somebody (might have been Phil Lee) posted a link to a video of a
vehicular backup that lasted MILES in the UK. I think I could have
traveled the full length of that road faster by walking. And you are
lecturing me on the relative quality of roads in CA vs. UK?

And the US doesn't have traffic jams?

You definitions of "work" and "fine" need a severe recalibration.

Don't think so. They really do work - people get places.

As
four your other rhetorical questions regarding bike ridership, It has
more to do with economic policy than the quality of roads. There's no
doubt in my mind if the US stopped the heavy subsidizing of vehicles,
there'd be more cyclists per capita here than the UK or anywhere else
(possibly including China).

I doubt it. Sure, if you paid closer to what we pay for gas you'd have
more, but it'd still be the vast majority in cars - they'd just start
getting more economic. You'd have to severely rejig the layout of your
country to make a big difference, and I don't see that happening without
catastrophe.

You prefer having fun driving on narrow roads, fine. When driving I
prefer getting from one place to another with minimal expenditure of
time and stress. You don't seem to recognize there's two different
value systems at play here. You might as well argue whether socialism
trumps capitalism or vice versa. It's a pointless exercise. I live
where it suits me best, there's no need to argue about it.

I'm not arguing about where you live. I'm pointing out that your
assumption that roads need to be wide and have shoulders to carry
traffic is wrong.

You're the one calling the UK and NL third world countries. Step back,
take a look at what you're writing.

And you still haven't answered the safety thing. I know why - it's
because your roads are more dangerous than ours, which doesn't support
your idea that your roads are better.

On Oct 27, 11:33*am, Radey Shouman wrote:
Duane Hébert writes:
On 10/26/2010 4:28 PM, damyth wrote:

I'm reminded of the certain signs I see on private property going
through rural areas.

"Never mind the dog. *Beware of Owner."

Let's say what's shown in the Assen pictures got transplanted over
here in CA. *You'd have widespread motorist revolt. *They'll literally
overthrow the government. *There's no way they'd put up with one lane
(if a mechanical issue or accident happened).

Outside of the large cities here, there are almost no
roads NOT like that one. *When I lived in MA I remember
it about the same -Route 1, I think it was, was pretty
typical.

MA is as you remember it, and not just in the cities. *Six inches
outside the fog lines is considered generous, and less traveled roads
lack fog lines. *Interstates do not have "shoulders", they have
"breakdown lanes", in which travel is sometimes permitted. *Motorists
cope, sometimes with the aid of tow trucks. *On suburban and rural roads
I miss shoulders more when walking than when cycling.

The whole world is not like California, but one needs only go to
western Oregon or Washington to find that out.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean not like the Bay Area or So Cal. There are tons of places in
California where the roads are narrow and shoulderless. Avenue of the
Giants is like a long driveway -- and HWY 1 in Northern California is
worse than HWY 1/101 in much of Oregon. Here's proof that Oregon
roads are superior to California roads: http://www.flickr.com/photos/myronkingsbury/2810386900/
At least we pave our roads. -- Jay Beattie.

On Oct 27, 1:31*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 27/10/2010 20:35, damyth wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:43 am, Clive *wrote:
On 27/10/2010 19:12, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 10:40 am, Clive * *wrote:
On 27/10/2010 17:57, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 9:17 am, * * *wrote:
damyth wrote:
Let's say what's shown in the Assen pictures got transplanted over here
in CA. *You'd have widespread motorist revolt. *They'll literally
overthrow the government. *There's no way they'd put up with one lane
(if a mechanical issue or accident happened).

You do mean this picture, right?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

In case of a mechanical issue or an accident people just stop their
vehicles and park in the grass. No problem.

Apparently you think I'm a rube and have no experience with such
roads. *What if the road needs maintenance, or a utility (such as a
light) needs to get repaired?

Temporary traffic lights controlling the open lane. Happens on wide
roads too. It works just fine.

I can't believe you're somehow defending universally narrow roads are
superior in every way to wide roads.

You're the one saying they're awful - we're pointing out that actually,
they work just fine.

Don't ever drive somewhere like Scotland, where there are A roads with
just one lane!

Look, don't take this personally, OK?

But when the only thing you know is a cesspool, everything smells
wonderful.

Perhaps you ought to look at yourself when you say that.

I'm not saying _everything_ is wonderful where I live. *But when it
comes to the quality of roads, CA makes NL and UK look like third
world countries. *Why should anyone have to put up with a semaphored
single lane on a two way road if there's some routine maintenance,
like pruning the shrubbery or foliage?

I've driven on wide roads like you describe, and I've driven on the
narrower ones I describe. I've driven in countries all over the world.
And if I want to go for a fun drive, it's not going to be on the roads
you like. Ditto for a cycle - the smaller roads are way more fun.

The narrow roads we have work. I know that - I drive on them. You don't.

Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
Duane Hébert wrote:

On 10/27/2010 7:28 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Morally speaking, you should be driving far more carefully in a car,
since you present a far higher threat to others.
On a bike, even if you are being a total plonker, the overwhelming
majority of the risk is to yourself. If the same was true of cars, I
suspect driving standards would improve dramatically.
Absolutely.

As someone with a motorcycle endorsement, I disagree. Even though
motorcycles overwhelmingly shift the "moral" burden of high-speed travel
danger to the rider (as insurance costs reflect), they seems to do
absolutely *nothing* to improve the driving standards. Humans will
always have a problem trying to react at inhuman speeds.


mmmmm, inhuman speeds.
sounds good to me

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

Jay Beattie writes:

On Oct 27, 11:33*am, Radey Shouman wrote:
[...]
The whole world is not like California, but one needs only go to
western Oregon or Washington to find that out.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean not like the Bay Area or So Cal. There are tons of places in
California where the roads are narrow and shoulderless. Avenue of the
Giants is like a long driveway -- and HWY 1 in Northern California is
worse than HWY 1/101 in much of Oregon. Here's proof that Oregon
roads are superior to California roads: http://www.flickr.com/photos/myronkingsbury/2810386900/
At least we pave our roads. -- Jay Beattie.

I'm sure you know more than I; conceded that even all of California
is not like damythical California.

On 28/10/2010 00:05, damyth wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:31 pm, Clive wrote:
On 27/10/2010 20:35, damyth wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:43 am, Clive wrote:
On 27/10/2010 19:12, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 10:40 am, Clive wrote:
On 27/10/2010 17:57, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 9:17 am, wrote:
damyth wrote:
Let's say what's shown in the Assen pictures got transplanted over here
in CA. You'd have widespread motorist revolt. They'll literally
overthrow the government. There's no way they'd put up with one lane
(if a mechanical issue or accident happened).

You do mean this picture, right?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

In case of a mechanical issue or an accident people just stop their
vehicles and park in the grass. No problem.

Apparently you think I'm a rube and have no experience with such
roads. What if the road needs maintenance, or a utility (such as a
light) needs to get repaired?

Temporary traffic lights controlling the open lane. Happens on wide
roads too. It works just fine.

I can't believe you're somehow defending universally narrow roads are
superior in every way to wide roads.

You're the one saying they're awful - we're pointing out that actually,
they work just fine.

Don't ever drive somewhere like Scotland, where there are A roads with
just one lane!

Look, don't take this personally, OK?

But when the only thing you know is a cesspool, everything smells
wonderful.

Perhaps you ought to look at yourself when you say that.

I'm not saying _everything_ is wonderful where I live. But when it
comes to the quality of roads, CA makes NL and UK look like third
world countries. Why should anyone have to put up with a semaphored
single lane on a two way road if there's some routine maintenance,
like pruning the shrubbery or foliage?

I've driven on wide roads like you describe, and I've driven on the
narrower ones I describe. I've driven in countries all over the world.
And if I want to go for a fun drive, it's not going to be on the roads
you like. Ditto for a cycle - the smaller roads are way more fun.

The narrow roads we have work. I know that - I drive on them. You don't.

I'd not have a narrow 2 lane road to carry traffic between London and
Glasgow, for example. Fortunately we don't - we've got the motorway for
that.

But not everywhere needs motorway-level road. The highlands of Scotland
manage with single-lane A-roads with passing places. Roads are sized
according to need, and a wide road with shoulders isn't needed in that
many places.

You compared our roads to that of third world countries. How much
experience do you have of our roads? How much do you have of third world
countries? Which roads are safer, yours or ours? Which have more
cyclists on them, yours or ours?

Again, you seem to think I've never driven or ridden elsewhere. It
should be evident to you by now from what I wrote before that I've
lived in plenty of places, and that's not just in North America.
Lived, driven and rode in the Middle East, Far East, Latin America,
EU, Africa, RU and AU. It's should be clear to you I've given the
bike riding subject considerable thought.

As Lou Holtman stated earlier, there is NO bike riding on that road in
Assen. It's all done in the bike path. Your questions don't even
make any sense given that little fact. It is de-facto Jim Crow, as I
illustrated. The very same policy that gave rise to apartheid in
South Africa, perpetuated by their Dutch ancestors. At least have the
decency of showing some intellectual honesty.

Hang on, you're talking about something else here. I say roads that
narrow are bad, you tell me I'm supporting apartheid? Please don't
descend to such silliness.

Somebody (might have been Phil Lee) posted a link to a video of a
vehicular backup that lasted MILES in the UK. I think I could have
traveled the full length of that road faster by walking. And you are
lecturing me on the relative quality of roads in CA vs. UK?

And the US doesn't have traffic jams?

In the context of the original thread where that video came up, it was
implied that specific backup situation was a normal, not particularly
extraordinary occurrence. That road looked like a local road to me
(iow, it wasn't a freeway).

I've not seen that video.

We rarely get that on local roads here. If it were a regular
occurrence, there'd be a lynch mob going after the local government.
Our freeways may be backed up during rush hour, but even at their most
congested you can average greater than 25 mph.

You definitions of "work" and "fine" need a severe recalibration.

Don't think so. They really do work - people get places.
Yeah, by that low standard, people get to places in third world
countries too.

As
four your other rhetorical questions regarding bike ridership, It has
more to do with economic policy than the quality of roads. There's no
doubt in my mind if the US stopped the heavy subsidizing of vehicles,
there'd be more cyclists per capita here than the UK or anywhere else
(possibly including China).

I doubt it. Sure, if you paid closer to what we pay for gas you'd have
more, but it'd still be the vast majority in cars - they'd just start
getting more economic. You'd have to severely rejig the layout of your
country to make a big difference, and I don't see that happening without
catastrophe.

China is almost as big and is not particularly dissimilar in
population-geographic distribution as US. It didn't prevent the
Chinese from having the most cyclists per capita.

It's not the large scale population distribution, it's the distribution
of people and facilities.

You prefer having fun driving on narrow roads, fine. When driving I
prefer getting from one place to another with minimal expenditure of
time and stress. You don't seem to recognize there's two different
value systems at play here. You might as well argue whether socialism
trumps capitalism or vice versa. It's a pointless exercise. I live
where it suits me best, there's no need to argue about it.

I'm not arguing about where you live. I'm pointing out that your
assumption that roads need to be wide and have shoulders to carry
traffic is wrong.

As I stated earlier, your standard is way too low. What kind of
traffic? At what kind of speeds? With what kinds of potential
problems and delays?

Potential problems including alien abduction, etc. Yes, we can invent
potential problems as much as we want - and you've done so. What is
important is whether or not they translate into real problems - and
experience tells me that generally speaking, they don't.

Roads where I live accommodate trucks, cars, bicyclist, pedestrians.
I didn't see the Assen road accommodating that. I saw a not
particularly well thought out road for vehicles only, no sidewalks,
and another parallel trail for bikes.

That road with the bike path removed would support trucks, cars and
bikes. Similar roads over here do. Pedestrians, maybe not, apart from on
the grass, but there's not much call for that on rural roads. In an
urban situation, there would be a pavement (sidewalk).

Speed limit would be 60mph over here if it was outside town, but speeds
would change depending on twistiness.

Apparently in that idealized
world bike paths never intersect roads with cars.

I know the intersection of bike paths with roads is the problem area.
However with your experience of the world, you'll know that in mainland
Europe, drivers actually give way at cycle path junctions. It's a
strange idea to those of us used to riding as second class citizens, and
doesn't work here, but it's lovely when it does. It means the parallel
bike path can actually be made to work.

You're the one calling the UK and NL third world countries. Step back,
take a look at what you're writing.

Read what I wrote in context. I specifically said:
"But when it comes to the quality of roads, CA makes NL and UK look
like third world countries. Why should anyone have to put up with a
semaphored single lane on a two way road if there's some routine
maintenance, like pruning the shrubbery or foliage?"
You never answered why anyone should have to put up with that. You
just keep saying "our roads get people from one place to another."

The point is that although you claim people shouldn't "have to put up
with that", in reality they're not putting up with much at all. It's not
the utter nightmare you're claiming.

And you still haven't answered the safety thing. I know why - it's
because your roads are more dangerous than ours, which doesn't support
your idea that your roads are better.

Quite frankly, I didn't address this because this is not my area of
expertise, and I doubt it's yours either. According to the little
reading I've done so far the US is only slight worse than the UK when
it comes to the fatality rate per capita. It's not as if US and the
UK are on opposite poles on this.

I think you'll find the fatality rate per capita is about 1 :-)

If you can cite even one study that correlates wider roads (as opposed
to some other multi-variate factors) with higher accident/fatality
rate, I'll be more than happy to look at it. This shouldn't be a very
high bar. Correlation is much weaker requirement than causation.

No studies that specific, but ones showing the US is a more dangerous
place to ride a bike are easy to find aren't they?

As a motorist and a cyclist, there no way I'd want the UK or NL system
here. Every class with their own separate road/trails with no
alternatives is the very definition of apartheid.

You say you've got experience of where I am, yet this demonstrates
you've got nothing like it.

The UK does not have a system of separate roads and bike trails. We've
got some tracks, same as you, but not many.

On Oct 26, 9:33 am, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:24 am, Dan O wrote:



On Oct 25, 11:23 pm, Lou Holtman wrote:

On 26 okt, 01:07, Dan O wrote:

On Oct 25, 1:29 pm, damyth wrote:

On Oct 25, 10:47 am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:

On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:

Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
red sedan is on:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

What's wrong with that road?

There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
limit have bikepaths like that.

Lou

What's the speed limit on a road like that? Why is the red sedan
hanging half-assed on and off the road? Are European cars (or tires,
for that matter) so reliable that you don't need a breakdown lane or a
shoulder?

Why is the road so narrow? Let me put it succinctly. In the US the
density of cars would certainly be higher (considering the relative
price differential of gas and other pro-motorist factors betw. US vs.
EU). This would mean on a road in the US, both lanes would be filled,
traffic would not be sparse. What happens when a car breaks down (or
an accident), and you're pretty much left with one lane? Do you rely
on semaphores to negotiate which lane proceeds first?

Why aren't bike lanes lit everywhere?

Narrow road + bike lane = mandatory bike lane. If bike lane isn't
sufficiently wide enough for passing (as we saw in the video with kids
riding to school), what happens?
What's a bike path & road intersection look like, more importantly,
how is it negotiated?

Need I go on about what else is wrong with the road?

It the poles. If I was there I think I would *choose* the bike path
anyway, but I think everybody knows if I; rather go over there on the
road I would. That's why the poles are such a problem. That and they
remove the middle grassy strip as a choice of lines. But there are
still more than two options there, and I have to say the bike path
looks like a good one. Even those cursed poles bring light and
physical separation for the timid folks.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

You are not allowed on that road and all people would think you are a
dangerous ass if you ride on that road. Nobody over here ride on the
road there.

Gotcha. Just out of curiosity, would they be calling me a dangerous
ass in English? I was sort of imagining how I might ride there from
the context of my own experience. I do understand danger, though -
for sure! That bike path, though, is much nicer than *anything* like
it in my world.

(my world has many long stretches of empty road with no other "formal"
paths, but many options like gravelly grasssy strips and what not
where you can bail if a car comes)

one of my fqavorite rides was tagging along with a big tour.
Messenger bag w/ tools abd spares, One 24 oz water bottle. '87
Stumpjumper Comp - stock except saddle and smooth tires. They of
course all wore helmets, so I was obviously unsupported (I saw one guy
getting a flat fixed. what's the emoticon for pinkie up tea
drinking?. Of course, I was once served cold beer by a waiter on the
beach

Turned out I was dressed differently, too - denim shorts and cotton t
shirt and shimano sandals.

But anyway I cooked along with 'em for something like 20 miles - only
passing, no passed :-) Many, many situations on the country roads
with multiple bikes on roadway and wide, smooth, gravelly grassy strip
along road.... Are you getting my meaning?

On Oct 27, 5:44*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 28/10/2010 00:05, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 1:31 pm, Clive *wrote:
On 27/10/2010 20:35, damyth wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:43 am, Clive * *wrote:
On 27/10/2010 19:12, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 10:40 am, Clive * * *wrote:
On 27/10/2010 17:57, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 9:17 am, * * * *wrote:
damyth wrote:
Let's say what's shown in the Assen pictures got transplanted over here
in CA. *You'd have widespread motorist revolt. *They'll literally
overthrow the government. *There's no way they'd put up with one lane
(if a mechanical issue or accident happened).

You do mean this picture, right?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

In case of a mechanical issue or an accident people just stop their
vehicles and park in the grass. No problem.

Apparently you think I'm a rube and have no experience with such
roads. *What if the road needs maintenance, or a utility (such as a
light) needs to get repaired?

Temporary traffic lights controlling the open lane. Happens on wide
roads too. It works just fine.

I can't believe you're somehow defending universally narrow roads are
superior in every way to wide roads.

You're the one saying they're awful - we're pointing out that actually,
they work just fine.

Don't ever drive somewhere like Scotland, where there are A roads with
just one lane!

Look, don't take this personally, OK?

But when the only thing you know is a cesspool, everything smells
wonderful.

Perhaps you ought to look at yourself when you say that.

I'm not saying _everything_ is wonderful where I live. *But when it
comes to the quality of roads, CA makes NL and UK look like third
world countries. *Why should anyone have to put up with a semaphored
single lane on a two way road if there's some routine maintenance,
like pruning the shrubbery or foliage?

I've driven on wide roads like you describe, and I've driven on the
narrower ones I describe. I've driven in countries all over the world.
And if I want to go for a fun drive, it's not going to be on the roads
you like. Ditto for a cycle - the smaller roads are way more fun.

The narrow roads we have work. I know that - I drive on them. You don't.

I'd not have a narrow 2 lane road to carry traffic between London and
Glasgow, for example. Fortunately we don't - we've got the motorway for
that.

But not everywhere needs motorway-level road. The highlands of Scotland
manage with single-lane A-roads with passing places. Roads are sized
according to need, and a wide road with shoulders isn't needed in that
many places.

You compared our roads to that of third world countries. How much
experience do you have of our roads? How much do you have of third world
countries? Which roads are safer, yours or ours? Which have more
cyclists on them, yours or ours?

Again, you seem to think I've never driven or ridden elsewhere. *It
should be evident to you by now from what I wrote before that I've
lived in plenty of places, and that's not just in North America.
Lived, driven and rode in the Middle East, Far East, Latin America,
EU, Africa, RU and AU. *It's should be clear to you I've given the
bike riding subject considerable thought.

As Lou Holtman stated earlier, there is NO bike riding on that road in
Assen. *It's all done in the bike path. *Your questions don't even
make any sense given that little fact. *It is de-facto Jim Crow, as I
illustrated. * The very same policy that gave rise to apartheid in
South Africa, perpetuated by their Dutch ancestors. *At least have the
decency of showing some intellectual honesty.

Hang on, you're talking about something else here. I say roads that
narrow are bad, you tell me I'm supporting apartheid? Please don't
descend to such silliness.

Somebody (might have been Phil Lee) posted a link to a video of a
vehicular backup that lasted MILES in the UK. *I think I could have
traveled the full length of that road faster by walking. *And you are
lecturing me on the relative quality of roads in CA vs. UK?

And the US doesn't have traffic jams?

In the context of the original thread where that video came up, it was
implied that specific backup situation was a normal, not particularly
extraordinary *occurrence. *That road looked like a local road to me
(iow, it wasn't a freeway).

I've not seen that video.
That's hardly my issue. Go ask Phil Lee for a link, or better yet,
search the newsgroup.

We rarely get that on local roads here. *If it were a regular
occurrence, there'd be a lynch mob going after the local government.
Our freeways may be backed up during rush hour, but even at their most
congested you can average greater than 25 mph.

You definitions of "work" and "fine" need a severe recalibration.

Don't think so. They really do work - people get places.
Yeah, by that low standard, people get to places in third world
countries too.

As
four your other rhetorical questions regarding bike ridership, It has
more to do with economic policy than the quality of roads. *There's no
doubt in my mind if the US stopped the heavy subsidizing of vehicles,
there'd be more cyclists per capita here than the UK or anywhere else
(possibly including China).

I doubt it. Sure, if you paid closer to what we pay for gas you'd have
more, but it'd still be the vast majority in cars - they'd just start
getting more economic. You'd have to severely rejig the layout of your
country to make a big difference, and I don't see that happening without
catastrophe.

China is almost as big and is not particularly dissimilar in
population-geographic distribution as US. *It didn't prevent the
Chinese from having the most cyclists per capita.

It's not the large scale population distribution, it's the distribution
of people and facilities.
What facilities?? 15+ years ago, before China went on a crash program
of capital & infrastructure development, they had no facilities to
speak of.

You prefer having fun driving on narrow roads, fine. *When driving I
prefer getting from one place to another with minimal expenditure of
time and stress. *You don't seem to recognize there's two different
value systems at play here. *You might as well argue whether socialism
trumps capitalism or vice versa. *It's a pointless exercise. *I live
where it suits me best, there's no need to argue about it.

I'm not arguing about where you live. I'm pointing out that your
assumption that roads need to be wide and have shoulders to carry
traffic is wrong.

As I stated earlier, your standard is way too low. *What kind of
traffic? *At what kind of speeds? *With what kinds of potential
problems and delays?

Potential problems including alien abduction, etc. Yes, we can invent
potential problems as much as we want - and you've done so. What is
important is whether or not they translate into real problems - and
experience tells me that generally speaking, they don't.

Apparently you seem to think I made up those scenarios. I've had
plenty of firsthand experience with maintenance/construction/utility
crews on narrow two lane roads to know that it's a real problem.
Enough to blow the popsicle joint and move out of town. I've even
complained about it before on this very newsgroup, way before this
thread got started. You'll notice Jay Beattie did not contradict me
when I said CA residents would rise up in revolt.

Roads where I live accommodate trucks, cars, bicyclist, pedestrians.
I didn't see the Assen road accommodating that. *I saw a not
particularly well thought out road for vehicles only, no sidewalks,
and another parallel trail for bikes.

That road with the bike path removed would support trucks, cars and
bikes. Similar roads over here do. Pedestrians, maybe not, apart from on
the grass, but there's not much call for that on rural roads. In an
urban situation, there would be a pavement (sidewalk).

Speed limit would be 60mph over here if it was outside town, but speeds
would change depending on twistiness.

* Apparently in that idealized
* world bike paths never intersect roads with cars.

I know the intersection of bike paths with roads is the problem area.
However with your experience of the world, you'll know that in mainland
Europe, drivers actually give way at cycle path junctions. It's a
strange idea to those of us used to riding as second class citizens, and
doesn't work here, but it's lovely when it does. It means the parallel
bike path can actually be made to work.

Why? So that the no alternative, apartheid transportation system can
flourish?

You're the one calling the UK and NL third world countries. Step back,
take a look at what you're writing.

Read what I wrote in context. *I specifically said:
"But when it comes to the quality of roads, CA makes NL and UK look
like third world countries. *Why should anyone have to put up with a
semaphored single lane on a two way road if there's some routine
maintenance, like pruning the shrubbery or foliage?"
You never answered why anyone should have to put up with that. *You
just keep saying "our roads get people from one place to another."

The point is that although you claim people shouldn't "have to put up
with that", in reality they're not putting up with much at all. It's not
the utter nightmare you're claiming.

It was nightmare enough for me to move elsewhere. And I know I wasn't
the only one.

And you still haven't answered the safety thing. I know why - it's
because your roads are more dangerous than ours, which doesn't support
your idea that your roads are better.

Quite frankly, I didn't address this because this is not my area of
expertise, and I doubt it's yours either. *According to the little
reading I've done so far the US is only slight worse than the UK when
it comes to the fatality rate per capita. *It's not as if US and the
UK are on opposite poles on this.

I think you'll find the fatality rate per capita is about 1 :-)

You know very well I meant vehicular fatality rate.

If you can cite even one study that correlates wider roads (as opposed
to some other multi-variate factors) with higher accident/fatality
rate, I'll be more than happy to look at it. *This shouldn't be a very
high bar. *Correlation is much weaker requirement than causation.

No studies that specific, but ones showing the US is a more dangerous
place to ride a bike are easy to find aren't they?

In other words, you can't cite jack supporting your thesis wide lanes
increase vehicle fatalities. I, on the other hand, have uncovered &
can cite multiple studies that show narrow roads without shoulders
INCREASED the vehicle fatality rate. I'm collating it all so I can
compose a coherent post later.

As a motorist and a cyclist, there no way I'd want the UK or NL system
here. *Every class with their own separate road/trails with no
alternatives is the very definition of apartheid.

You say you've got experience of where I am, yet this demonstrates
you've got nothing like it.

The UK does not have a system of separate roads and bike trails. We've
got some tracks, same as you, but not many.

UK due strictly to the narrow roads and the congestion video; NL due
to the Assen pictures which clearly illustrates Jim Crow.

On 28/10/2010 04:35, damyth wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:44 pm, Clive wrote:
On 28/10/2010 00:05, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 1:31 pm, Clive wrote:
On 27/10/2010 20:35, damyth wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:43 am, Clive wrote:
On 27/10/2010 19:12, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 10:40 am, Clive wrote:
On 27/10/2010 17:57, damyth wrote:

On Oct 27, 9:17 am, wrote:
damyth wrote:
Let's say what's shown in the Assen pictures got transplanted over here
in CA. You'd have widespread motorist revolt. They'll literally
overthrow the government. There's no way they'd put up with one lane
(if a mechanical issue or accident happened).

You do mean this picture, right?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

In case of a mechanical issue or an accident people just stop their
vehicles and park in the grass. No problem.

Apparently you think I'm a rube and have no experience with such
roads. What if the road needs maintenance, or a utility (such as a
light) needs to get repaired?

Temporary traffic lights controlling the open lane. Happens on wide
roads too. It works just fine.

I can't believe you're somehow defending universally narrow roads are
superior in every way to wide roads.

You're the one saying they're awful - we're pointing out that actually,
they work just fine.

Don't ever drive somewhere like Scotland, where there are A roads with
just one lane!

Look, don't take this personally, OK?

But when the only thing you know is a cesspool, everything smells
wonderful.

Perhaps you ought to look at yourself when you say that.

I'm not saying _everything_ is wonderful where I live. But when it
comes to the quality of roads, CA makes NL and UK look like third
world countries. Why should anyone have to put up with a semaphored
single lane on a two way road if there's some routine maintenance,
like pruning the shrubbery or foliage?

I've driven on wide roads like you describe, and I've driven on the
narrower ones I describe. I've driven in countries all over the world.
And if I want to go for a fun drive, it's not going to be on the roads
you like. Ditto for a cycle - the smaller roads are way more fun.

The narrow roads we have work. I know that - I drive on them. You don't.

I'd not have a narrow 2 lane road to carry traffic between London and
Glasgow, for example. Fortunately we don't - we've got the motorway for
that.

But not everywhere needs motorway-level road. The highlands of Scotland
manage with single-lane A-roads with passing places. Roads are sized
according to need, and a wide road with shoulders isn't needed in that
many places.

You compared our roads to that of third world countries. How much
experience do you have of our roads? How much do you have of third world
countries? Which roads are safer, yours or ours? Which have more
cyclists on them, yours or ours?

Again, you seem to think I've never driven or ridden elsewhere. It
should be evident to you by now from what I wrote before that I've
lived in plenty of places, and that's not just in North America.
Lived, driven and rode in the Middle East, Far East, Latin America,
EU, Africa, RU and AU. It's should be clear to you I've given the
bike riding subject considerable thought.

As Lou Holtman stated earlier, there is NO bike riding on that road in
Assen. It's all done in the bike path. Your questions don't even
make any sense given that little fact. It is de-facto Jim Crow, as I
illustrated. The very same policy that gave rise to apartheid in
South Africa, perpetuated by their Dutch ancestors. At least have the
decency of showing some intellectual honesty.

Hang on, you're talking about something else here. I say roads that
narrow are bad, you tell me I'm supporting apartheid? Please don't
descend to such silliness.

Somebody (might have been Phil Lee) posted a link to a video of a
vehicular backup that lasted MILES in the UK. I think I could have
traveled the full length of that road faster by walking. And you are
lecturing me on the relative quality of roads in CA vs. UK?

And the US doesn't have traffic jams?

In the context of the original thread where that video came up, it was
implied that specific backup situation was a normal, not particularly
extraordinary occurrence. That road looked like a local road to me
(iow, it wasn't a freeway).

I've not seen that video.
That's hardly my issue. Go ask Phil Lee for a link, or better yet,
search the newsgroup.

Oops, I just did.

We rarely get that on local roads here. If it were a regular
occurrence, there'd be a lynch mob going after the local government.
Our freeways may be backed up during rush hour, but even at their most
congested you can average greater than 25 mph.

You definitions of "work" and "fine" need a severe recalibration.

Don't think so. They really do work - people get places.
Yeah, by that low standard, people get to places in third world
countries too.

As
four your other rhetorical questions regarding bike ridership, It has
more to do with economic policy than the quality of roads. There's no
doubt in my mind if the US stopped the heavy subsidizing of vehicles,
there'd be more cyclists per capita here than the UK or anywhere else
(possibly including China).

I doubt it. Sure, if you paid closer to what we pay for gas you'd have
more, but it'd still be the vast majority in cars - they'd just start
getting more economic. You'd have to severely rejig the layout of your
country to make a big difference, and I don't see that happening without
catastrophe.

China is almost as big and is not particularly dissimilar in
population-geographic distribution as US. It didn't prevent the
Chinese from having the most cyclists per capita.

It's not the large scale population distribution, it's the distribution
of people and facilities.
What facilities?? 15+ years ago, before China went on a crash program
of capital& infrastructure development, they had no facilities to
speak of.

Shops, schools, work, stuff like that. They did exist before 15+ years ago.

You prefer having fun driving on narrow roads, fine. When driving I
prefer getting from one place to another with minimal expenditure of
time and stress. You don't seem to recognize there's two different
value systems at play here. You might as well argue whether socialism
trumps capitalism or vice versa. It's a pointless exercise. I live
where it suits me best, there's no need to argue about it.

I'm not arguing about where you live. I'm pointing out that your
assumption that roads need to be wide and have shoulders to carry
traffic is wrong.

As I stated earlier, your standard is way too low. What kind of
traffic? At what kind of speeds? With what kinds of potential
problems and delays?

Potential problems including alien abduction, etc. Yes, we can invent
potential problems as much as we want - and you've done so. What is
important is whether or not they translate into real problems - and
experience tells me that generally speaking, they don't.

Apparently you seem to think I made up those scenarios. I've had
plenty of firsthand experience with maintenance/construction/utility
crews on narrow two lane roads to know that it's a real problem.
Enough to blow the popsicle joint and move out of town. I've even
complained about it before on this very newsgroup, way before this
thread got started. You'll notice Jay Beattie did not contradict me
when I said CA residents would rise up in revolt.

