Can you make it to the market on a bike?

On Aug 4, 11:16 am, wrote:

Sidewalk cycling IS more dangerous than roadway cycling. Pretending
that people will do it only in one direction is specious, and
pretending they won't be at risk if they do is worse.

Note, I'm not saying that nobody should ever ride on a sidewalk.
There are times and places where it may make sense, and there are
times and places where it can be done safely. But whitewashing the
situation, pretending all the risk comes from riding the wrong-way,
ignores the real dangers: cars cutting across sidewalks at driveways
and parking lots, numerous blind spots, sidewalk edges that trap
wheels, pedestrians & joggers & dogs with their random movements, sub-
standard or dangerous pavement, interactions with surprised motorists
when the cyclist crosses a road, etc.

If a cyclist plans to use a sidewalk, even for fifty feet, they need
to be aware of all of those things, and be on high alert. But the
common thinking is "I'm just on the sidewalk; I'm safe." That's a
delusion, and your posts purposely contribute toward that delusion.

Fact is, you're so intent on gaining imaginary "arguing" points that
you're willing to distort facts, spread misinformation, and endanger
novices who read your posts. Those novices need to be warned against
you.

OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership? Or you believe
yourself to be among a supreme elite smart enough to ride a bike among
traffic while the stupid 99% stay away from it? JUST ANSWER! Or just
admit you've riding a stationary bike!

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...

Google "Hubbert's Peak.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Aug 4, 10:23 am, still me wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:47:15 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:

Such a health care system will be like the public school
system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. It ought to be
financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich and/or a value
added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A total no-brainer!

Funny, I've come to think that Health Care is a luxury in the USA.

I think it's more like WE CAN'T AFFORD THE LUXURY TO GET SICK. Other
luxuries we can probably afford, well at least with a good credit.

On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...

Google "Hubbert's Peak.


Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.

In article .com,
writes:
On Aug 3, 10:52 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article . com,
writes:

Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

So why do you encourage him?

In general, when I respond to certain trolls, I'm not hoping to change
the troll. I'm writing for others in the audience. In this case, the
"others" are those who may believe his implications that riding on a
sidewalk is just fine.

That sort of thinking causes problems for both the novice cyclists who
try it, and for the rest of us, when public officials adopt Zaumen's
views and build sub-standard facilities like sidewalk bike paths.

But the innocent bystanders already know what nemauZ
is all about. People in general aren't stupid. I'm
sure they know how non-seriously to take him. He's
certainly no Pied Piper whom throngs would follow,
even to their collective demise. Zaumen is no threat.
He's just a weirdo who likes to exclaim (with much
projectile spittle): "liar!" just for the Tourettes
Syndrome heck of it. Everybody can see that for themselves.
You don't need to provide the public service of revealing him.
He already reveals himself.

r.b.s people don't have anything worth saying about
cycling anyways.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Aug 4, 3:21 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article .com,
writes:



On Aug 3, 10:52 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article . com,
writes:

Your frequent defense of bad practices astounds me even more than your
constant rudeness and your intellectual dishonesty.

So why do you encourage him?

In general, when I respond to certain trolls, I'm not hoping to change
the troll. I'm writing for others in the audience. In this case, the
"others" are those who may believe his implications that riding on a
sidewalk is just fine.

That sort of thinking causes problems for both the novice cyclists who
try it, and for the rest of us, when public officials adopt Zaumen's
views and build sub-standard facilities like sidewalk bike paths.

But the innocent bystanders already know what nemauZ
is all about. People in general aren't stupid. I'm
sure they know how non-seriously to take him. He's
certainly no Pied Piper whom throngs would follow,
even to their collective demise. Zaumen is no threat.
He's just a weirdo who likes to exclaim (with much
projectile spittle): "liar!" just for the Tourettes
Syndrome heck of it. Everybody can see that for themselves.
You don't need to provide the public service of revealing him.
He already reveals himself.

I agree that he rarely gets anyone agreeing with him, so perhaps
you're right. But I do wonder about novice lurkers. And I think
there's educational value in, for example, specifically listing the
problems with sidewalk cycling when I disagree with Zaumen.

However, I admit to taking perverse pleasure in calling a Zaumen a
Zaumen, so to speak. I should try to reform. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
Google "Hubbert's Peak.


Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.

How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
danger of cycling.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" wrote
Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago
when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now,

Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote
My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market health
care in the U.S.

Edward Dolan wrote:
Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The
present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer system
(the government). Such a health care system will be like the public school
system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. It ought to be
financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich and/or a value
added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A total no-brainer!

You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.


Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not
even understand my own first language.

The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California Vehicle
Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term "traffic" refers
to everything moving on the road - cars, bicycles, horses,
what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly, "normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through your thick scull?


Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are
deemed to be slower, normal then defines normal traffic,
and abnormal traffic.

btw I don't own any boats.

writes:

On Aug 4, 2:26 am, (Bill Z.) wrote:
writes:


Let's look at the conclusion of the paper:

"Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur
greater risk than those on the roadway (on average
1.8 times as great), most likely because of
blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way
sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and
sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence
of wrong-way travel."

Krygowski, you are an idiot - that factor of 1.8 includes cyclists
riding in both directions and the ones going in the opposite direction
as traffic have an elevated risk of significantly above 1.8. Furthermore,
the factor of 1.8 understates the risk - it is actually over a factor
of 2. The paper clearly states that wrong-way riding is far more
prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent roadway, and that is where
people are getting into trouble.

