Can you make it to the market on a bike?

On Jul 24, 4:39 pm, "Jack May" wrote:
"Zoot Katz" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC),

The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles:
less than five miles an hour."

The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
occasionally to tell truth?

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf
(page 4)

Jack
The problem here is that the authors apparently are using the
arethmetic mean. Unless the distribution is normal the mean is almost
certainly inflated by outliers. Do you know if anyone has done this
type of study using median commuting distance rather than mean ?

in Canada the median commute is about 7.5 km . The Canadian
situtation would seem quite different if you took the mean. If you
look at the actual distribution in Canada the majority of commuters
travel less than 10 km (6.2 miles). See http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png.
I would not be terribly surprised to find a similar distribution,
althougth, perhaps with a slightly larger median value for US
commutes.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
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.

What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth responding
to.

Regards,

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

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"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 quiet
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

Good thinking Jeff. I am with you!

Regards,

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

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May"
missed it when he wrote:



Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with
their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing
non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car.


Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of into
a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach.

Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's
destination is well within bicycling range.

So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all
your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an
evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game.

Jack May wrote:

So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all
your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an
evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game.


Not lost. The environment is changing back towards conditions that
favour the bike. The dominance of cars may well prove to be a short
lived interlude.

Tony

"John Kane" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 24, 4:39 pm, "Jack May" wrote:
"Zoot Katz" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC),

The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles:
less than five miles an hour."

The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
occasionally to tell truth?

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf
(page 4)

Jack
The problem here is that the authors apparently are using the
arethmetic mean. Unless the distribution is normal the mean is almost
certainly inflated by outliers. Do you know if anyone has done this
type of study using median commuting distance rather than mean ?


Almost all real world statistics are non-Gaussian and the average is a poor
indicator. The table says the data uses averages


in Canada the median commute is about 7.5 km . The Canadian
situtation would seem quite different if you took the mean. If you
look at the actual distribution in Canada the majority of commuters
travel less than 10 km (6.2 miles). See
http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png.
I would not be terribly surprised to find a similar distribution,
althougth, perhaps with a slightly larger median value for US
commutes.

Most real world statistics are power law which means the statistics for
different countries will be similar.

Edward Dolan wrote:
"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.

This is ever the complaint of those trying to defend a statement they
have no evidence for whatsoever.

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.

???

The more right you drive, the less the distance motor-vehicle drivers
will keep when overtaking.

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.

Bike paths next to the carriageway, yes. They are part of the street and
thus subject to the same Vorfahrt rules.

Is your "must" a factual or a legal one?

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:g4SdnVUGO448HTrbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@prairiewave. com...

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
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.

What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth
responding to.

You know I'm right, little man.

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

This is ever the complaint of those trying to defend a statement they
have no evidence for whatsoever.

It is the difference between those who have very big brains like Ed Dolan
the Great and those who have very little brains like Jens Muller.

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.

???

The more right you drive [ride] , the less the distance motor-vehicle
drivers
will keep when overtaking.

No, they will go around you regardless with less chance of hitting you. This
business about keeping to your lane is for fools and idiots. They do not
live long as a result of that philosophy.

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.

Bike paths next to the carriageway, yes. They are part of the street and
thus subject to the same Vorfahrt rules.

Is your "must" a factual or a legal one?

It is a common sense one which will save your life.

Regards,

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

"Dane Buson" wrote in message
news
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.

Bike trails are only dangerous if you are an idiot. Congratulations!

Regards,

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