Wow. I think your definition of "real problem" may be different from mine.

Roads where I live accommodate trucks, cars, bicyclist, pedestrians.
I didn't see the Assen road accommodating that. I saw a not
particularly well thought out road for vehicles only, no sidewalks,
and another parallel trail for bikes.

That road with the bike path removed would support trucks, cars and
bikes. Similar roads over here do. Pedestrians, maybe not, apart from on
the grass, but there's not much call for that on rural roads. In an
urban situation, there would be a pavement (sidewalk).

Speed limit would be 60mph over here if it was outside town, but speeds
would change depending on twistiness.

Apparently in that idealized
world bike paths never intersect roads with cars.

I know the intersection of bike paths with roads is the problem area.
However with your experience of the world, you'll know that in mainland
Europe, drivers actually give way at cycle path junctions. It's a
strange idea to those of us used to riding as second class citizens, and
doesn't work here, but it's lovely when it does. It means the parallel
bike path can actually be made to work.

Why? So that the no alternative, apartheid transportation system can
flourish?

No, so that lots of people can get around on bikes safely. Despite your
derogatory words, significantly more people ride bikes there, and do so
significantly safer than in the US. You've a strange choice of words for
a system where bike are first class citizens, where they're distinctly
second-class where you live.

You're the one calling the UK and NL third world countries. Step back,
take a look at what you're writing.

Read what I wrote in context. I specifically said:
"But when it comes to the quality of roads, CA makes NL and UK look
like third world countries. Why should anyone have to put up with a
semaphored single lane on a two way road if there's some routine
maintenance, like pruning the shrubbery or foliage?"
You never answered why anyone should have to put up with that. You
just keep saying "our roads get people from one place to another."

The point is that although you claim people shouldn't "have to put up
with that", in reality they're not putting up with much at all. It's not
the utter nightmare you're claiming.

It was nightmare enough for me to move elsewhere. And I know I wasn't
the only one.

Wow again.

Time for another little diversion. I've seen towns which have made
efforts to speed up motor traffic, and I've seen towns which have made
effords to slow it down. Can we guess which ones have people who want to
move in? House prices are the clue here.

It seems that overall, people don't actually think like you.

And you still haven't answered the safety thing. I know why - it's
because your roads are more dangerous than ours, which doesn't support
your idea that your roads are better.

Quite frankly, I didn't address this because this is not my area of
expertise, and I doubt it's yours either. According to the little
reading I've done so far the US is only slight worse than the UK when
it comes to the fatality rate per capita. It's not as if US and the
UK are on opposite poles on this.

I think you'll find the fatality rate per capita is about 1 :-)

You know very well I meant vehicular fatality rate.

Bike or car?

If you can cite even one study that correlates wider roads (as opposed
to some other multi-variate factors) with higher accident/fatality
rate, I'll be more than happy to look at it. This shouldn't be a very
high bar. Correlation is much weaker requirement than causation.

No studies that specific, but ones showing the US is a more dangerous
place to ride a bike are easy to find aren't they?

In other words, you can't cite jack supporting your thesis wide lanes
increase vehicle fatalities. I, on the other hand, have uncovered&
can cite multiple studies that show narrow roads without shoulders
INCREASED the vehicle fatality rate. I'm collating it all so I can
compose a coherent post later.

I know motorways have the best safety record. But we're not talking
about those.

As a motorist and a cyclist, there no way I'd want the UK or NL system
here. Every class with their own separate road/trails with no
alternatives is the very definition of apartheid.

You say you've got experience of where I am, yet this demonstrates
you've got nothing like it.

The UK does not have a system of separate roads and bike trails. We've
got some tracks, same as you, but not many.

UK due strictly to the narrow roads

Maybe we don't have as many roadworks as you, maybe we don't have as
many breakdowns, or maybe if you want to travel any distance you use the
wider roads which we have for motor traffic, but it appears our roads
are generally fine.

and the congestion video;

Oh look, that's not on a narrow road. Y'know, if you're going to use
something as evidence, best make sure it doesn't undermine your argument.

FWIW I've experienced similar congestion in the US, and you have
admitted you get it too.

NL due to the Assen pictures which clearly illustrates Jim Crow.

As I said above, your suggestions are nonsense. If you don't want to
live somewhere where bikes actually get treated properly, that's fine,
but don't pretend it's because of abusive laws. The apartheid comparison
doesn't work when the supposed victims aren't being abused, but instead
are actually leading the world in showing how things should be. It's not
about the bike lanes, it's about the fact that biking is just normal there.