As the paper says, "Table 5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths
adjacent to a roadway are ... much less safe." Yes, wrong-way riding
is more likely on sidewalks. But that's not the only hazard. You
seem to be pretending that other sidewalk-cycling hazards are
negligible. They are not, and your misinformation endangers people
who don't know better - people like "Donquijote," for example.

More lies and dissembling from Krygowski. What the paper actually
says is, "Table 5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths adjacent to a
roadway are usually not, as non-cyclists expect, safer than the road,
but much less safe," but that is completely consistent with what I
posted because the risk factor is mostly due to riding against the
flow of traffic, which is more prevalent on sidewalks and paths than
on roadways. So, the problem is not the sidewalks per se but how
bicyclists use them, and there is no good way of preventing wrong way
riding on them. As the paper stated, "The paths are signed 'Bicycles
May Use Sidewalk,' and their use is optional. In accordance with a
local ordinance these sidewalks are further signed for one-way bicycle
travel, although this prohibition is often ignored and rarely
enforced."

I clearly stated that the data indicated that the risk ratio for those
riding on the sidewalk in the same direction as traffic versus those
riding on the rroadway in the same direction as traffic is 1.2 to 1.3,
far lower than the 1.8 number that Krygowski fixates on, which itself
is significantly lower than the risk of riding the wrong way, which is
over a factor of 2.

BTW, the study I quoted measured accident rates, but did not control
for cyclist skill levels. Since I live in the area, I can add a
couple of personal observations - the really skilled people more
or less stay on the road, not the sidewalk, so the sidewalk risk
numbers are biased to some extent because of that - to the extent
that higher skill levels lead to reduced accident rates. A few
of the sidewalk cyclists obviously go way too fast for conditions
(ignoring red lights as well). Aside from the wrong-way issue and
a few adrenaline junkies, cyclists using the sidwalk seem to be
mostly behaving sensibly - riding at speeds appropriate for the
conditions - and the accident statistics bear that out.

I once saw a car bike collision on one of these roads - the cyclist
was riding the wrong way on the sidewalk fairly slowly. A driver had
come to a complete stop at a stop sign and was looking left to creep
forwards enough to get a view at traffic on the cross street. The
intersection was not a right-angle one, and the cyclist was
approaching slightly from the rear as a result. Just as the cyclist
entered the crosswalk, the car crept forward and they hit at very slow
speeds. The cyclist got a foot and hand down to break the fall, and
the front wheel was badly damaged, but there were no injuries beyond
perhaps a scraped palm. The accident was clearly the cyclists fault -
the sidewalk the cyclist was using had signs on it at the time
forbidding riding on the sidewalk in that direction. Had the cyclist
been going in the same direction as traffic, the driver would at least
have had a chance to spot the cyclist as the cyclist would not have
been behind the driver's head.

cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't
think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away.

There was no "cherry picking" - that is simply one of your lies. If
they got a factor of 13, you'll find that wrong-way riding was a
significant contributing factor to it.

But NOT the only contributing factor!

So you claim, but why should anyone believe you when you never bothered to
provide a URL to the paper, if there even is one. The one I provided BTW
was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Sidewalk cycling IS more dangerous than roadway cycling. Pretending
that people will do it only in one direction is specious, and
pretending they won't be at risk if they do is worse.

Another lie from Krygowski since I pretended no such thing - I stated
quite clearly that the average factor of 1.8 was due to the large
number of people who ride in the wrong direction, which is even more
risky.

Note, I'm not saying that nobody should ever ride on a sidewalk.
There are times and places where it may make sense, and there are
times and places where it can be done safely. But whitewashing the
situation, pretending all the risk comes from riding the wrong-way,
ignores the real dangers: cars cutting across sidewalks at driveways
and parking lots, numerous blind spots, sidewalk edges that trap
wheels, pedestrians & joggers & dogs with their random movements, sub-
standard or dangerous pavement, interactions with surprised motorists
when the cyclist crosses a road, etc.

ROTFLMAO - you wouldn't have a risk factor of 1.2 to 1.3 over riding
in the correct direction on the roadway if it was as bad as you claim,
and that number (from the paper) probably overstates the risk because
it includes hormone-crazed teenagers who go way too fast for
conditions and it includes people who most likely are significantly
less skilled than those who ride on the roadway. The authors simply
had no way from the accident-report data and observations they made of
measuring skill level.

Also, A driveway and parking-lot entrance is basically just another
intersection, and those are included in the study. One of the streets,
El Camino Real, is a 6 lane road with lots of businesse, driveways,
and blind intersections. Yet cyclists are not dropping like flies
because most on the sidwalk are going at a speed appropriate for
the conditions.

If a cyclist plans to use a sidewalk, even for fifty feet, they need
to be aware of all of those things, and be on high alert. But the
common thinking is "I'm just on the sidewalk; I'm safe." That's a
delusion, and your posts purposely contribute toward that delusion.

Liar. I gave a fair account of the data, providing the numbers
that backed up everything I said, and that is hardly "purposely
contribut[ing] to that delusion." As is typical of Krygowski, he
is not satisfied with showing data fairly but has some deep seated
need to lie about the data in a silly attempt to push whatever he
is touting at the moment.

Fact is, you're so intent on gaining imaginary "arguing" points that
you're willing to distort facts, spread misinformation, and endanger
novices who read your posts. Those novices need to be warned against
you.

Projection - all the distortion is coming from the general direction of
Frank Krygoswki, one of the most persistent liars on usenet.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB