Can you make it to the market on a bike?

Joe the Aroma wrote:

Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they
tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide
routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and
give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads.

The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure,
vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem,
and you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see
that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than
being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging
on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need
bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Jens Müller wrote:

Hah, speed limits! Doesn't your highway require the driver (in addition
^
Should have been "highway code" ...

to obeying speed limits) to adjust his speed to the road, traffic,
weather, sight and other conditions, the properties of his vehicle and
the cargo and his personal abilities? That's the important speed limit.

Edward Dolan wrote:

How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?

They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If
you really **** them off, they will do it on purpose.

Data, please. How often does that happen?

They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be
bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist.

You're driving too far on the right.

How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.


By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them.

Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?

I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any!

"Common sense" ...

Common sense might say cycle paths are safer.

Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway
Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12
times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the
exact situation.

Surveys from Sweden show similiar results.

These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part
of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly
because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical
information from it.

Jens Müller wrote:

How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.
That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.


That was a bit too short:

a) The cyclist has right of way ("Vorfahrt") with respect to vehicles on
the crossing street exactly when vehicles on the carriageway would have
- the cycle path is a part of the street, and Vorfahrt rules apply to
streets as a whole, not part of the street like carriageway or cycle path.

b) The cyclist driving straight ahead right of a turn-right lane (that's
where the bike path often is) has right of way (Vorrang) with respect to
any vehicle turning right. The same applies when the cyclist has to
drive on the left side on a cycle path wrt vehicles turning left.

"Joe the Aroma" wrote in message
. ..

....

Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

However, is the reason that the vast majority of people do not bike because
they have grown up in a situation where it is inconceivable to do so? In
other words, has the fact that our infrastructure is so car-centric become
self-perpetuating because people have on some level given up any expectation
that they could ever take any other form of transportation to their
destination?

I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to
play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to the
rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably incorrect.

Jeff
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Jeff Grippe wrote:
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small
distances?

Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I
believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an
exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car
accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike.

Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in
cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by trucks...).

While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact
on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the
odds for any subsequent events.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:mLqdnftZlNjO9zvbnZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@prairiewave. com...

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

Jeff, you are living in a very intense motor vehicle environment. The
entire country is not like White Plains, New York.

Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
driver.

Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite
country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver.

No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become
zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but
its not the only thing that I enjoy doing.

Jeff

"Jens Müller" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:

How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?

They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If
you really **** them off, they will do it on purpose.

Data, please. How often does that happen?

This is ever the complaint of those who do not possess a lick of common
sense.

They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be
bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist.

You're driving [riding] too far on the right.

???

How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is
up
to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.

NEVER! Whenever a bike path crosses a road or street on which there are
motor vehicles, the cyclist must stop, look and listen. If you don't do
this, you will die like the dog that you are.

By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them.

Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?

I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any!

"Common sense" ...

Common sense might say cycle paths are safer.

Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway
Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12
times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the
exact situation.

For Christ's sakes, when you are on a bike path crossing a road, you must
stop, look and listen. What is there about this that you do not understand?
Note well that I am talking about bike paths, not g.d. bike LANES on the
streets.

Surveys from Sweden show similiar results.

These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part
of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly
because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical
information from it.

You only need to die once in order to be quite dead.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

In rec.bicycles.misc Jeff Grippe wrote:
Jeff "Peter Clinch" wrote in message
Jeff Grippe wrote:

Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I
believe that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an
exceptionally low number of people that are involved in bike/car
accidents but trust me, You don't want to be the person on the bike.

Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding in
cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by trucks...).

While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big impact
on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to play the
odds for any subsequent events.

I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to
play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to the
rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably incorrect.

Thinking back on it, both of my most injurious bike accidents took place
on bike trails and involved no cars. Considering that bike trails are
widely acknowledged to be more dangerous than road cycling, I shouldn't
be really surprised by that I suppose.

--
Dane Buson -
Work to Eat
Eat to Live
Live to Ride
Ride to Work.

"Joe the Aroma" writes:

Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as
well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let
emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane
versus a striped shoulder is basically zero.

In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road
and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely
separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really
bicycle/pedestrian paths.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB